Government Operations committee  The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained, the chair's decision being that the subamendment is not in order? (Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 2)

Government Operations committee  The vote is on Mr. Sousa's amendment.

Government Operations committee  Let me be clear. This is not to withdraw the amendment. The vote is on Mr. Sousa's amendment to the main motion. It is five nays and five yeas.

Government Operations committee  My understanding is that the motion reads: That the committee send for all bank records related to the business of GC Strategies, where there is an intersection between GC Strategies, the Government of Canada, Coradix, Dalian and Botler; and that the documents be sent to the clerk of the committee by 12:00 p.m., on Monday, November 6, 2023.

Government Operations committee  Mr. Sousa, is there any possibility that your headset is muted?

Government Operations committee  Thank you, sir. Does that accurately capture it? (Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Government Operations committee  And the request for information as well, so I can clearly task the assignment to whomever. This will be going to both Coradix and Dalian.

Government Operations committee  Oh, it's going to GC, yes. Is there a chance of getting overlap of the same information from all three parties? I'm just curious.

Government Operations committee  With your permission, can I read both of them back? Excellent, because I'm definitely going to need some clarification. So, it's “That the committee send for copies of all task authorizations for the government...." I'm sorry; I really didn't get all of the wording there, but most importantly, it's that the documents be sent for from Coradix and Dalian.

Government Operations committee  That is very much appreciated, thank you, sir. The second order for production of documents is “That the committee send for a list of subcontractors used by Coradix, Dalian and GC Strategies for Government of Canada contracts for the previous 12 years”, so it's sending for documents from Dalian, Coradix and GC Strategies, “and the documents be provided to the clerk of the committee in 30 days following the adoption of this motion”.

Government Operations committee  That was “in 30 days following the adoption of this motion”. Did you wish to set a time, or do you want 11:59?

Government Operations committee  Sir, I do believe the word “either” might need to come out as well in order to make it make sense. If you'll just allow me, I'll read from “Friday, September 22”: “Friday, September 22, and that proper vetting was not done; that the chair of OGGO write to PROC to suggest that they create a subcommittee”, and it goes on from there with the language that has already been agreed to by the committee.

Government Operations committee  The vote is five yeas and five nays.

Government Operations committee  I'm just going to read it slowly, so that the interpreters, who don't have the text, can keep up with me: Given the international embarrassment created by the Speaker of the House of Commons by allowing a former soldier of a Nazi military unit in World War II to attend and be recognized during the President of Ukraine's special address to Parliament on Friday, September 22, and that proper vetting was either not done or this individual's military record was ignored, that the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates write to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to suggest that they hold hearings to look into this matter to ensure that there are safeguards in place so that this never happens again.

Government Operations committee  I would sincerely appreciate it if Mr. Johns could just reiterate it. I could give you what I have, but it is.... Mr. Johns moved that the chair of the OGGO committee write to the chair of the PROC committee to recommend that PROC study and alter their rules.... I would really appreciate some assistance filling in the blanks.