Evidence of meeting #120 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
We can keep talking about this issue, and it's certainly an important issue, but I think we're probably zeroing in on a consensus, so maybe we can just agree to it and be done with it.
Although it's not ideal from our perspective, I'm happy to accept the amendment, recognizing that I can count as well as anyone.
I would just suggest, to address the issues around the committee, that we add the line I had informally proposed: “share the documents referred to...with HESA in the event that HESA finds these documents useful.” I think if we agree to adopt the amendment, add that change and adopt the motion, then we're done.
I don't know if you want to proceed in that fashion or not, but—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry, but it would require a stand-alone amendment, not...
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
No, I don't mean an amendment. Committees can operate formally or informally if there's agreement.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
You know, if the parties wish to suspend for a few minutes to maybe chat this out—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
No. I think we have agreement already.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Well, I don't know.... You've just proposed an amendment for him to suggest—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That's fine. Let's vote on Mr. Bachrach's amendment. Then I'll—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
There's no need to suspend. Let's get our work done.
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm not sure if I agree with the rationale we've been discussing on the date. If we're really wanting to delve deep into this issue, then perhaps going back 10 years, which is a more reasonable time, would be a little bit more logical.
When it comes to contracts, especially in government, we're all seasoned members of government and politicians. We know how slowly or how methodically things progress. To me, it doesn't really fly that it be the year it was decided that safer centres were going to be opened, whether it was in London or anywhere else in the country. What about the time before that? I think it would perhaps be a decent evaluation to see what the past has looked like. I think a decade would perhaps be a reasonable time.
I understand, Chair, that I cannot move a subamendment, but I did want to get that on the record. Perhaps after the discussion on this amendment we can perhaps entertain another amendment on the date specifically.
Thank you for listening and for entertaining what I had to say.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Chair, I think you'd find unanimous consent to change “2016” to “1867”, to be as comprehensive as you want.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
There were no safe supply programs before 2016, so it doesn't matter.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
We're not talking about that. We're talking about contracts that would link to it.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Genuis, please. Thanks.
Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor, please.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
The one change that I mentioned when making the amendment verbally that didn't show up in the version that was sent by email was just to add “r” after the word “safe” so that the phrase would be “safer supply program”. I don't think we need a new version emailed, but I would hate for the discrepancy of one letter to allow the federal government to not provide certain contracts or memoranda because they used the phrase “safer supply program”. I think that's the more commonly used phrase, certainly in British Columbia. I would hope that the committee would allow the amendment to stand as I presented it verbally.
On the other piece, just speaking to Mr. Genuis's suggestion around providing the documents to HESA, I'm not an expert in procedure, but I assume that when the documents are provided to us, they're also available to other committees. I do note that we have several members of the HESA committee who have been participating in today's meeting. I would ask if there's any reason that HESA would not be able to take those documents up for their own use in the study.
I expect they're going to have greater utility to HESA. I would welcome it as a separate amendment if that's not the case, but my understanding is that if they're made available, they could be shared with other committees.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
My understanding is that if they're made available to us, they are the property, so to speak, of OGGO. It would require an agreement from us to send them over. Where we run into a problem is that if something provided to us is confidential or along those lines, it makes it difficult.