Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 141
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2020-08-17 10:52
Expand
I hope we can go to a vote, because our time is getting low here.
Madam Clerk, would you please proceed to a recorded vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2020-08-17 10:58
Expand
I still see hands up for Mr. Harris and Mr. Bergeron, but that may be from their previous...? Yes. Remember to take those hands down once you're done, if you don't mind. I thought they expired automatically, but apparently not.
I'll ask the clerk, then, to proceed to the recorded vote on the motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11, nays 0)
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2020-08-17 11:10
Expand
I think we'd better try to be on time.
Madam Clerk, please proceed.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Harris, you have a motion, I believe.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2020-08-17 11:16
Expand
Thank you very much.
Madam Clerk, please proceed to the recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Collapse
View Sherry Romanado Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you. It's “exposure notification application”.
I will now turn it over to the clerk for the recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Sherry Romanado Profile
Lib. (QC)
I believe we have to dispose of the original motion, so I'm going to turn to the clerk to call the recorded division on the original motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: With that, Mr. Patzer, I will turn the floor back over to you for your questions.
Collapse
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you.
Angela, I'll ask you to convene a recorded vote on the motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
The Chair: We have one final motion, and it's about posting documents to the website. I will read it into the record:
That all documents requested in the orders adopted by the committee on Friday, May 29, and Friday, June 19, 2020, be posted on the committee’s web page as soon as possible after they are received.
I believe you have received that in French as well.
Collapse
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Sure. I'll read it again for you, Francis.
That all documents requested in the orders adopted by the committee on Friday, May 29, and Friday, June 19, 2020, be posted on the committee’s web page as soon as possible after they are received.
I would ask Angela to conduct the vote on that motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
The Chair: Colleagues, the last point is to remind you that at our next meeting, which is a week from today, next Thursday, we will have the President of the Treasury Board and his officials for two hours. Originally, as some of you may recall, we had the Treasury Board Secretariat president and officials scheduled for today. As I mentioned at the outset of this meeting, the president was unavailable, and rather than have only officials without the president's appearance, I made an arbitrary decision to call the Treasury Board next week, because that's when he said he would be available.
This means, however, that we will have to reschedule a meeting time for PSPC officials to appear on the subject of WE Charity. I will not deal with that now. We'll wait and take a few minutes at the end of next Thursday's meeting to decide whether or not this committee wishes PSPC to appear at a later date, and what that date may be.
With that, colleagues, seeing no other interventions and no other hands raised, I wish you all a good week—
Collapse
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
2020-08-12 13:25
Expand
Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.
The debate is still open. If there are no other speakers and if you are in agreement, we will proceed to vote on the amendment moved by Mrs. Lalonde.
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6.)
The Chair: We are back to the original motion.
I briefly saw three hands raised, Ms. Lattanzio, Ms. Lambropoulos, and Mr. Godin.
Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.
Collapse
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
2020-08-12 13:41
Expand
Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.
The debate is still open. There's no one on the list.
Are there any further comments?
Hearing none, meaning that we don't want to debate it any more, Madam Clerk, please proceed with the recorded division on this amendment, as tabled by Ms. Lattanzio.
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6)
Collapse
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
2020-08-12 14:10
Expand
Depending on how things unfold, the subcommittee may meet to set the committee's meeting schedule.
Are there any further comments about the amendment put forward by Mr. Deltell?
So we are ready to vote on this amendment, as put forward by Mr. Deltell.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11, nays 0)
Collapse
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
2020-08-12 14:20
Expand
Exactly. What he just read reflects our whole discussion.
If there are no further comments on the motion as amended, we will go to the vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2020-08-06 15:22
Expand
All right, I'll call upon the clerk to proceed to a recorded vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2020-08-06 16:50
Expand
I'll ask the clerk to proceed with a recorded vote on Mr. Oliphant's motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I think it's time for me to thank our witness, Dr. Sangay. I know that all members have appreciated having you here. We're very honoured to have you, and especially to have you at what is now well after midnight. It's been very gracious of you to be with us at such a late hour and to give us so much of your time.
Thank you so much.
Collapse
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2020-07-29 13:20
Expand
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I won't rehash what's been said around the table, but I agree with just about all of it.
It's understandable to want to achieve an effective motion that can be adhered to, while ensuring it's based on common sense, in other words, a motion that doesn't require people to investigate their families.
I have a simple amendment. I propose wording the last paragraph in a way that's similar to the first.
Where it says, “the letter should require that all Members of Cabinet disclose whether they, their families or their relatives”, I would remove the words “whether they, their families or their relatives” and add “to the best of their knowledge”.
