Evidence of meeting #28 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
That meeting is quite far away. As we get closer, any member can propose additional witnesses that we can add to it.
The motion on the floor is to add two extra hours to that meeting.
(Motion agreed to)
Okay, so we'll either add two hours to that meeting or have another two-hour meeting subsequent to that.
Are there any other thoughts on witnesses or the work plan?
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, I will move to add Marc-André Gagnon as a fourth witness in meeting 11.
Liberal
Darshan Singh Kang Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
In meeting 5, I would like to add Mr. Peter MacLeod. He has completed the CIHR-funded Citizens’ Reference Panel on Pharmacare in Canada.
Liberal
Darshan Singh Kang Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Peter MacLeod, on the consultation about the Canadian perspective on pharmacare.... We will send the details to the clerk.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
The motion on the floor is about Mr. Gagnon in meeting 11. I think we should take it one witness at a time.
Liberal
NDP
Liberal
Darshan Singh Kang Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
It says he has completed the CIHR-funded Citizens’ Reference Panel on Pharmacare in Canada.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Chair, I do appreciate our being in a public meeting right now, but I thought that if we were talking about specific witnesses, who we would invite and not invite, that would be something we would do more in camera. We're starting this debate a little bit back and forth. I appreciate the conversation, but perhaps we should do it in camera if we do want to debate specific witnesses for specific reasons.
Liberal
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I think we're done, actually, with the names. We could probably stay.... Maybe we're not.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
We have a motion to go in camera.
Are all in favour of going in camera while we have this discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
We need to suspend for 30 seconds while we go in camera.
And then, Mr. Oliver, you'll be recognized next.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I think Bill C-233 is a very important bill that we should give full time and attention to as a committee. We need to make sure we get it onto our work plan. It seems to enjoy the support of many people in all parties in the House.
I would like to recommend that we dedicate at least two meetings, if required, to hear witnesses. November 17 and 24, Thursdays, would be dedicated to Bill C-233 for witnesses, if required, and we would do our clause-by-clause study on either November 29 or December 1. We've only done one bill to date, so I don't know how much time is required between witnesses before we do the line-by-line consideration, and whether there's any work to be done by the analysts after the witnesses do their piece. If there's no time required for the analysts, then I suggest we do the line-by-line consideration on November 29. If time is required, then I suggest we target December 1 for the clause-by-clause review.
My understanding is that we need to have our work completed by December 8 or the bill will go back to the House unamended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
It's important that everybody understand that we have to be done by December 8 or the work won't matter; it won't be included, and the House will assume that we've returned the bill with no amendments or no discussion.
We have a proposal to have two meetings with witnesses, and then clause-by-clause study, and then report back by December 8.