Government Operations Committee on Oct. 16th, 2024

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

—I would have shared a translated motion, but as it is, while trying to follow the debate and write amendments at the same time....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I can just read it back, and then we'll start a speaking list on it.

The amended motion would read, “That the chair adhere to the usual practice of 48 hours of notice during a constituency week without consulting other parties or request that the chair consult and obtain the consensus of the parties for calling meetings during constituency weeks.”

We'll start a speaking list.

Mr. Bains, your hand is up. Is that from the original motion, or is it on the amendment, or both?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

It's more a point of order.

I wanted to mention, because I feel like this is—

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

It sounds like it's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Genuis, please allow Mr. Bains to have the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

In order to request.... For the guests who are with us today, I understand that this motion may take us past the time, so I want to ensure that they have the opportunity to provide us, by email, with recommendations for some of the questions or any recommendations that they have regarding this study, at any time, if they don't get an opportunity to speak again today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay. We'll....

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

On the same point of order, there is no way that Mr. Bains is going to be able to relegate these witnesses to email. We will invite these witnesses back to the committee to provide a full response, to say whatever they want about what happened today and to give their views, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt both of you, Mr. Genuis and Mr. Bains. I have the floor.

I'm sorry; I have the floor. I appreciate both of your interventions. I was going to suggest they could provide it in writing but I was also going to suggest that we will have them back if they will tolerate coming back to us.

An invitation to return will be extended to them and an invitation to provide anything in writing will be available as well.

Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Bains. I appreciate it.

Mr. Genuis, I appreciate your point as well.

I think Mr. Genuis has the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I moved my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay. I'm sorry. Speaking of this, we are on the amendment, then.

We were at Mr. Bains.

You had your hand up for the original motion. Did you want to speak on the amendment as well?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

No, I'll withdraw my hand.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I'll keep your hand up for the original motion, though.

Go ahead, Mrs. Block.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've listened with interest and frustration at many of the interventions that have been put forward by members on the opposite side of the table to us. I would simply say that I believe that this amendment to the motion that was table-dropped here today and sidelined our conversation with the two witnesses does address the concerns that were raised in the original motion when it comes to consulting with other parties and when it comes to meeting during break week.

I fully support this amendment and would hope that the members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP would see this as a way of continuing to stay true to the Standing Orders that we function and operate by but addressing the concern that was raised today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Bachrach, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been staying out of this conversation because I was thinking that perhaps, if I did, it would shorten the debate and bring us back to hearing from the witnesses in a more timely way.

On the amendment that Mr. Genuis has moved, I'm not sure that the language is precise enough to achieve what he thinks it's achieving. When he was characterizing the amendment, he mentioned agreement from other parties, but the word “consultation” does not imply agreement.

I think the original motion reflects the frustration that many are feeling, including two other opposition parties. We very much want to hold the government accountable, but we want to do that in a way that is predictable, effective and respectful of our time. The Conservatives have continually referred to “break weeks”, and perhaps Conservatives take breaks during those weeks. However, for some of us who represent constituencies the size of Poland, constituency weeks mean spending hours and hours in the car, driving thousands of kilometres, visiting multiple communities and working for the entire week, only to get back on an airplane and spend an entire day flying back to Ottawa. The challenge with these surprise meetings—and you mentioned the frustration of a surprise motion or a surprise amendment—is that it requires us to cancel all of our other engagements with constituents and organizations that we had planned to undertake.

I share the frustration that has been voiced so far. I note that the committee for national security and public safety is having an emergency meeting on a very pressing matter, and that meeting was established under Standing Order 106(4), which provides for consultation with the other parties. It doesn't require unanimity. It requires that a certain number of members of the committee consent to the meeting being held, and it compels the chair to schedule that meeting accordingly.

I don't see any reason why we can't have an agreement among us as members of this committee to not hold meetings during constituency weeks unless the conditions of Standing Order 106(4) are met. I think that would be a very reasonable compromise that would allow the opposition parties to effectively hold this government to account, to hear from witnesses on time-sensitive and important emerging matters, and to conduct the work of the committee in the best possible way while also respecting the schedules of the members of the committee, some of whom represent ridings on the other side of the country.

I can't support the amendment, because I don't believe that the wording reflects the intent of the mover, and I don't believe that it significantly strengthens the procedure from where we are now. I would support an amendment that gets us back to the place where we don't hold meetings during constituency weeks unless a certain number of members of the committee agree that such a meeting is warranted.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Bachrach, we are out of resources, so I'm afraid I will be adjourning. Maybe you can put your proposed amendment in writing and have it ready for when this debate resumes.

We are adjourned.