Government Operations committee  Yes. The report on the bill itself would contain only the text of adopted amendments and any mention of deleted clauses. If the committee wanted to submit additional observations, it would have to be a separate substantive report of the committee—similar to reports on other typ

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I didn't hear the question. Yes, on the royal recommendation ground.... Again, this already falls under the role of the Treasury Board and would be covered by the initial royal recommendation. It accompanies the act as it's currently written.

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned earlier, the Speaker of the House, at the time of his ruling, did not seem to see a problem with the concept of support. That said, if you would like to propose a subamendment, you can send us the wording in writing. That way we can be sure

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding of the ruling made by the Speaker in the House of Commons was that the heart of the issue for the royal recommendation with Bill C-290, as it was originally written, was with the definition of “public servant” and not necessarily with the n

Government Operations committee  I don't have time to do an in-depth analysis so I can't answer your question, but, at first glance, that should fall to Treasury Board. So there shouldn't be any problems. I don't know if maybe the officials would have something to add to that.

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to confirm the proposed wording, which includes the subamendment: It would read “foreign interference in the public sector”, after which we would add wording similar to that contained in CPC-3, that is, “foreign interference” having such

Government Operations committee  Yes, of course. If the subamendment is adopted, BQ-4 would propose that BillC‑290, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 2, the following: (c.2) foreign interference in the public sector, “foreign interference” having such a meaning as may be prescribed;

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just quickly, this is in reference to the subamendment that was adopted to amendment G-3 at the last meeting. I have consulted with the jurilinguists, and they are advising that the committee adopt by unanimous consent a very small change in the numbering o

Foreign Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. In analyzing this amendment, it seemed to us that the objective of Bill S‑8 was to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to not just a country but also an entity or a person. This amendment seeks to reduce the scope of inadmissibility, so i

Government Operations committee  Yes. Just to confirm, there wasn't enough time to update the package, but the 12 amendments that were received today will be included in the package. We'll send a new version of the package and of the agenda for the next meeting.

Government Operations committee  Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, what has been circulated was the text of the subamendment proposed by Madam Vignola. Would you propose that I read the subamendment or the new G-3 as it would read with the subamendment included in it?

Government Operations committee  This is what G-3 would sound like. I'll start in the English: That Bill C-290, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 31 on page 2, with the following: (4) The definition “reprisal” in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: “reprisal” means any

Government Operations committee  With this subamendment, the amended wording of the second part of G‑3 reads as follows: Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: “listed measure” means, in relation to a public servant, (a) a disciplinary measure; (b) their demotion;

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. As members will have noticed, a number of new amendments—12—were distributed shortly before the meeting started. We unfortunately did not have time to include them in the package in the proper order. I have advised the chair on when these amendments will be

Human Resources committee  I can confirm that the wording of amendment CPC‑7 would be added to the new version of the bill, except that the word “notamment” would be replaced by the word “incluant” in the French version.