Government Operations Committee on Feb. 14th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're debating the subamendment right now.

If you want to accept it, then we'll be back to your original amended amendment, and then perhaps someone else can put forward a change to that.

Are we okay with that, then?

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

Yes, so in order for us to add to Mr. Genuis's subamendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll be adding to the whole—

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

We'd be adding to the whole of the.... It has yet to be accepted. Is that right?

Then I would like to do that, if that's okay. We would agree to his amendment, and then I'd like to add on an amendment to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Someone else will.

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

I'm sorry. Okay, well then, fair....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sure Mr. Kusmierczyk or someone else will.

Are we okay with accepting Mr. Genuis's subamendment, and then someone else can perhaps do Mr. Sousa's change? Are we okay, everyone?

Just give us a couple of seconds, so that the clerks have it.

We are accepting Mr. Genuis's subamendment, and that's the one that we have read in a few times and have emailed out.

(Subamendment agreed to)

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Basically, we have an amendment suggested by Mr. Sousa that's been subamended twice, and both of them have been accepted.

Now we are on another subamendment that our colleague—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Now we have a speaking order.

I see Mr. Kusmierczyk is next to speak.

If we're going to be changing anything, it would be the email that just came out that had Mr. Genuis's change in it. That's what we are back to debating right now.

I recognize Mr. Kusmierczyk, who is next on the speaking list.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

We're back on the amendment, and I would like to put forward a subamendment.

Are we back on track?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Okay, good.

It would just be to add the following sentence to the end of that amendment, so it would read, “and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a government response.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's pretty simple.

On the subamendment, I have Mr. Genuis.

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

Chair, the effect of this request, as my colleagues know, is that it delays the possibility of.... The response time requirement is 120 days. We're in the middle of February. This means that effectively there could be no decision of the House on this matter, taking into consideration timelines and so forth, probably until into the summer and then into the fall session.

Notionally, the idea of asking the government to provide feedback on this is welcome, but the reference to Standing Order 109 is a sneaky attempt by the government to effectively prevent the House from pronouncing itself on this matter until the fall.

I hope the committee will join me in seeing through the continuing shady efforts of the government to bury this issue by stealth and not support this subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll vote on Mr. Kusmierczyk's subamendment.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I would like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There's a tie. I will also vote no.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're back to Mr. Sousa's amendment.

We're back to the most recent one that was emailed out.

Mrs. Block.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This may be a small point, but I just want to make it. I also believe there is a typo in this motion. I don't know if it's always left to your discretion to deal with typos. I do believe the first statement that says “That, in light of new reports that GC Strategies and other companies incorporated by the co-founders” should say “have received millions of dollars”.

We've been referring to a report that was released today, and it referred only to GC Strategies. I completely understand why you're including further down in the motion “other companies incorporated by the co-founders and all contracts”. I'm just pointing out that it's misleading to say that the new report identifies GC Strategies and other companies incorporated by the co-founders when it did not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you offering a subamendment to change the word “has”?

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

Yes, I'll offer that subamendment, if it has to be done that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can we have agreement that we'll change the word “has” to “have”?

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

Can't you just fix it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's just on changing the word “has” to “have” and not the other issues that were commented on.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

The word “have” goes further into the past than “has”. That's the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think it's just changing it grammatically. It's purely a grammatical thing.