The motion would therefore require members to disclose whether, to the best of their knowledge, their immediate family members have connections to WE.
The honourable member opposite, Mr. Drouin, brought up the possible challenge around defining what constitutes a connection. I don't think we should become too obsessive about this.
Here's the question I would ask myself. If I were a member of cabinet, how would I respond? If I were asked whether every person in my family and everyone I knew, including my friends, had connections to WE, I would find that onerous. Mr. Fergus explained it well. It can be complicated to find out whether the neighbour you go out for beers with once every couple of weeks has a family member with connections to WE.
It's not about asking people to investigate their neighbours or family members. However, if I were asked whether, to the best of my knowledge, members of my family or my friends had connections to WE, and if I knew that my sister or nephew had worked for WE, I would say yes. If I knew that that person had been involved in a cocktail fundraiser, a speaking event or anything else, I would say yes. Keep in mind, I wouldn't even have to ask my sister whether she had connections to WE, because the information would be “to the best of my knowledge”.
Although I understand the concerns raised and I recognize that they are, indeed, legitimate, I think we could quell them by asking members whether, to the best of their knowledge, members of their immediate family have connections to WE.
That's the amendment I propose, Madam Chair.
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-29 13:44
Expand
Yes, I'll allow the clerk to conduct that.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)
The Chair: Moving back to the motion, currently on my speaking list I have Mr. Barrett, Mr. Fergus, Ms. Shanahan and Mr. Kurek. Ideally we should be able to bring this to a vote within 10 minutes. I leave it to the committee.
Mr. Barrett.
Collapse
Caroline Bosc
View Caroline Bosc Profile
Caroline Bosc
2020-07-27 16:15
Expand
Perfect. That's just to be clear for the record.
Let's go to the vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-23 16:59
Expand
You may. I will ask the clerk to do that at this time.
The vote is tied, with five voting yes and five voting no. As chair, I vote no.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-23 17:02
Expand
Again we have a tie, with five voting yes and five voting no. As the chair, I vote yes.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-23 17:25
Expand
You may.
The committee has voted, and it is once again a tie, with five voting yes and five voting no. The chair votes no.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-23 17:26
Expand
You'll recall that this is the motion as amended. I will now give it to the clerk to take a recorded vote at this time.
The vote is five for and five against. As the chair, I vote yes.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]))
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-23 18:24
Expand
Mr. Barrett, I'm so glad you asked.
Perhaps I'll take this opportunity to clarify for the committee, as I just confirmed with the clerk, that should the motion as it reads here, which we are going to vote on, be successful, should it pass, it will be for this study. It does not set a precedent or a way of being for this committee for every single study. It is just for this study, according to the motion passed yesterday. That's just to clarify.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
I see no other hands being raised.
Paul, please conduct the recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Collapse
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes, please go ahead, Paul.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
The Chair: Colleagues, we will be getting back to you, and hopefully, giving you as much advance notice as possible. I will give the final word to our clerk.
Collapse
Jean-Marie David
View Jean-Marie David Profile
Jean-Marie David
2020-07-23 11:09
Expand
Yes. I'll try to do that quickly.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-22 17:55
Expand
I will call the committee back to order.
I find myself in an interesting situation where I'm expected to break the tie. As the chair of this committee, I have reviewed the documents in front of me, including our procedure book and the expectations that are outlined there. I've also conferred with the clerk, and I have come to a decision.
As the chair of the committee, it is expected of me to break the tie one way or the other; of course, it cannot be sustained as a tie. I am not expected by the green book to give a reason for my decision; however, I will provide you with a reason here today.
In the mandate set out for this committee, towards the end of the mandate, it says this:
In cooperation with other standing committees, the Committee also reviews any bill, federal regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon its main areas of responsibility: access to information, privacy and the ethical standards of public office holders. It may also propose initiatives in these areas and promote, monitor and assess such initiatives.
There's an important distinction here in terms of the mandate of this committee. Yes, it will review bills and reports that are brought forward by the four officers of Parliament; however, it may also “propose”, which is to say create a new study or initiative in these areas, and “promote, monitor and assess such initiatives”, which would tell me that this committee does, in fact, serve as a body to promote, monitor and assess the activities that take place by office-holders within this place called Parliament.
That said, it is for sure within the purview of this committee to monitor and assess the actions of those on Parliament Hill. The Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Justin Trudeau, is one such office-holder. It is definitely within the purview of this committee to have him come here and testify.
