Evidence of meeting #130 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subcommittee.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, that's fine. I don't think it's as much about the motion as it is about the plan forward. Perhaps you can give us a couple of minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
If the bells start, I'll interrupt the suspension just so we get unanimous consent to continue.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We are back in.
Everyone, can I have a quick UC to continue until five minutes before the vote?
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Wonderful.
Anyway, we're back in and you've had a chance to read.
The idea is that we will continue next Wednesday, because we'll have the resources anyway. We'll end with Minister Anand, and then the subcommittee will start up to decide how it moves forward on this.
That's what I'm looking for agreement on right now. OGGO will adjourn, and then the subcommittee will start up. The idea of doing it on Wednesday, again, is that we'll have the resources and it's a lot easier to extend for half an hour. That subcommittee will then determine how to move forward. It will pick a chair for the subcommittee. Hopefully, it's not me. Don't vote for me. It will then move forward from there.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You should tell them, “If elected, I will not serve”.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
It's a subcommittee, which is okay.
What is the output of the half-hour this subcommittee is going to meet for? Is it whether or not we're going to do a study? What is the output? I don't care about the format.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I think the output is the subcommittee deciding how to go forward—choosing a chair, when it will meet and how to go forward.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I was going to say that we have to make the decision on whether the study will go forward first.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That is what we're doing right now. It is to determine that. Yes, we will create a subcommittee, and the subcommittee will go forward. The suggestion is to do it on Wednesday.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
The premise of this discussion is that we have agreed we are moving forward. Then let's see the subcommittee put in the plan. I don't think we are there yet.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I understood it to be a subcommittee planning opportunity. I have to find out from the regular member where they're at in terms of the direction of this. I think having a planning meeting to discuss the scope of the work for the committee moving forward is one thing. Doing that to decide the future of a vote, like a substantive motion, is another.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
My comment is that we have the motion that was adopted. I think the only decision we're talking about making is whether to have that meeting take place on Wednesday. In the absence of agreement to do that on Wednesday—because of the deadline in this motion and some other requirements—we would have to meet at a time when the House isn't in session. On Wednesday, people can say whatever they want.
My view is that there's important work to be done here, given what we've seen in the documents. I think the question we're asking is all about Wednesday—whether there's agreement or, because of other timelines, we're stuck showing up next week.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I'm trying to clarify.
Are we agreeing to move forward with this motion? What are we actually asking the subcommittee to do?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The motion has been adopted. The subcommittee decision has been adopted. That'll go forward.
I think the idea is to set the meeting and let the subcommittee decide.
June 17th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm sorry. I'm looking at the motion, Mr. Chair.
If you look at paragraph f), it says that the “committee members will conduct an analysis of the list”.
We haven't had a chance to conduct a full analysis of the list because the list is not complete.
This is important. It says, “and decide whether it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study of the matter, in committee or subcommittee”. The decision to move forward with the longitudinal study has not been made yet by committee or subcommittee. The decision has not been made yet by this committee whether to pursue the study or not. That decision is conditional on an analysis being made of the list—a list that is not complete yet.
What I would suggest is that we actually delay this matter until the list is completed, because that decision has not been made. What I would recommend is that....
I'm sorry. Go ahead, Majid.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
A voice
I'm sorry, sir. His hand was up first—Garnett's hand.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
When you read the opening paragraph and part (a), it's about setting up the subcommittee—and that has passed.