Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are resuming our meeting.

Thank you for that quick conversation.

I would say, as was mentioned, that I'm calling the question on the amendment by Mr. Bittle to remove (a).

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The yeas have it. The (a) has been removed from the motion.

Go ahead, Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I will remove myself from the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Now we get to back to the main motion as amended.

I have a list that I will be continuing with. I will let you know who's on that list.

Back to before the amendment came, my list had Mr. Duguid, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Duncan, Madam Goodridge and Monsieur Lauzon. I'm going to remove.... I'm going to keep them just in case they come back. I will do that for now.

The floor is Mr. Duguid's on the main motion as amended twice.

Mr. Duguid, you have the floor.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Chair, I will stand down and put my name on the list after everyone has spoken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Are you asking me to add your name to the bottom of this list?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's done.

Mr. Duncan, go ahead.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I will cede my time and go to the bottom of the list, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you want to go right now to the bottom of the list?

I have Monsieur Lauzon followed by Ms. Sahota, Mr. Duguid and Mr. Duncan.

Go ahead, Monsieur Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Chair, we are back to the main motion.

We are talking about the main motion. If I understand correctly, after votes were held, points (a) and (b) were removed.

I would like to speak briefly to point (c), which refers to the analysts and the clerk. In fact, it directs the clerk to prepare, within three weeks, “a report on all undertakings given by witnesses who have appeared during these studies and the status of those undertakings, other than the undertakings referred to in paragraph (b)”. Given that point (b) has been removed, point (c) no longer serves any purpose. Everyone understands that. Because point (b) is referred to in point (c), point (c) no longer serves any purpose. My colleagues will have an opportunity to talk about this shortly, but I believe that our view of things is the same.

Point (d) is to “direct the clerk to contact any witness who has not completely satisfied any undertaking referred to”. It refers to point (a). It asks the clerk to contact all witnesses who agreed to provide the committee with relevant information, but point (a) has been removed.

Here again, in point (d), the clerk cannot be directed to contact witnesses, since point (a) has been removed. In my opinion, point (d) is now null and void. If no change is made to point (d), it no longer serves any purpose. It therefore cannot ask for documents to be produced, since that point has been removed.

Mr. Clerk, does what I am saying make sense? Should point (d) be removed, as point (c) has been, because of point (a)?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

I think point (d) refers to point (c), so it is complete as it is.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

They go together, do they not?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I think it is obvious that it should be removed.

[The Clerk]

I do not see any reason to remove point (d).

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The way the clerk is interpreting it is that one is about preparing the report and one is about contacting the people in the report. The two are able to be connected, because if you prepare the report, it would be nice to contact the people.

He's seeing them as two different things. They are two different items.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

One is preparing the report and one is contacting the people who are in the report.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Now it's clear to me. I don't have any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's excellent. Thank you.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

The clerk just stated that it's referring to (b), so it's no longer....

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Paragraph (c) is no longer.... It's with the (a). However, with the (d) we should.... It's not related.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay, (d) is not related.