The amendment that has been put forward requests that. The amendment that has been put forward requests that a list of speakers be made available to the clerk, then to this committee and to the Ethics Commissioner.
My question, as the chair of this committee, is whether it is in the public's best interest that this take place. Ultimately, this committee is responsible to assess the actions and take on other studies having to do with public office holders and their conduct. We do that not for our own sake, but for the sake of the Canadian public.
In this case, we are looking at over $900 million that was committed to by the Prime Minister of this country and his cabinet, and that money was to be given to an organization to run a youth volunteer program. That $900 million is public funds; that is taxpayer money from the Canadian people. Therefore, I would surmise that the Canadian public does, in fact, have an interest in how that money was utilized.
It has been suggested by some members of this committee that some of that money—not money that was incorporated in that $900 million, but in previous interactions with WE Charity—was also public money that may have been used to fund the members who are on the speakers list that has been requested. Again, because that is public money, it is, in fact, in the interest of the Canadian public to understand how that money was used.
That said, I will make my decision in the interest of Canadians from coast to coast, and I believe that what is in their best interest is full transparency. I vote yea.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-22 18:59
Expand
I call the committee back.
Having determined that the motion is within the purview of this committee and that it is in the best interests of the Canadian public for there to be transparency around this matter, I vote yea.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Collapse
View Ken McDonald Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Ken McDonald Profile
2020-07-21 16:47
Expand
Go ahead, Nancy.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to conduct the roll call vote. The vote is on the amendment as moved by Mr. Fisher.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The vote carries.
The discussion now carries on with Mr. Jeneroux's motion as amended. Is there any further discussion on this motion?
I'll ask one more time: Is there any further discussion on the main motion as amended? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to conduct a vote. The vote is on Mr. Jeneroux's motion as amended.
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you.
Are we clear now on the motion before us, as amended?
Seeing no hands, we'll carry on with the vote. Madam Clerk, please go ahead.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Okay. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on Mr. Kelloway's amendment?
Seeing none, we will go to the vote.
The vote is on Mr. Kelloway's amendment, which is to remove “emails” from the list of documents to be returned, and make appropriate grammatical adjustments in doing so.
Madam Clerk, please conduct the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
The amendment to Mr. Jeneroux's motion as previously amended is to incorporate the ATIP information as we did in the last motion. Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Ms. Jansen.
Is there any further discussion on Ms. Sidhu's amendment?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Collapse
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2020-07-17 14:56
Expand
Yes, we can do a recorded vote, absolutely.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The committee has spoken. The meeting is adjourned.
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you.
Is there any further debate? I'm seeing none, so we will call a vote on Ms. Kwan's subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now moving on to the amendment to the motion as amended, with the email changes. The amendment proposes to enable vetting according to the language proposed by Ms. Kwan.
Is there any further debate on this? The debate is on the amendment now on the floor.
Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Okay. No worries.
The ATIP language is no longer on the table. We are voting on the amendment to vet the documents according to the language proposed by Ms. Kwan, which is to have the law clerk do the redactions as necessary.
Is there any further debate? Seeing none, we will conduct the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on the main motion, Mr. Jeneroux's motion, as twice amended now.
Is there any further debate?
Mr. Kelloway, I see that you have your hand up. Please go ahead.
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
All right. I hope we're clear now.
Is there any discussion at this point? I'm seeing none, so let us vote on Mr. Van Bynen's subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Kelloway's amendment, as amended, is now that “the Prime Minister's office” be dropped from the original motion, as previously amended.
Is there any discussion on Mr. Kelloway's amendment as amended by Mr. Van Bynen? I'm seeing none, so we'll call the question on Mr. Kelloway's amendment as amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you.
Madam Clerk, please go ahead with the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will go now to Mr. Jeneroux's motion as previously amended. The discussion is now on Mr. Jeneroux's motion as previously amended.
Mr. Fisher, I see your hand up.
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
All right. We have a subamendment to Mr. Fisher's amendment. Mr. Fisher's amendment was to move the date in relation to the national stockpile to 2010, and Mr. Kitchen has modified that to 2005.
Is there any debate on Dr. Kitchen's subamendment?
I'm not seeing anybody's hand go up. Seeing none, I'll call the vote on that.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Okay, thank you.
Is there any further debate on Mr. Fisher's amendment as further amended by Dr. Kitchen?
Seeing none, I will call the question.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you. I think that is the motion. Does anybody have any problem with that clarification? That is the motion before us.
On that basis we will conduct a vote on Dr. Jaczek's amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're back to the main motion, as amended many times.
Is there any further debate or discussion on the motion by Mr. Jeneroux as amended?
