Government Operations Committee on Oct. 16th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

—but it's not a point of order. Your point is made.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Look, I'll say this very gently, Mr. Coteau: You just raised a point of order about your not liking something I said regarding your not knowing the rules. That point of order itself demonstrates a lack of understanding of what constitutes a point of order. I'm not—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let's return to the motion.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a question of privilege, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead, Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

If you want to go to the next level here, we can do that. You're being very disrespectful to me as a parliamentarian. Making the assumption that I don't know what I'm doing in my job is very disrespectful. I want you to apologize, or at least withdraw the statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay, Mr. Coteau. I appreciate what you're saying.

That's not a question of privilege. That's my ruling.

Mr. Genuis, the floor is yours. However, let's return to the motion, please.

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

I'm happy to, Chair.

Respectfully, the committee has established rules. Those rules define what a point of order is. Those rules define what a question of privilege is. When a Liberal member misuses those terms and concepts to try to interrupt someone who's speaking, it suggests a certain lack of familiarity with those rules.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

What about the lack of decency?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Again, I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt here.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

What about the lack of decency, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Coteau, please.... Mr. Genuis has the floor. I'm going to ask him to return and stick with the motion.

If someone has a valid point of order, please address it with the chair. Let's not talk over each other.

Mr. Genuis, please return to the motion.

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

Thank you.

In the context of the motion, I find it baffling that Liberals both take offence to being called out for not following the rules of the committee and insist on not following the rules of committee at the same time.

This was a motion that was not in order. The rules for moving a motion are designed to allow members to consider matters appropriately and for committees to regulate their activities. If you have a motion that is on a substantive matter that is not related to what's currently before the committee, then you have to give 48 hours' notice. That is the proper procedure. You give 48 hours' notice for moving a motion. Those are the rules of the committee. You might like other notice requirements to apply to other things, but that's the rule book.

You can move a motion without notice if it is on the matter being discussed before the committee. Then you have Liberals, in their coalition with the NDP, who decided that they wanted to be able to move a motion that was not on notice. They wanted to be able to surprise us with it and then try to make this silly argument that somehow it's our fault for not immediately endorsing, sight unseen, this motion that we didn't receive proper notice of. That is not only unreasonable and unfair but is also a violation of the rules of committee. Both Liberals and New Democrats, acting as a coalition, have overruled the chair to move a motion at a time when they are not normally allowed to move that motion and at a time when we have witnesses sitting before us whose testimony they are disrupting. They're complaining about a lack of notice while moving a motion without notice.

On this point about constituency weeks, we all come from relatively large caucuses, some larger than others. If government members had pressing obligations, they might well have advised some of their colleagues that there was important work that was happening at the committee and ask them to substitute for them; that was always an option. We all have to prioritize between different things that are happening, but this is extremely important work. We at the government operations committee have a lot of work and a lot of studies before us, and we also have uncertain timing around various other political events, so this work needs to get done. Proceeding with that work this week, with the allowances for substitution, makes eminent sense.

The idea of this motion, more broadly, is that this is a motion that would make it virtually impossible, given this seeming requirement for unanimity among parties, to have meetings outside of those specifically defined time constraints. Having more meetings than just during the windows we have during sitting weeks is what has allowed this committee to get to the bottom of so much Liberal corruption. Having some of these extra meetings has allowed us to get to the bottom of Liberal corruption around government contracting and all these abuses we've seen of the indigenous contracting system.

All of this is possible and all of this has been enabled because this is a committee that has been prepared to go above and beyond and get its work done. It's no surprise that Liberals have not wanted and do not want that work to be able to continue, which is why they are now trying to throw on the table, in the middle of witness testimony, this surprise motion that would effectively require the unanimity of parties in order to convene during a break week. I don't think that's right. I think that's going to undermine the important work of pursuing accountability at this critical accountability committee.

This is the work that we're supposed to do as parliamentarians. I know we all have things we want to do in our constituencies, but the critical work that we're supposed to do as parliamentarians is to review and hold accountable the operations of the executive. That's especially the responsibility of the government operations committee. We need to have some flexibility to do that. This is an opposition-chaired committee for a reason, because the tools of that chairship allow the pursuit of these various scandals that we have seen inflicted by government broadly over the last nine years.

