Now that we're back to the main motion, I do have an amendment that I think takes into account what Ms. Chabot has raised and that would allow the committee, Mr. Chair, to look at these issues and also proceed along the lines of what we've already agreed to for an agenda.

We know what the main motion is, so I'll just begin at the word “appear” to make it efficient here. My amendment would be as follows: “appear before the Committee for no fewer than one hour each, in two panels of three, to consider the Supplementary Estimates (B).”

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Madame Chabot had her hand up first.

Madame Chabot, do you wish to speak on the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos?

6 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

When I put my hand up, I also wanted to propose an amendment to schedule one hour with each minister, instead of two hours. I take it that Mr. Fragiskatos's new amendment does that, so I'm in favour of it.

Thank you.

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Now we have Ms. Falk on the amendment of Mr. Fragiskatos.

6 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just for confirmation.... That's not one hour per minister but would be three ministers for one hour, for a total of two hours. Is that correct?

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Yes, that's right.

6 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Okay.

I think this sets a very bad precedent when it comes to transparency. In the past I know that we have had one hour for a minister and one hour for their department. The minister usually brings departmental staff to answer any technical questions that they may need assistance with. I just think this sets an awful precedent for whomever will be in government, today or in the future. It skirts around transparency, especially when we have a government like this that spends billions upon billions upon billions. There seem to be slush funds in places.

It's absolutely unacceptable for me to agree to not have each minister, per the tradition that we've had in this committee for a very long time, of two hours for one minister. I think it looks like a cover-up. It looks like the Liberals are continuing to hide from accountability. It's very sad.

6 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Clearly state your point of order.

6 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON

It's around process. We've had deliberations now on motions and amendments for almost 20 minutes. Unless you're going to clearly say you're going to allocate more time.... It's past six o'clock and I know it was scheduled for committee business.

I think having the witnesses stay here for 20 minutes while we conduct our business is very disrespectful to these very hard-working professional people. They have flown across the country in some cases to come to provide information, and here we just stop our entire process so that we can debate motions.

It's perfectly correct that you're allowed to do that, but I think we need to be very clear to the witnesses and let them know if the intention is to have them stay and continue to provide information, or can we thank them and release them from their testimony at this point?

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

I'm going to take the prerogative as chair and advise the witnesses that they can exit at this time. We were scheduled up until six o'clock. We will move to committee business.

Witnesses, thank you for appearing before the committee today for this study and providing your testimony. You can chose to exit at your discretion.

We will now go back to Mr. Fragiskatos. You had your hand up.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Just to be clear, the amendment ends at “Supplementary Estimates (B)”, so I am also wanting to strike the words, “before Friday, December 1st, 2023.”

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Is that a new amendment?

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

No, it's the same amendment. I'm just clarifying my full amendment.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

I allowed one clarification because it didn't alter the substance.

Madame Chabot had her hand up. Then I'll go to whoever else.

Madame Chabot, on the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos.

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

It's true that the committee now has six ministers within its purview, which wasn't the case before. If we want each minister to appear for two hours, we would have to schedule six full meetings. However, inviting three ministers at the same time and questioning them for six minutes, or two minutes in our case, is not much in the way of scrutiny or the democratic process. I think it would be better to schedule one hour with each minister.

I'm not there in person, but I would have liked to propose an amendment to the original motion, to invite each minister for one hour, so that's what I'm proposing, Mr. Chair.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Madame Chabot, are you making a subamendment to Mr. Fragiskatos' amendment, or is it just a discussion point?

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

I'd like to propose a subamendment, but I don't have the text of the member's amendment. It would be helpful to have a copy before I propose my subamendment. Basically, I just want to remove the part that says “two panels of three”, in reference to the ministers.

Can we get the text of the amendment, Mr. Chair?