Evidence of meeting #60 for National Defence in the 39th 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.
Conservative
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Let the record show, Mr. Chair, that all the opposition members voted against the government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
That's fair.
Okay. That was the subamendment, and it has been defeated.
The amendment indicates that “and others” appear after the word “Alternatives” and that “in one meeting” appear after “to appear”. So it would state “the Centre for Policy Alternatives and others to appear in one meeting”.
This is a vote on the amendment.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
No, no, no, that's not the question.
Ms. Black, if this amendment is agreed to, the motion would be changed to read, after “the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives”, “and others to appear in one meeting” before completing our procurement report. So the clerk will call the roll on that amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Okay. The amendment is defeated. Now, to deal with the main motion:
That the Committee invite Colonel (Retired) Michel Drapeau, and representatives of EADS, the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives to appear before completing its report on procurement.
Conservative
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I want to voice my concern over this being a precedent for our future business. Once we complete a study, as we have in this case, and then we reopen it because somebody has surfaced from the woodwork and wants to add their opinion, we'll never have our studies completed.
I look back to Afghanistan, and we were in the same situation. Groups decided they had something to say after we had completed seeing witnesses. What they did in that situation was to give written submissions.
So in the interest of time and expense, why don't we agree to accept submissions from these groups that Mr. Coderre has mentioned, and if there are an equal number of groups that Mr. Hiebert would want to accept submissions from, we'd take that tack.
Let's discuss that first, and then I'll comment later if that does not meet people's requirements.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Cheryl's comment is that we don't really need a meeting, that the submissions be written.
I have Mr. Coderre on the list here.
Conservative
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
One more thing, then, Mr. Chairman. If there's no discussion on the proposal to accept a written submission, I would ask for an amendment to limit the extension of our procurement study to one more meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
We've kind of dealt with that. “One meeting” was part of one of the subamendments and it was defeated, so I don't think we can revisit that.
Any other comment?
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
So is this going forth? I'm simply trying to clarify.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
The motion we're dealing with is as it appears, as it was presented. The subamendment and the amendment have been defeated and recorded, and now we're dealing with the main motion.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Then I would like to propose an amendment that we do accept other written submissions—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Would that come right after “procurement”, to say “and written submissions from other groups”?
Conservative
