Health Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Mr. Davies talks about partisanship and the spirit of co-operation. As I often hear from my Liberal colleagues across the aisle when we're in the House, that's a bit rich considering the fact that he is the one who has proposed this motion that has caused this great amount of contention.

He also talks about those of us on this side of the committee room wanting to filibuster this issue; however, I would suggest that when you look at the Hansard you see that the person with the most words that may be there today would be Mr. Davies himself.

Given those two scenarios I find this is really quite incredible, Mr. Chair, in the sense that Mr. Davies is also adamant that he will not withdraw this motion. In good faith the Conservative team on this side did, for an amendment which we realized very early on was without merit—maybe not without merit, maybe that's a strong word.

I'm not crossing the floor, Mr. Berthold, don't worry.

We realized in the spirit of co-operation and getting work done here that that would be an important thing to do, and therefore we agreed to it.

That being said, if Mr. Davies is willing to withdraw his motion—it appears he's dug his heels in on this, which I find inappropriate—then certainly we would support unanimous consent for that idea that he withdraw his motion and continue on with those good rules and conduct so that we can get the work done of this committee as we want to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Ellis.

We have Dr. Hanley, please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I forgot I was on the speakers list, but in the spirit of what Ms. Kramp-Neuman has said very well, we really want to collaborate and get things done. I really feel that if we walk out of this meeting without having passed this motion then I certainly feel bad for Canadians. I think back to what Mr. van Koeverden had said. Let's do it for this study in the spirit of collaboration, and let's get on with it. I personally, for the record, have no issue with a strong representation from each party to allow us to make sure that everyone feels heard, even though I agree there's likely going to be tremendous overlap of witnesses.

Quebec will have significant input. Whether we are talking about the Conservatives or the Bloc Québécois, it is important for Quebec to have significant input in these studies.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have just a couple of quick points. First, again, I just really want to reassure Mr. Lake that nobody is talking about attaching names to witnesses. We're simply talking about the process for funnelling names to the clerk, and that meant applicable witnesses who will testify. There are no labels attached to anybody.

I'm having difficulty understanding my Conservative colleagues' arguments, because they have interchangeably argued that this is a fundamental offence to the Westminster system, at the same time that Mr. Berthold has publicly acknowledged that he was prepared to agree to it with respect to the Conservative study on child health. We're simply talking about doing the same thing for a different study. I thought Mr. van Koeverden was very persuasive and eloquent in that. Nobody is asking to get married here. We're talking about a study and attempting to have a fair allotment of witnesses.

My final question is this. If we want to find out who's doing the filibustering and who's not, then let's go to a vote right now. [Technical difficulty—Editor] ultimately here's the basis of the Westminster system—we settle the issues by majority vote. If the Conservatives believe in the Westminster system and you're not doing the filibuster, then I look forward to there being silence after I speak, and let's go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of collaboration, we proposed moving in this direction. However, my colleague unfortunately decided to propose the same motion for a second study. As a result, we have the same motion for two studies and two motions that are not completed. We have still not managed to adopt them because we have spent a lot of time debating procedural details.

So that Canadians can get a break, and so that parties can discuss amongst themselves and reach a consensus, I propose the following motion:

That the committee do now adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

The motion is not debatable.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

Do we have consensus or do we need a standing vote? What's the read in the room?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

We have agreement in the room, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I see that and we have agreement on the screen.

(Motion agreed to)

The meeting is adjourned.