Evidence of meeting #35 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Yes. I'll speak to that amendment.
I do not support the amendment. Two meetings are not sufficient to examine this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the spirit of my fellow member's comment, I think we should still propose at least two meetings. I think there is a good chance that two meetings will not be enough, based on the list of witnesses we have and the ones we might add afterwards. We need at least two meetings. I am proposing a subamendment, and it will be sent in writing shortly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I think the subamendment is fairly clear. It's just to include the words “at least”.
I will look to Mr. Naqvi to see if he would recognize this as a friendly amendment. If so, we can dispense with that.
Mr. Naqvi.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Mr. Villemure is suggesting that we add the words “at least two meetings”. That's a subamendment to your amendment.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
We'll support the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Let's move on to the next amendment, then.
Mr. Naqvi, would you like to repeat that for us, please?
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you.
The next amendment was to remove clause (a) and clause (b).
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't support this amendment. Removing clause (a) would have the effect of not making these hearings a priority. I believe these hearings should be a priority. We've waited three long years to get these documents and to examine this matter, so I think it should be a priority.
Secondly, I don't support the amendment because I believe that we should be meeting twice a week. The House of Commons administration has indicated that there are the technical resources and human resources available to meet twice a week. That will allow us to examine this matter sufficiently before we adjourn at the end of June. If we only meet once a week, we're not going to have enough time to examine this matter.
I would like us to meet twice a week, which is what the motion proposes, as other parliamentary committees do, and I would like us to keep these hearings a priority of this committee. I don't support the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Mr. Chong, just for clarity, our current meeting is three hours long on Monday evening. Are you proposing two three-hour meetings per week?
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
No, Mr. Chair. I'm proposing two two-hour meetings a week. I think that would be better for members' schedules as well. We would meet from 6:30 to 8:30 on Monday evening and then again from 6:30 to 8:30 on Wednesday evening, allowing us, on Monday evening, to get home at a more reasonable hour.
That is what the motion is proposing, in not so great detail, Mr. Chair. It gives you flexibility to determine the exact times of the meetings, but that's what I would propose.
Just to finish, I don't support the amendment because it would have the effect of not making these hearings, this study, a priority, and it would have the effect of our only having a chance to meet once a week. As you know, the calendar over the coming weeks is full of constituency weeks.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I don't really have an issue with this being a priority. That seems fair to me. It would also make sense that we accommodate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to attend. I don't know that this needs to get in the way of that, but regardless, I have no real issue with (a) in terms of making it a priority.
I don't really see the need right now. It may be that the need arises later, and I appreciate what Michael is saying, but based on the text in front of us, the witnesses in front of us and the idea that it's at least two meetings, it's kind of incomprehensible that we'd be talking about jamming in two meetings a week at this moment.
I would think that we would start this study and come back to this if the three hours a week is insufficient. We could revisit it after a couple of three-hour meetings. I see no reason right now to jam all of our schedules unnecessarily.
Liberal
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While the study is important, we have to look at how long it has taken to get here. I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that there is still some work to wrap up. I'm thinking of the analysts. Our study on Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy is almost complete. We need to schedule an hour for the Taiwan representative to appear and an hour for Deputy Prime Minister Freeland.
In my opinion, it wouldn't be reasonable to drop these items, which are almost completed. We need to let the analysts do their jobs. I would like to give the chair the flexibility to tie everything up. I sat on the ad hoc committee, and I can understand the importance of the issue. I don't think that doing this new study one or two meetings later makes much of a difference. That way, we wouldn't leave any work unfinished and we could move right into preparing the report on the Winnipeg lab. There would be no interruptions. For that reason, I will vote in favour of the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
All right. Are there any further interventions?
We'd best take the roll on this one. We're voting to delete (a) and (b), to be clear.
Mr. Chong.