Government Operations Committee on May 22nd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I don't know a whole lot about Mr. Drouin's comment, but I don't think we have a fundamental issue with the proposed witness list either.

I would only say on the Phoenix issue that of course nothing prevents a member of this committee from asking any minister about any issue, really, and to draw a connection between it and the current state of affairs. I'm sure the minister would be happy to answer questions about Phoenix, procurement or anything else if we choose to adopt this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would just add that I think this work plan looks good. I would echo Mr. MacKinnon's comments. I'm sure that between now and the time the minister appears before committee, Madam Vignola perhaps could determine further what kind of question she would like to ask the minister on this. I appreciate Mr. MacKinnon's acknowledgement that she would be more than willing to answer any questions that we may have of her.

I am a little confused in regard to your opening comments and what could be happening on Monday. Are you suggesting that we will go ahead with the plan to meet virtually on Monday as a committee, not knowing exactly what may transpire on Monday? Is that your thinking and is it also that potentially we suspend inviting other witnesses to virtual committee meetings, not knowing what may be decided on Monday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

No. That's not what I was suggesting at all.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the whips have already set the schedule for next week, and we will continue with that schedule. We will also continue with the proposed work plan, if that meets with the approval of the committee, until such time we are advised differently, if we are to be advised differently. All I'm pointing out to committee members is that on Monday things may change, and we have to be prepared for that.

Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, this is a little bit on the same sort of questioning that Mrs. Block had. Again, I don't need responses now, but if things change suddenly on Monday and we are back to our regular schedule and the committee will operate in a regular manner, I wonder at this point if it is the will of the opposition to continue with the same sort of study that we're doing on COVID-19.

If not, then I guess we'll find out next week, but I'm just trying to get a sense from Mr. McCauley, Ms. Block, Mr. Green and Madam Vignola just to see whether that's what they want to do for the next three or four weeks.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think it's too early to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Exactly, Mr. McCauley, I agree it's too early to say and all I'm saying is that we may have to adjust our schedule. We may have to adjust the studies that this committee undertakes depending on what happens on Monday. In the interim, we have a work plan that's been suggested. My read of all of the commentary is that, generally speaking, people are in agreement with it. What I would like to suggest is that if we can have a recorded vote and if we approve the proposed work plan, we follow that until such time as we don't, if that makes sense to you.

Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Maybe I should know the answer to this. Do we know if the House is sitting on Monday in a similar forum to the way it sat on April 20 when it was supposed to be that we were coming back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'll ask Paul for his interpretation as well, Mrs. Block. My understanding is that the order of reference of April 11 put the temporary COVID-19 virtual Parliament into place, but Parliament resumes officially on Monday, May 25. We will have to see what happens on that date. I anticipate there will be some motions brought forward probably by the government, but again that's only my opinion. We do know that Parliament has been instructed that it will be resuming on May 25. I anticipate we will not have a large contingent of MPs showing up for obvious reasons, but Parliament itself will resume until such time as motions or orders of reference are passed to amend it.

Again we'll just have to wait and see, Kelly, that's all I'm saying.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Given that we don't know that, we would still go ahead with the meeting at 3 p.m. our time. We presume that whatever proceedings may be taking place in the House on that day would have come to a conclusion and then we can go ahead and start a virtual meeting at 5 p.m. eastern standard time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

That's why I'm suggesting we wait and see. One of the reasons I'm sure that the meeting was scheduled for 5 p.m. as opposed to 2 p.m. is to allow the discussions to take place in Parliament. In terms of when we go or what we do from there, I'm quite sure that all four whips will be in constant communication with one another and they will be advising their members accordingly as to how we proceed.

With that, Paul, perhaps we can ask you to take a recorded vote on the work plan as proposed. Following that I would like to make just a couple of quick comments in response to Mrs. Block's point of order from the last round of questioning on the veracity of statements by one of our witnesses.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion is essentially...for the four committee meetings following the May 29 meeting. The committee has already decided which witnesses they will have up until May 29. For the four meetings following the May 29 meeting, they will invite the witnesses identified on the current work plan for meetings 11, l2, 13 and 14. That's my understanding of the proposal.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Finally, I want to comment on Mrs. Block's intervention and point of order from earlier on. I mentioned during my response to that point of order that I would come back to you with some instructions or advice.

Since we don't know what is going to happen on Monday, my advice, Mrs. Block, is that your point of order should probably proceed through the normal channels. In other words, if you feel that the testimony presented to you and to this committee was misleading, whether it be deliberate or inadvertent, the opportunities you have to deal with that, or to try to rectify that, would be through the normal processes of Parliament, i.e., a question of privilege you raise with the Speaker.

In this committee, under the terms of reference adopted on May 11, we are restricted to dealing only with the motion that was given to us, that is to discuss the government's response to COVID-19 and nothing else. The only exclusion or exception to that motion would be a motion determining witnesses and testimony.

Your point of order is probably best served by sending it through the normal processes. I know your House leadership team will be able to advise you as to the opportunities before you.

As an example, this committee would not be in a position to adopt a report that you may want to put in the form of a motion concerning testimony that was given to us by a witness.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that direction, and I will go back and review the evidence from today—I know it comes in quite a timely way—and determine how I may want to proceed as a result of your advice, and what I read in the testimony from today's meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, all.

Colleagues, seeing no other hands raised, have a good weekend.

We are adjourned.

I'll see you all on Monday at 5 p.m. eastern time.