Evidence of meeting #77 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.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Now that we've removed the pseudo-motion that combined two things, I'd now like to make a motion to adjourn the debate, please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you. I realize that was the original intent, but, procedure being procedure, we had to follow that, so thank you.
We'll go to a quick vote on adjourning the debate on Mrs. Kusie's motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you for your patience, colleagues. The motion to adjourn debate is carried.
We're going to start a new speaking list.
Mr. Genuis, did you have your hand up?
Conservative
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I think we all want the same thing here. We want accountability for what happened and to make sure it never happens again. This is important to every member at this committee. It's absolutely critical. I think Mrs. Vignola was going along that thread, absolutely.
What we want is to make sure this goes to the right place. It's really clear that according to PROC's mandate, it studies and reports—
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much.
Just on a point of clarification, if a motion to adjourn the debate has passed, is it your intention that we continue on with the debate, as it appears Mr. Johns is doing?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
No. The debate is adjourned. We opened the floor for speaking order. My assumption was that we were going to go to motions, but Mr. Johns is addressing something else. Perhaps he is following up on Mrs. Vignola's suggestion that we write to PROC about this, if I'm guessing right.
I'll let Mr. Johns continue.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Absolutely, that's exactly where I want to go, in the spirit of what Mrs. Kusie has brought here today.
What this committee wants—what everybody wants—is to make sure that this is looked at, that it's done properly and that there's accountability. We'll find out what happened, what went wrong, where the gaps are and how to fix them so this never ever happens again. We need to make sure it lands at PROC. That is the role of PROC. The whole role of PROC is to ensure that the internal administration of the House—services and facilities for MPs—is run with proper rules and practices that protect the House and the members so something terrible and shameful like this never happens again.
I move that we write a letter to PROC asking them to do a study on this.
I don't think we should determine for PROC whom they should invite and how many meetings they should have. However, we want this to be their top priority. We know they're undertaking a lot of really difficult studies. It is a challenging job. They have as many as this committee. We have eight studies going on here as well. I want to make sure that we get this to PROC and that we write in the letter that this is an absolute priority of this committee and that we ask PROC to take this on and study this urgently.
This is what I would be calling for: “Given the international embarrassment created by the Speaker of the House of Commons by allowing a former soldier of a Nazi military unit in World War II to attend and be recognized during the President of Ukraine's special address to Parliament on Friday, September 22, and that proper vetting was either not done or this individual's military record was ignored, that the PROC committee hold hearings to look into this matter and that the PROC committee hear witnesses to ensure that this never happens again and that they update their rules and regulations when it comes to vetting of guests attending a visitation by any foreign dignitary.”
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I apologize, but I missed a bit of what you were saying.
Just to be clear, we cannot direct; we can only suggest to other committees. I missed the verb in what you were—
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Yes. In the preamble, I would say that we recommend to PROC to do the rest of what I outlined, which is very similar to what Mrs. Kusie put forward. We're talking about a few words.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order before I speak, can I ask the clerk to read out the motion as she understands it so that we're sure we're debating the same thing?
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Aimée Belmore
I would sincerely appreciate it if Mr. Johns could just reiterate it. I could give you what I have, but it is....
Mr. Johns moved that the chair of the OGGO committee write to the chair of the PROC committee to recommend that PROC study and alter their rules....
I would really appreciate some assistance filling in the blanks.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
The only changes I would make to Mrs. Kusie's motion would be that in the preamble we would be writing to PROC and recommending that PROC.... We'll keep the first part, but I would cross out “the Liberal Government” and put “the Speaker of the House of Commons”, because it was the Speaker. Then for the rest, I would continue on as is stated in Mrs. Kusie's motion. I can read it if you'd like.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Unfortunately, we adjourned debate on that motion, so you can't....
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
This is writing a letter, so this is a different motion. It's not on this motion. It's drafting a letter to PROC, so it's different from the motion, which is to have a study here. It is very different. It's writing a letter recommending that PROC consider doing a study, given the international embarrassment. For the rest we could use.... I would take out only a couple of lines, different from what Ms. Kusie put forward in her preamble, in terms of the recommendations around the letter. I can't see it being.... It's very different from what was put forward in terms of the motion before, which was to do a study. This is a motion to write a letter to another committee, which should be allowable.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Johns has the floor and he has a right to move a motion, but it does seem that there's some uncertainty about the text of the motion. I don't want us to delay for a lot of time, but I might suggest a five-minute recess so that we can actually have the text and know what we're debating.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay. Would you mind if we suspend for five minutes?
We're suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, we are back.
Mr. Johns, please start again. You have the floor. Go ahead, please.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thank you for your patience, everybody. I really like seeing that we're trying to work together to get through this.
I move this motion:
Given the international embarrassment created by the Speaker of the House of Commons by allowing a former soldier of a Nazi military unit in World War II to attend and be recognized during the President of Ukraine's special address to Parliament on Friday, September 22, and that proper vetting was either not done or this individual's military record was ignored, that the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates write to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to suggest that they hold hearings to look into this matter to ensure that there are safeguards in place so that this never happens again.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Did everyone hear that? Do you have the wording?
Yes, Mr. Genuis.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm sorry. I have a point of order. I don't require it if we don't have enough time, but can it be distributed in writing? Is it available?