Evidence of meeting #3 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
I appreciate where Mr. Gerretsen is going with this. The challenge.... Again, as my colleague from the Bloc said, words are important. Up to two hours could mean 10 minutes, 15 minutes or whatever the minister's schedule determines on that day. I would like—and I hope that our friends across the way wouldn't have a problem with this—to have the minister here for up to two hours, with a minimum of an hour at least, for questioning.
Would I be moving a subamendment to Mr. Gerretsen's?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I would entertain that.
Instead of “up to”, it will be “between an hour and two hours”.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
It's because with 10 minutes in her schedule, she flies in and leaves. I think as a courtesy to the committee, it should be a minimum of an hour.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It would say, “between one and two hours”. Would that be satisfactory?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I just want to make a comment.
Mr. Therrien asked a question when there was a great deal of discussion. His question was specific and I want to make sure that he receives an answer.
He asked whether, when an amendment is presented to the committee, it must be received in writing. I want to make sure that he understood the answer, and that the answer comes from the clerk.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The answer is yes. It is appropriate to move an amendment from the floor. Once again, I know that's not ideal, but it is procedurally acceptable.
Is there any more debate on the subamendment?
11:20 a.m.
The Clerk
The subamendment is to add, after the word “for” and before the word “to”, the words “between one and two hours”. If adopted the new amendment would read, that the Minister of Public Services be invited to appear for between one and two hours at a subsequent meeting.
(Subamendment agreed to)
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Now we're back to the amendment as amended. The clerk just read out the amended version. We would be inviting the minister for between one and two hours at a subsequent meeting.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Just as a point of clarification, any time the minister comes to committee, typically it's for a two-hour period. How does that happen, again?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
There is no strict rule about that. Generally ministers are invited for a meeting, and a meeting is typically two hours. Oftentimes what you may have seen and what I have seen in the past is that a minister may present for one hour and then their departmental officials will present for the second hour, or other witnesses would be brought in just for efficiency's sake, but there's no strict rule on that.
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
Now we're on the main motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I think this motion is entirely appropriate. This committee should undertake this work.
As indicated by Ms. Duncan, currently there isn't a timeline for the completion of Centre Block. This number of 10 years is just something that has been put out there. There actually isn't a timeline. As she also mentioned, there isn't even a budget, so at least at this point, there really is little of what would appear to be fiscal oversight of this project.
Also, as Ms. Duncan indicated, the Senate has been having regular meetings, briefings and updates with respect to Centre Block. Therefore, in the interest of all parliamentarians, it is incumbent upon this committee to get itself involved, at least to the same degree that the Senate is.
I suggest that it would also be appropriate for members of this committee to go on a tour of the work, if that can be arranged through the House administration, to get a view of exactly what's going on in there.
Madam Chair, I'm sure that is something you could arrange. I will leave that with you, but it would be good for this committee to do that.
February 6th, 2020 / 11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I just want to add to the comments my colleagues have made and Ms. Duncan's motion here, which I think is very appropriate.
In reviewing the materials early on, I saw in the 42nd Parliament that the PROC committee, in its 99th report, indicated that this committee should pick up where the last PROC committee left off. It recommended that this committee begin to have some oversight and hopefully some input into the Centre Block revitalization project.
We're building this for 100 years into the future, at least, and MPs should have input. We've heard that senators are getting briefings and having input. It's important that, as MPs, we all have a voice in this important work.
