Evidence of meeting #1 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Clerk
If I may, Mr. Chair, just to intervene on that point, once the main committee adopts a motion, the subcommittee doesn't usually change it. Usually, it's discussed at the subcommittee and the subcommittee makes a recommendation to the main committee.
If the committee wants to adopt Mr. Paul-Hus's motion, then it will be adopted regardless of what the subcommittee says.
I want to make sure that process is clear before moving forward and that I understand what's going on during the meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
My understanding is that the subcommittee would take a look at the two motions as being similar, and then, as you indicated, come back to the committee with some suggestions. But on the floor and on the record, Mr. Paul-Hus's motion would be passed. This is assuming that the committee would pass Ms. Vignola's as well.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Just as a point of order—this is what I was trying to get at—will hers be ruled out of order because Mr. Paul-Hus's had just passed? If hers is so similar, then the chair might rule hers to be out of order. If that's going to be the case, then I would love to hear, through the debate on this motion, what hers is so that at least people know what their options are before voting on one that might subject the other to being ruled out of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Yes. Thank you. I now see where you're leading with this.
I will defer to the clerk for a second for any comments he might have.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's entirely at the discretion of the committee how it wishes to proceed. I reiterate that the normal process is for the subcommittee to make a recommendation to the main committee, and then for the main committee to vet it. Once a motion is adopted at the main committee, I'm not sure what the subcommittee would be discussing.
It would make more sense to me—this is merely a suggestion—that the committee not consider Mr. Paul-Hus's motion or Madame Vignola's motion at this level if it wants to discuss them at the subcommittee. To adopt both of them here, and refer them to the subcommittee, to me might seem to be a bit backwards, but then again, maybe I'm not understanding exactly what the committee is planning. My recommendation might be that if the issue is going to be discussed in subcommittee, it would be premature to adopt them in the main committee first before discussing them at subcommittee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense to me as well.
In order to do that, then, I would ask for Mr. Paul-Hus to ask that it be put to the subcommittee versus us voting on the motion.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
The same would go for Ms. Vignola's motion. Then they would both be referred to the subcommittee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Correct. But we would not hear Ms. Vignola's motion on that aspect until she presented here. I assume she has one or two motions, which she could present, and then both of those would go to subcommittee.
Mr. Lloyd.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On a point of order, I would just propose this: Why can't everyone just table the motions they want to deal with? We don't have to vote on them today. All the tabled motions could be considered by the subcommittee, which could come back to the committee at the next meeting with a proposal for an agenda on an order of motions. Then it could also work on combining any motions that might be duplicative.
That's just a possible suggestion here so that we can consider everyone's motions without having to go through this long, arduous voting process. It's just a thought.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I don't want to waste the committee's time, but I just want to clarify what Mr. Lloyd is suggesting.
Mr. Lloyd, you're suggesting that, for example, we take the text of the various motions, distribute them to the subcommittee members and then allow them to meet to discuss. Am I understanding you correctly?
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Yes. It would be to discuss and then propose an agenda or way forward. Then the committee can vote to support that agenda or amend it at a following meeting. I think it would just be very quick. It would give everyone the opportunity to put their motions on the floor today, and things like that. But if there is any disagreement, that's fine.
The Clerk
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Lloyd.
It rests, Mr. Chair, with how the committee wishes to proceed with Mr. Paul-Hus's motion, which is already on the floor. If the motions are moved here, then we can distribute the text of those various motions to the subcommittee members in anticipation of a subcommittee meeting to be held in the future.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you.
I would ask, then, because I would like Ms. Vignola to get a chance to present any motion that she would...but I would ask whether Mr. Paul-Hus might be agreeable to tabling his motion today, and likewise for Ms. Vignola to table her motion on this area when she gets her chance.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I think we want to do the same thing. It's just a matter of procedure. In order not to get lost in procedure, Mrs. Vignola can propose an amendment to my motion. That way, my motion would be adopted with Mrs. Vignola's amendment. This would be in line with her wishes, and we would have one full motion now, rather than having two motions to deal with later.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Excuse me for just a second.
Mr. Paul-Hus, you can't make that amendment, but Ms. Vignola could make an amendment if that were how we were to proceed.
Ms. Vignola, go ahead.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
So I suggest the following amendment:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), the committee study and issue a report, with recommendations and proposals for improvements, during and after the pandemic, to the various computerized systems and other technological resources used to administer services and assistance programs, especially online assistance programs (such as the CERB and the CEWS), and requests for ongoing online administrative services such as, but not limited to, the processing of immigration files.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I see them, the motions are totally different. My motion focuses more on the physical IT infrastructure whereas Mrs. Vignola's deals with management programs for the CERB and for immigration. My motion is more about the infrastructure. We could have two separate studies, because I don't know whether we would be able to do it in a single one.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
The intent of my motion was to study the different IT systems and other technological resources. That is why I was thinking that the IT infrastructure and the IT systems were basically the same subject. I have just made it a little more precise.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none on the amendment, I would call the vote.
Those in favour?
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, the order adopted by the House states that if there's unanimity we can proceed without a recorded division. However, in the event that there is any discrepancy or disagreement.... I've been noticing that when we've had disagreement during the committee meeting today, there has always been a recorded division and that is following the spirit of the motion adopted by the House.
I might suggest at this point it doesn't appear there is unanimity to adopt this. Should we proceed by recorded division then, as per the order adopted by the House?