This is an important issue. It's a substantial policy issue. I would say let us do this work. This is an obviously flawed motion. I'm happy to talk about it. I'm happy to go into it. I'll propose that amendment if I have to, but in the meantime, we now have under 20 minutes left. Rather than go through amendments back and forth on this motion, let's give the remaining time back to the witnesses and set aside some time to continue on this motion and work out some of those details at another date soon.

If members want to have the discussion on procedure, this motion isn't it. This motion, I think, has a lot of obvious flaws in it. We can work out the procedure at another time soon, but let's give the balance of the time back to the witnesses and set aside some time to do that.

I would now move that we proceed to hearing from the witnesses.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Atwin, I can't accept a point of order in the middle of a vote.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The vote, I believe, is out of order. Can you move the same dilatory motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, you can.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

Resuming the speaking list, I have Mrs. Vignola and then Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was a very unfortunate meeting, since we weren't able to hear from our witnesses. One of those witnesses had to travel. She has to drive five hours every week to get here. It's not a short drive, and the road to get to Ottawa from northern Ontario isn't exactly Highway 30 or Highway 40. It's more like Route 389, which I've driven way too often in my life.

That said, I'll get back to the motion and the Standing Orders. The meeting was called with exactly 24 hours and 39 minutes' notice. The notice of meeting was then amended at 3:22 p.m., less than 24 hours before the start of the meeting. However, it was not requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). It wasn't an emergency meeting. The meeting was being held as part of a study that was under way. Furthermore, the meeting was called for a Wednesday, which was not a regular meeting day. Our meetings are normally held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

One could ask who benefits from a filibuster. The answer might lie in the many videos that have already been posted on social media. Everyone is getting all worked up. Now, it would be lovely if we could vote on the motion as quickly as possible, because we have 13 minutes left in our meeting. It would be great to use those 13 minutes to hear from our witnesses.

When it comes to procedure, we can go all over the map. We have the binder. We also have to follow what has been done in the past. Another meeting has been called for tomorrow, again with less than 24 hours' notice. It's not a meeting requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), so not an emergency meeting. It is a meeting requested as part of the regular meetings of this committee, which are normally held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

I have no problem meeting during a constituency week, even if it disrupts my entire schedule and prevents me from meeting with businesses, citizens and organizations in my riding in person, face to face. Remote communication and telework are all well and good, but everyone has had enough. It does not come close to the warmth of human contact, being able to look people in the eye and sense their non-verbal language. That comes with meeting in person with the people we care about, the people who we represent and who elected us.

If possible, I call for a vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since we are here, I'll move an amendment that tries to make this stupid motion make a little more sense, plausibly. Again, I wish we weren't here. I wish we were hearing from the witnesses.

My amendment would strike out the words from “given the chair—

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

There is a difference between talk and action.

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

—“given the chair made a unilateral decision to cancel the meeting on October 10, 2024, then called a meeting with less than”. After the word “the”, it would add “chair adhere to the”. It would strike out the words “the committee members” and replace them with “or”. It would strike out the words “and respect a minimum 48-hour notice period, while adhering, as much as possible, to the committee's usual schedule.”

The revised 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.”

This amendment would be consistent with Standing Order 106(4). It wouldn't seek to violate the rules of the House. It would require a 48-hour notice period or the agreement of the parties to proceed.

It would address what some have claimed to be the motivating issue here. I don't think it is the motivating issue, but it would address what some have claimed to be the motivating issue without creating a procedure that would make it entirely impossible to hold meetings outside of the narrow confines of what the House gives us during sitting weeks.

On the substance of this, we have tight constraints during sitting weeks, especially as it relates to House resources, and we've seen how this plays out. The constituency weeks provide some time and some opportunity when we're not under the same resource constraints.

I think this is a reasonable amendment. It's frustrating, because, if we had been approached in advance of this meeting, if we had set aside some committee time and if we had worked it out, we could have gone back and forth and gotten to this much earlier.

I'll put forward that amendment now. Again, I wish we were hearing from the witnesses, but the amendment is there, and we'll see how people react to it. I don't know if there's a way of bringing it home, so to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We don't have it in print, so we cannot send it out.

I'm sorry, Mr. Genuis. I need you to clarify something.

The clerk and I were looking at it, and it almost seems like it might be contradictory, what you're looking for.

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

I don't have it translated, because I didn't have notice that this motion was coming. If someone had told me the motion was coming or if proper notice had been given—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's not the French part.