Science and Research Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'd be pleased to do that. It's that the future meetings be split between pay equity and Beijing interference, with Beijing interference taking the first hour of each meeting.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

If I could, on that point, we're making a lot of concessions here to what the anticipated calendar was supposed to be for this committee. I certainly respect the right of the members opposite to put the motion that they've put today, but I think it's important to understand where we are, in terms of process, in what the committee has already decided, so just based on Mr. Lobb's last subamendment, I would again reiterate that my position is that we dedicate the first hour to pay equity. We'll start with that, and I have other amendments to put to the other amendments and to the main motion at a later time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We'll have to deal with this first and then take another amendment.

If we can get these amendments in writing so that the clerk has them, it would be appreciated.

Mr. Lobb, if you have that subamendment in writing....

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Sure.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Just for ease of use, could we ask the analysts to quickly type that up? They have their Surface Pros open and they're able to print. It probably would be the most efficient way, if that's acceptable to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Actually, it's on the clerk, but I'm just trying to get.... Because we are doing this on the fly....

We started with a motion that we did have a notice of motion for. Therefore, it is in order to discuss it, because we did have 48 hours' notice. Now we are going to the amendments to that motion. Those amendments we don't have in writing yet.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes so that the clerk can get up to speed with what we just read into the record. We'll make sure that we have those in writing.

We'll get back together at quarter after 12.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I'll call us back to order.

We're still waiting for the written translation to come back, which we submitted mid-meeting. The services are trying to keep up. In the meantime, I'll read the amendment and the subamendment into the record—I have them in writing in front of me—and then we can go back to the debate on the subamendment.

The amendment that we have that we've submitted to translation reads:

that the committee allocate a minimum of six full meetings to this study; that the committee begin the study on June 20;

The subamendment says:

the committee split the meetings for this study with the study of Long-term Impacts of Pay Gaps Experienced by Different Genders and Equity-seeking Groups Among Faculty at Canadian Universities, with this study being dedicated in the first hour

That's what I have in writing in front of me now. We've kind of sorted through the clouds.

Go ahead, Mr. Collins.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to start with.... We have a little bit of a trust issue with what happened here today. I certainly understand the jockeying in terms of whose study is first on the agenda for whatever day we're talking about. I just used this morning's meeting as an example. I think it's the first time it's happened here at this committee. It certainly has happened elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's not unique to this place, but it is unique at our committee. I'm having a little bit of an issue with what's been presented, knowing that that hasn't happened on this side of the table. I think this committee has worked very well through all studies. I think we've done a fairly good job in terms of respecting the order of studies, the length of studies, even the debate. I don't think the debate, at any point in time, has necessitated the chair's intervening and calling some order to the meeting.

I understand the motivation behind the amendment that's been moved. However, I think that if we look at the history of where this committee has been with decorum, if you want to call it that, we will see that we've been in a good place almost from our inception. That's why I'm feeling some consternation in terms of moving ahead with the first hour for the other study and the second hour for our study, knowing what transpired here today.

I also feel like moving a motion that we apologize to the witnesses who were supposed to appear today. I think one of the witnesses travelled almost halfway across the country to be here today. While I can certainly reach out with my own personal communication and send my messages to them, what happened here this morning, again, is not unique to this place, unfortunately, as I've learned in my year and a half here. It's unfortunate.

That's what's causing me some consternation, and that's why I was going to move an amendment to the subamendment that ours continue with having some precedence on the order of the agenda, in light of the fact that we already have our study on the books.

Today's motion is certainly trying to take priority, I think, in the study order. This isn't the normal course of business that we're accustomed to. With the precedent that was set today and with some of the actions that were taken to interfere with the ongoing study, I have great trouble supporting what's been put in front of the committee right now.

I don't know, formally, from a procedural perspective.... I can turn to you or the clerk, Mr. Chair, to understand whether, if we'd like to see something different from what's been presented, we defeat that and in lieu of that then create a motion, or do I subamend the amendment that's already been put to the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We're not able to subamend the subamendment. We would have to defeat the subamendment and then introduce a new subamendment.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you very much.

Those are my comments on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Mr. Tochor is next.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Just for clarification, my colleague Gerald could amend the motion. That's still allowed.

I'll defer to the clerk for an explanation on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Let's have the clerk give us the technical explanation.

[The Clerk]

Just one moment.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

As she prepares that, Chad, we can find ways....

[The Clerk]

I apologize; I did make a mistake. We do need to defeat this first in order to move another subamendment on this. We cannot amend the subamendment at the....

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I would propose that we approve it and then amend the motion after it's passed. That would get us to the same spot. The amended motion would help Mr. Collins—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Once you've approved the subamendment, it's approved. You can't go back and defeat it again. It would have to be—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

We're not defeating it. We're just amending it. Following the vote, we'll put the motion forward.

We'll even allow.... If Chad moves a motion that satisfies his caucus so that there's not going to be any filibustering and games in future meetings, we'll vote for that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I'll wait for the clerk to weigh in on that.

My understanding is that once a subamendment is on the floor, it has to be dealt with. The committee could accept the subamendment or could reject the subamendment. If the committee rejects the subamendment, knowing that another one is coming—or it could be withdrawn—then you could—

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I just confirmed that if it does pass, you can amend. It will then become one amendment and you can amend it further. You can have a new subamendment, if it passes.

Either way, the question needs to be put—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Okay, we still have the main motion that could be amended.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Then you have the second—

[The Clerk]

Another option is that with unanimous consent, you can withdraw the subamendment and move another.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Go ahead, Mr. Tochor.