Government Operations Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Is there any other debate?

Seeing none, I will call for a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Here's my next motion.

(2) That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic including the procurement of medical equipment and the delays created by the COVID-19 pandemic on procurement activities and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the 1st Session of the 43rd Parliament, as part of its study of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Is there any debate?

I will call for the vote by a show of hands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I didn't know which way we were going to vote, if we were doing it in person or....

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I'm leaving it to the discretion of the committee. If you would prefer a recorded vote, then I would just ask someone to call that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I'll count thumbs now.

(Motion agreed to)

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Here's the third motion:

(3) That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Nuctech security equipment contract; that the study start no later than Monday, November 23, 2020; that the committee send for all documents, memorandums, and briefing materials related to the Nuctech security equipment contract; that the documents be provided to the committee, in both official languages, no later than 5 p.m. (Ottawa time) on December 10.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Did you catch that, Mr. Gerretsen?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I did. I have one question.

Is the motion asking for documents that exist, or is it asking to produce documents?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

These are the documents relating to the contract offered by the government to Nuctech.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Seeing no further debate, I call the vote.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Here's the last motion, which is very short:

(4) That the committee undertake a study on the upgrading of Federal IT infrastructures.

I am putting forward this motion because the context of telework poses several problems in terms of information technology.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Is there debate?

Ms. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would like to put forward a motion along the lines of Mr. Paul-Hus's, but it is perhaps a little more specific. May I introduce it now as an amendment to Mr. Paul-Hus's motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We would have to get unanimous consent from the floor.

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

In response to Ms. Vignola's concern, if we allow the subcommittee to possibly look at all the motions that are on the table, and then have the subcommittee decide if there's overlap, it could then determine which motions to move forward with and make a new proposal to the committee at a later meeting. That would be a solution to that issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Ultimately, in order to change this, Ms. Vignola, my understanding is that Mr. Paul-Hus would have to have unanimous consent to remove his motion, and then to put yours forward.

I'm not certain you want to do that. Mr. Lloyd has made a suggestion that might be acceptable to the committee. If that's the case, I would assume that Ms. Vignola would need to present her motion as well, and then they would be looked at by the subcommittee.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, I accept. I think the best thing to do is to vote on my motion and then let the subcommittee choose the better of the two motions if Mrs. Vignola's motion passes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Is there any further debate?

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I have a question, Mr. Chair.

I didn't understand what just happened there. Will Ms. Vignola still be presenting her motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Correct. She's next up on the floor to present motions. I'm assuming she will present hers when that time comes. Ultimately, though, Mr. Gerretsen, we would have to unanimously get rid of Mr. Paul-Hus's motion if we were going to present hers at this point in time.

We will vote on his motion, and then when Ms. Vignola presents hers, we will let the subcommittee see if there is room to bring these motions together.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

In order for her to present her motion immediately following the vote on this, would we have to unanimously agree to remove his motion? Is that what you're saying?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

No. His motion would go to the subcommittee, and Ms. Vignola's motion would go to the subcommittee. The assumption would be that they are similar. The subcommittee would then make a determination and come back to the committee with one motion.