Government Operations Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Is there any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

On transcripts of in camera meetings:

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff.

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

On notice of motion:

That a 48 hours notice, interpreted as two nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday, that (2) the motion be distributed to Members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour, and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day; and that when the committee is travelling outside the Parliamentary Precinct, no substantive motions may be moved.

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

On orders of reference from the House respecting bills:

That, in relation to orders of reference from the House respecting Bills, a) the clerk of the committee shall, upon the committee receiving such an order of reference, write to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee to invite those members to file with the clerk of the committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said order, which they would suggest that the committee consider; b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Weiler, do you want to discuss it?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I meant to raise my hand to get on the speaking list after we're done with routine motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Okay, sorry, I apologize.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Those were the routine motion I have.

Yes, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I could go after Mr. Weiler, I do want to test the will of the committee on getting rolling and right back to business here.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Include me as well after Mr. Green.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We will go with Mr. Weiler, then Mr. Green and then Mr. McCauley, at this point.

Go ahead, Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'd like to propose is that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee conduct a 16-meeting study on; a) federal shipbuilding; b) ship procurement; c) the polar icebreaker; and d) the effects of COVID-19 on shipyard construction and delivery, and that the committee report its findings to the House by November 26, 2020.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Clerk, I'm going to defer to you. Is it best for us to hear all of the motions or to debate one at a time?

[The Clerk]

My recommendation is that you deal, Mr. Chair, with one motion at a time. It would create too much confusion otherwise. Procedurally, we can't entertain another motion until the previous motion is disposed of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Green, I'm sorry, just a second.

I have Mr. Green, Ms. Vignola and then Mr. McCauley.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

While I can appreciate that the government side would want to turn the page to a new agenda for this committee, notwithstanding all of the critical studies that we had undertaken prior to its rather abrupt prorogation, I would suggest that we continue the course that we had set prior to the abrupt prorogation of this committee, the dissolution of this committee.

I will not be supporting this, nor their “turn the page” agenda. At the appropriate time, I will be requesting that we commence the bulk of the work that we had prior to the very abrupt dissolution of this committee at prorogation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Ms. Vignola.

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

Mr. Weiler’s suggestion is interesting. It echoes one of my concerns. If one could add knowledge of the criteria for prioritizing shipyards when awarding contracts under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, that would be interesting as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Weiler, thanks for putting that forward.

I think we're down to me, Mr. MacKinnon and Mr. Drouin from the 2015 class on OGGO. Those two will know that I've been for a shipbuilding study for a long time. In general, I do support it.

There are a couple of issues with it, though. Of course, the main estimates dropped very recently, so we have to get to those. I think they're deemed reported at the end of November, so we have to get our estimate studies done. My understanding is also that the supplementary (B)s will possibly be dropped in October as well, which have to be studied as well, so the timing issue doesn't work out well.

I can't support the motion at this time, although I do think we should continue as we had agreed in the last Parliament to the study. Perhaps we could break it up and study the polar icebreaker first because of the rumours of the government going offshore for one, rather than getting moving on the Diefenbaker, which should have been in the water years ago, as many of you know.

At this time, I can't support the motion for the study as written, but certainly I think we can talk among ourselves to get working very soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

Ms. Vignola, could you repeat your amendment, please?

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

The amendment proposed to include in the study the criteria for prioritizing shipyards when awarding contracts under the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

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

In terms of the date, I agree with Mr. McCauley because we have to deal with the budget. So we can do this study, but we should perhaps prioritize the budget since we haven’t voted a budget in about a year and a half. It’s time for us to study that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

I apologize. I'm trying to look at the participant list and the hands that are up and to listen.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps this should be clarified. How do you want us to raise our hand? Do you want us to use the computer system or to do it on-screen?

I understand Mr. Weiler’s motion, because, yes, there are many questions about shipbuilding. However, two motions have already been tabled, one by my colleague Mr. McCauley, on June 9th, and the other by Mrs. Vignola, also in June. These motions concerned requests to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer for the study on Joint Support Ships and the Asterix, on the one hand, and the three possible warship options, on the other.

We will have to decide what we want. First, we have to wait for the report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer before we go any further. Second, we will have to inform the Standing Committee on National Defence, of which my friend Mr. Gerretsen was a member. At that time, in 2018, we did a study on Canadian naval capabilities. It might be a good idea to review that first.

As for the rest, I for one will be tabling motions when it is my turn to do so, but I will give priority to the supply problems created by COVID-19. There is also the budget, yes. We will have to go through all the votes in the Main Estimates before we go any further.