Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

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

Are we really arguing about whether the motion is properly worded so that we can adjourn? Some people are saying it is not properly worded to allow us to adjourn. This makes no sense. We have three minutes left. We have to adjourn and talk about Mr. Bachrach's motion again later on. I think we all agree on that. I cannot understand why the committee has been wasting its time on this for the past 10 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I would suggest that you talk to your colleagues, but if we adjourn, Mr. Bachrach can certainly start the next meeting with a motion to reintroduce the motion and we can discuss it then. Mr. Bachrach is trying various procedural approaches to try to extend it, and I appreciate that, but it looks as if we're probably going to continue it on Wednesday anyway, whether Mr. Bachrach likes it or not, through the procedure we're doing. That's where we're at.

We have about two or three minutes. We have Ms. Block on the speaking list on her amendment and then we will run out of time and we will adjourn.

I am suggesting that because we're without our witnesses for Wednesday, we'll set aside committee business to continue this, and I will encourage Mr. Bachrach to talk off-line with everyone, with the vice-chairs, so that we can come up with a simple agreement for the motion. This seems to be generally smarter.

Ms. Block, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much.

After all of that, I would recognize your very astute observation that I included in my motion “at least two meetings”, as opposed to “a minimum of 12 hours”. Representing a very large rural riding in the province of Saskatchewan, I do recognize the issues with postal service in rural Canada. That is why we are open to this motion, to this study, but I wanted to encourage us to start with two meetings—at least two meetings—and then go forward figuring out where we go from there.

I look forward to any off-line discussions that Mr. Bachrach would like to have with us, his Conservative colleagues, to see if we can come to some sort of agreement on the length that the study should be.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

If there's no one else on the speaking list, we can vote on Ms. Block's amendment.

Do you want a recorded vote, colleagues, on Mrs. Block's amendment?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can we have it read back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Read it back to Mr. Bachrach.

[The Clerk]

It's that “The committee hold at least two meetings on this topic starting with the CEO of Canada Post”.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, we're basically out of time.

There are a couple of things that I'm going to quickly suggest. One is that we adjourn and continue this, and hopefully settle it, early Wednesday.

Again, Mr. Bachrach, I suggest that you chat with everyone and get your friendly amendment set up so that we can move it quickly, because it sounds like we're almost there.

Before we adjourn, if we have agreement on it, we can push Canada Post off until Wednesday and get it settled then. Also before we adjourn, I understand from the Liberal side that there is consensus to distribute the report just to the MPs and keep it confidential.

I want to settle the Canada Post one, and then get agreement on that one. Then we can adjourn.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the P9 is not an issue, but I'm not 100% what “confidential” means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

When I say “confidential”, I mean that we have had stuff in the past that.... For example, the McKinsey documents were shared with us, but we agreed that we would not release them. I'm talking about the stuff from McKinsey itself. We agreed that we would not release them until McKinsey had an opportunity to come and explain to us what it would like to see redacted. That's what I mean. I want to make sure that they stay—

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

On the P9, I say yes. On “confidential”, I don't know because we have already released some of the key reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can we agree for the P9? Then we can keep it among MPs until our next meeting and discuss it further.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

We'll agree just to P9. That's the extent to which we are going to agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The other option is printed copies, but I suggest sending it through SharePoint to the MPs.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think it's appropriate to send it just to the members, but you don't have consensus to adjourn. I think we want to suspend and just continue on with our conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can we just deal with one thing at a time, Mr. Sousa?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay. Quickly, can we just agree then? I want to get to that, but it has to be one thing and then the next.

We can suspend or adjourn. It's going to have the same result. On Wednesday, we will continue. However, again, I strongly suggest, Mr. Bachrach.... We seem close, but if we can get your friendly amendment and some of the other issues.... I think Mr. Sousa or someone else had amendments proposed as well. If they could get them all ready so that we can put them to bed early Wednesday, that would be great.

I am happy to suspend and continue. I would be happy to adjourn, and you can reintroduce a motion first thing Wednesday to continue, as I suggested. It's up to you. It's the same outcome, so you can decide. However, before we do that—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, you keep looking at me like you want to know what my intentions are or what my desire is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I just want to get consensus in the room so that we can move forward.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My understanding is that adjourning and suspending are two different things that have two different effects.

One ends the meeting. Then, at the next meeting, there will be a new agenda set by the chair, and we will proceed according to the agenda.

Suspending indicates that this meeting will continue in the next time slot for the committee's meetings. That's my preference. That's why I moved a motion to suspend. I was told that it was not in order, so I moved a motion to postpone until a certain time, which I was told was not in order. I have run out of motions.

I will defer to your will as the somewhat arbitrary chair of this committee. Do what you will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to take offence at your “arbitrary”.

I'm happy, colleagues, if you want to be like other committees and stick to every little point and we will get nothing done, to run it that way, or we can have one where we can agree to do stuff. That's the will—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Suspending will be fine, but before we suspend—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order.