Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 6th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll talk to the clerk about it as well, but generally when a minister is invited, from my experience on this committee, the questioning would have to be relevant to the subject they're brought in on. It's usually with the estimates, where there's an array of different subjects, that you might be able to have that larger scope for questions, but generally, if they're brought in on a certain motion they would have to stay within the relevance of that motion. You could correct me if I'm wrong.

Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I was going to affirm your position, Madam Chair, that generally when ministers come...and I think Mr. Richards has been very clear on what his motion would say. When you look at the minister, she's the landlord of the parliamentary precinct and all the work that goes on, so I think it is incumbent upon us to ask her about what is, effectively, a multi-billion dollar project that affects multiple buildings around the parliamentary precinct. I think it's well within her prerogative.

If any of the line of questioning does get out of hand or out of order, then you have the prerogative, as chair, with the guidance of the clerk, to rule them out of order. I don't think there's anything inappropriate. I think it's well within reason to have the minister come and talk about this project, as the landlord of the property.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Before we vote, can you reread that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We have one more speaker.

Monsieur Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

Good morning everyone. I find that it makes sense and that it's clearly useful. However, I would like some information. It says here “invite officials,” but do you know who they are? Will we make a list? How many of them will come and how long will they be here? I know that we're talking about the amendment, but I wanted this information first. Regarding the amendment from our Conservative colleagues, they said that they wanted the minister to appear for two hours, but that if he came for only one hour, that may still be sufficient.

Can the amendment state that we're open to the possibility that it's only an hour? Do we set a firm time frame of two hours and, to avoid keeping the minister here unnecessarily, let him leave after one hour if we feel that we've covered all the issues? If we put two hours, do we need to keep him here for two hours? Do we determine whether he needs to be here or, on the contrary, he no longer needs to be here because we've covered all the issues?

Lastly, at the risk of wearing you out, I want to make one final point. The amendment has been tabled, but I don't have it in paper form. You told me that this was normal. Should I consider it normal to not receive a paper version, in both official languages, of the amendments tabled? Should I mourn them? The people in the government are telling me that this is normal. I just want your opinion on that. If you tell me that it's normal and that I must get used to it, I'll never bother you about it again. We can get used to anything. I've been married twice, which means that I can get used to anything.

I just want to hear the chair's response to this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Monsieur Therrien, I agree that we should definitely get into deciding the list of officials and witnesses who would be on this study, but first I think it would be appropriate if we dealt with the amendment at hand. The wording we could use for the amendment is that we would be inviting the minister to the meeting, which is generally a two-hour meeting anyway. All of our meetings are two hours.

Would you like, specifically, for it to state “two hours”? Is having “to the meeting” not okay?

[An hon. member]

How about “up to two hours”?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

No, I'm indicating that we invite her for a two-hour meeting.

Of course, if we run out of questions and we don't have questions, then she won't have to stay for two hours, because the meeting will be over. I don't know why we need to specify that. It would be fairly self-evident that if there were no more questions, the meeting would then end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, so your amendment specifically states a “two-hour meeting”.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, I think it should be two hours. This is a pretty significant project. It's a project that the minister is responsible for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I agree. It's just that meetings are two hours, so I thought what you want....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

There would be a lot of questions, a lot of answers. I'm indicating that we would have the officials here for a meeting. We would then have the minister here for another meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

As a point of clarification, the amendment was to invite the minister and staff to a subsequent meeting. Is that right? That's “minister and her staff”.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I didn't indicate anyone else. If she wants to bring her staff, she's welcome to.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay.

Anyway, it's the minister for a subsequent meeting. Is that right?

[An hon. member]

This is the benefit of having it—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Written down, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Let's hold on. I don't think I've even been able to completely answer Mr. Therrien's question.

Once we pass or reject the amendment, then we'll move to the main motion.

If it is the desire of the committee to have this study, then at that time the committee as a whole—since we haven't really decided how we're going to proceed with steering committees—will then decide the witness list, and hopefully at this meeting today.

The clerk is going to read the motion, and then we'll continue with the list.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

The amendment reads—and it's to come after the text that's already on your paper—that the Minister of Public Services be invited to appear at a subsequent meeting. That's the current wording of the amendment that's on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, it's “at a subsequent meeting”.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

What I had indicated earlier was that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement be invited to appear “for two hours” at a subsequent meeting.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

See? This is the benefit of writing it down.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Do you want me to read it a little slower? Will that help you?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No, I don't. I also don't need the condescending tone, with all due respect, Mr. Richards.