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.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've heard a few concerns about the motion, and I'd like to bring forward a few potential workarounds to address the concerns that were raised. Mr. McCauley raised a concern about the estimates and how this might impact them, and Ms. Vignola raised the issue of the scope of the ships that are going to be covered by this.
I would suggest two things. One would be to move the date from November to having this presented to the House by December 17. That would allow more time to do other studies, such as on the estimates, and likewise for Ms. Vignola to study the light icebreakers as well.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Okay, we've basically heard an amendment being suggested there.
Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
12:20 p.m.
The Clerk
I did hear Mr. Weiler putting forward some suggestions. However, Mr. Weiler, being the one who proposed the motion, cannot amend his own motion. Another member could move the same amendment, but procedurally, usually the mover of the motion cannot amend their own motion without the unanimous consent of the committee.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you. That's a good point.
Mr. McCauley, I saw your hand up.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I appreciate your attempt, Mr. Weiler, to try to accommodate our concerns, but even December 17 is not going to be realistic.
I've been working on this for five years. We could probably spend six months just looking at Irving, the shipyard, much less all of it. The Coast Guard stuff, the Atlantic Eagle issue with CITT, would take months on its own.
While I appreciate your attempt, it would be wasting our time and doing a disservice to everyone involved if we rushed it through in two months. We could easily do this for a full year. I think that was our discussion before prorogation. We were going to leave it until the end because it would take such a long, long time.
If you want to split it up to just to study the icebreaker—because there is the concern about the government outsourcing this from the country—perhaps something broken down like that.... However, to do the whole package by December is not possible. It's just not realistic.
Again, I appreciate your attempt to try accommodate our concerns, but we won't support this because the issue needs a full and proper review and, I think, agreement among all four parties on how we're going to do that.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
That's perfect. Thank you so much, Mr. Kitchen. I appreciate that.
I want to ask my colleague Mr. McCauley whether he can maybe suggest a timeline that he believes would be suitable here. It seems there is recognition of the urgency of discussing this issue, but we want to make sure that the discussion is fulsome, that it receives the fulsome attention it requires.
I want to ask Mr. McCauley whether he can maybe comment on timelines that he feels would be appropriate.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Well, I would suggest maybe sending it to our planning committee, because we're spinning our wheels here. I know that I have other business I want to attend to, as do Mr. Green and Ms. Vignola. Maybe let's send it to our planning committee of five so that they can work out some suggestions.
I mean, if it were up to me, I'd have a certain plan, but that may not work for Mr. Green or Ms. Vignola or for your side. Rather than continue with this back-and-forth, I suggest we sent it off to our planning group so that they can hash it out.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Mr. Clerk, are we able to do that? Does it need to be voted on in order for us to do that?
12:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Normally, once a motion or an amendment is before a committee, the committee can dispose of it only by taking a decision, but there are other things. A committee can agree, if there's consent, to either withdraw the motion or adjourn the debate. Once it's no longer debating that motion, it can move on to other business. Then the business could be taken up by the subcommittee.
It's entirely up to the committee's discretion. The committee could decide to adjourn the debate on this motion and proceed to consider other issues, or the committee could, with unanimous consent, withdraw this motion from it entirely and deal with it in subcommittee. Also, if it adjourns the debate here, it could deal with it in subcommittee as well.
There are some options for the committee if it doesn't want to take a decision on this motion right now.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I don't know if Bourinot includes referral motions, but would there not be a referral motion that could be in order to have this motion referred to, just directly?
12:25 p.m.
The Clerk
I have seen that happen in the past. If it is the will of the committee to refer it to the subcommittee, then I would say, yes, that would be admissible if somebody wants to propose that. Then the question can be put to the committee members as to how they wish to proceed.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, isn't it the intent of the subcommittee to set the agenda, and even if the subcommittee passes something, it still has to come back to the main committee to adopt it? I don't think you want to send the idea of a study to subcommittee to debate. You want to determine at committee level if you want to do the study, and then let the subcommittee determine the agenda as it relates to it. I don't think it's in order to send the discussion over to the subcommittee, which would only have to report back.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I appreciate what Mr. Green is doing. I'm going to suggest that we vote to adjourn this. I think we all have agreed that we're going to do the shipbuilding study. I suggest we vote to adjourn this and then allow our subcommittee to develop a plan going forward without any restrictions or without any parameters set up right now, or else I'd ask Mr. Weiler if he'd agree to withdraw this motion.
12:25 p.m.
The Clerk
If I may, Mr. Chair, what Mr. McCauley is proposing is what's called a “dilatory” motion. They are non-debatable. Procedurally, the chair has to put the question before the committee. The committee will vote on whether or not to adjourn debate on the motion.
My advice to you would be to put the question now. That should be done by recorded division, pursuant to the order adopted by the House on September 23.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you. I appreciate that. It's actually something that I was recognizing.
It's non-debatable. Mr. McCauley's motion is the one we're voting on. I'll call for—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just to be clear, it's non-debatable?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Not on a motion to adjourn....
Can we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?
12:25 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
The question is on Mr. McCauley's motion that the debate be now adjourned. I will put the question by recorded division.