Evidence of meeting #55 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 debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
To clarify, Mr. Chair, are we now discussing my amendment? Is my amendment on the floor?
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Yes.
Do you need the clerk to read the amendment back, or [Inaudible—Editor]?
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I think that would be good for the committee. I don't need to comment more than that. I was hoping she'd do that, then let the committee discuss the amendment.
I'm happy to comment after I hear thoughts from the committee.
6:25 p.m.
The Clerk
To clarify, do you just want the paragraph where the amendment is located?
Okay, the first paragraph states:
Send for all receipts and invoices in the possession of the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and any other implicated government departments associated with the September 2022 trip to the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister of Canada, including for all individuals accompanying the Prime Minister
This is the part where the amendment starts: “and for Prime Minister Harper's trip in 2013 to honour the late Nelson Mandela and Prime Minister Harper's trip to China in 2009.”
I would like some clarification on whether you want it to be Beijing, specifically, or China. It was said both ways.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
It's Beijing.
I also want to clarify that the latter two trips encompass the Prime Minister's Office, all staff, and anybody else who was on those trips, with the same clarity that's in the motion for the trip to the Queen's funeral. It should include the same parameters.
This is how we get some comparison. We ensure the same grouping is being asked about to get a good idea of what the different prime ministers are spending on these very important trips. I'm not going to diminish the importance of these trips or make them insignificant. It's for comparable analysis.
Of course, I want to ensure the amendment includes, “the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and any other implicated government departments associated with” those latter two trips—all the individuals who accompanied the prime minister on the latter two trips we're adding, through this amendment. They need to be included, as well.
6:30 p.m.
The Clerk
If that's the intent, I suggest adding the word “both”:
Send for all receipts and invoices in the possession of the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and any other implicated government departments associated with both: i) the September 2022 trip to the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister of Canada, including for all individuals accompanying the Prime Minister and ii) for Prime Minister Harper's trip in 2013 to honour the late Nelson Mandela and Prime Minister Harper's trip to Beijing in 2009.
Does that sum up what you are looking to achieve, sir?
6:30 p.m.
The Clerk
I'm sorry.
6:30 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I think the clerk is speaking too quickly for the interpreters.
6:30 p.m.
The Clerk
I apologize, I will read a bit more slowly because it is much too difficult for the interpreters. It is my fault.
Thanks, everyone, for a little patience:
Send for all receipts and invoices in the possession of the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, and any other implicated government departments associated with both: i) the September 2022 trip to the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister of Canada, including for all individuals accompanying the Prime Minister and ii) for Prime Minister Harper's trip in 2013 to honour the late Nelson Mandela and Prime Minister Harper's trip to Beijing in 2009.
Does that accurately reflect the intent of the motion, sir?
6:30 p.m.
NDP
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to raise a matter of privilege.
I've been thinking about the course of events today. When we were deliberating on the original motion at the start of today's meeting, I was deeply concerned that MP Lattanzio was not permitted to vote on—
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Actually, I can address that. I can just cut you off and address that. I do have a clarification that I have received. I was going to address it at the very end, but I can do it right now if you wish.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The clerk and I were discussing.... There was some error communicated to us about it. It has been clarified that thumbs-up or thumbs-down can.... However, we still obviously require for committee involvement that, but yes, a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
A thumbs-up or thumbs-down is sufficient. That's what I thought the rules were.
In fact, I also sent—
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm glad to hear that, because I did also after that transpired send a letter to Speaker Rota for clarification on that. I think especially on a day like today, International Women's Day, when you have an MP who basically today was not able to cast her vote on an issue, on a motion like today's, I think that is especially egregious.
I understand that it was done unintentionally, but the fact remains that we had before us a motion. We clearly had an indication from MP Lattanzio as to what her intent was and she was not permitted to vote. I think that as a committee we have to take that seriously. I would say that we have to revisit that decision, because the votes were clearly cast. The member had clearly communicated her vote and her intention. I believe that at that point we need to revisit the decision of that particular vote that was taken, because that would change completely the direction of this conversation that we're having at this point. I believe that it would be patently unfair if her vote were not recognized.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It didn't actually change anything because it was still 5-4. It was still a 5-to-4 vote: five yeas, four nays. It didn't affect the result of the vote. It just would have changed it to six yeas and four nays, from the five nays and four nays.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I still think it's important that it be recognized. As a matter of principle, I think it's important.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's a fair thing. As I mentioned, the clerk and I reviewed it. We received information that was incorrect. I have a note from the clerk to address it, but I was going to do it at the end, not in camera, but at the end of our discussion.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal