Evidence of meeting #90 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was procurement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
The amendment, I know—but Mr. McCauley's procurement motion would be a separate discussion.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I understand, but Mr. Weir's rationale for proposing his amendment was related to providing time—
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
—to do a work plan study on the assumption that we won't be having meetings during the last proposed sitting week.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Yes, and Mr. Weir has also said—we don't have a motion on it, but certainly we can determine our own agenda—that if we are unable to conclude in two hours on the 13th a discussion on the communication on the advertising side, the committee can at that time deem the June 15 meeting to be on the same subject material. If we are concluded at that point in time, the committee can determine that the 15th would be for the discussion of procurement.
Order, colleagues.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I want to propose a potential amendment to Mr. Weir's amendment.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Yes, a subamendment: that our motion could be Tuesday, June 13, 2017, and possibly Thursday, June 15, 2017—all the way to the end, and then add a comma—and should some or all of the June 15 meeting not be required for this study, it be dedicated to develop a work plan for the committee's study of the federal government procurement process.
Conservative
NDP
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
I'm going to speak against the subamendment. I think the way to do this is to agree that we'll have a meeting on June 13 to study the advertising policy.
As the chair has pointed out, that meeting will not be interrupted by votes, given that the House doesn't even start to sit until 10. Unless there's a vote within the first 45 minutes or something, we should be fine. In the unlikely event that we think we need more time on advertising policy, we as a committee can decide to schedule an additional meeting, using the meeting on June 15 for that.
I think what we should agree to now is to study the advertising policy on June 13, and then let's just leave June 15 open. As we know from the Order Paper, Mr. McCauley's going to have another motion on that, which of course we can discuss, and perhaps amend as needed.
Liberal
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I'm fine with Mr. Weir's suggestion. I'm just going to go on the record as saying that I believe this is an attempt by the government to block this study of their procurement, especially the debacle with the shipbuilding and what's going on with the Super Hornets. It's unimaginable that we have this mess going on and we're trying to push off a study of it for a $100-million advertising thing. Of course $100 million is a lot of money, but it's been very clearly shown by this government that $100 million is nothing to them. For them to delay the committee's study on something so important is.... I'm lacking words for my disappointment in the committee over it.
I will support Mr. Weir's comments that if the estimates are pushed back, then we can do the first one, June 13, for advertising, but I think it's incumbent upon us, with so many issues outstanding with shipbuilding but also procurement.... The Senate has come back slamming the government's procurement process overall, commenting that with regard to the billions and billions, the only outcome that's getting measured is how much is spent. This is the Liberal-dominated Senate that has come out slamming it.
I don't think we should be pushing it back for the sake of advertising. To me, I think it's just very clear that.... I'm sorry, gentlemen and ladies, but the government looks like it's trying to hide something or push back the procurement study.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Okay. Thank you for withdrawing the subamendment.
I just want to point out the obvious. Even if Mr. Weir's amendment is passed, it doesn't automatically mean that June 15 would be devoted to procurement. This committee, through majority votes, can devote time on June 15.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
But Mr. Whalen, I think quite graciously, has said that if we can conclude in one meeting, then June 15 would be open for it, or at least a start of the work study on procurement.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
We have an amendment on the table. If there are no further speakers, I'll ask for a vote on it. I'll read it into the record, as follows:
That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on Thursday, May 11, 2017, the meeting on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, be dedicated to the consideration of the changes to the Government of Canada's Communications Policy as it pertains to government advertising, including the consideration of the policy, procedures and the role of Advertising Standards Canada.
That would be the motion as amended.
(Amendment negatived)
The original motion is as follows:
That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on Thursday, May 11, 2017, the meetings on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, and Thursday, June 15, 2017, be dedicated to the consideration of the changes to the Government of Canada's Communications Policy as it pertains to government advertising, including the consideration of the policy, procedures and the role of Advertising Standards Canada.
Now, from a procedural standpoint, Mr. Clerk, we still have—
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Philippe Grenier-Michaud
If there's no further debate, you can call the vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
If we do have further debate, we can entertain that now. If not, I will call the question.
(Motion agreed to)
Our work plan, then, is set on June 13 and 15. Unless otherwise advised, we will be discussing the government's communication policy.
Mr. McCauley.