Ms. Jansen, please go ahead.
Collapse
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Well, there was a subsequent amendment to deal with removing the health department from the main motion, and that was not passed.
Is there any further discussion on Mr. Jeneroux's main motion as amended?
Seeing none, Madam Clerk, would you please call the vote on Mr. Jeneroux's motion as so vigorously amended. Thank you.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much, Mrs. Block.
If everyone has heard that motion, in just a moment I will ask for a recorded vote on that motion, but before I do that, we've heard suggestions from several committee members, including commentary by yours truly, that delaying the first meeting until sometime in the early part of August might be a more prudent approach because of holidays, but also because of the finance committee's study, which will be close to completion by the first week in August. If you are all in agreement, and I will only make this suggestion if you are in agreement, if you give the ability to the chair to call the next meeting when I believe it is appropriate, and if you also have any particular suggestions as to dates to avoid and you could allow those comments to be funnelled through the clerk, we'll try to then come up with a schedule of next meetings.
Do I see some nods of agreement there?
I see some thumbs-up by a few people.
In that case, the next meeting will be at the call of the chair, but do not expect the next meeting to be called before the early part of August and perhaps even after August 8, which is the deadline for the finance committee to have completed its study. It will certainly be in the early part of August. In the interim, if you have dates that you wish to avoid, which are in conflict with your own personal schedules, please get your available dates in August as quickly as possible to our clerk, and then the clerk and I will try to establish a meeting schedule.
Lastly colleagues, start thinking about additions to the ministers who will be asked to appear on the motion of Mrs. Block. If you have other witnesses, non-ministerial witnesses, that you think would be helpful to provide testimony to this committee, start assembling that witness list and at your earliest opportunity I would suggest you start getting those names to our clerk as well.
Our regular clerk Paul will be back on the 20th of this month, and I believe that's it for his holiday session. I think he's going to be around for the rest of the summer.
We thank Michel for pinch-hitting for this particular meeting, but we should be able to proceed hopefully without undue delay, once we get into the meeting schedule itself sometime in early August.
With that, unless there's any other commentary, as per the rules established by the House, I will ask the clerk to proceed with a nominal vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2020-07-07 15:21
Expand
I don't see any other hands up or any other points being raised. Could we go to the vote, Madam Clerk?
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you. We'll now turn to the motion by Mr. Poilievre.
Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2020-07-07 15:31
Expand
Okay. No to the two-meeting proposal.
Are we ready for the question, then? I don't believe Mr. Fraser is back.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)
The Chair: We will have to go to the other meeting, but could I have some idea, Pierre, when we should try to start these meetings?
Collapse
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
On the topic of virtual voting, during the discussions of virtual voting we seem to be going down two paths. Do we do this through an app-based application or do we do it through some kind of visual process, like on Zoom?
I want to understand. The way we do it in the House of Commons when we have a standing vote, which takes eight minutes, is that we go down rows. The Speaker and the Clerk's staff can see ahead of time who's coming up next, who might be absent, who might not.
Have you even thought of how you would practically implement that system on a platform like Zoom where you have 17 or 18 pages of thumbnail pictures and you wouldn't necessarily have everybody lined up the way that it has to go? Has that been a consideration? Have you thought about that much, Mr. Aubé or Mr. Speaker?
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's certainly been a discussion at the table when we are talking about different options and how we will handle that. I think we're capable of it but it would certainly take a little bit longer.
Collapse
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
I appreciate that.
I'll switch to electronic voting for the roll call voting. You've mentioned the extended on-camera presence that would be required for voting that way. That's the way to identify the MPs' identities, correct? Would having that physical presence on Zoom be the way of validating that?
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Once again, thank you very much to all the members.
We are adjourned.
Collapse
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2020-06-19 16:00
Expand
Thank you very much, Ms. Chabot.
Colleagues, are there any other comments about the motion?
Is there any debate on the motion to adopt the budget, as presented?
Are we ready for the question? Madam Clerk, would you please conduct a recorded vote?
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Collapse
View Bob Bratina Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thanks. That was the point of modifying it, so that the opposition members would get their proper time, which they did get, so we will stop it there.
Thanks to everyone who attended today.
Now I have a motion to adopt the study budget. This will be a recorded vote.
Members, please pay attention now. I put the motion forward to you that a proposed budget in the amount of $4,000 for the study of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic be adopted.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much.
Are there any other speakers to the amendment? We are now on the amendment.
All right, seeing no other speakers, Paul, I'll turn it over to you to do a vote by roll call for the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Collapse
Results: 1 - 60 of 141 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data