Evidence of meeting #33 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Just to clarify, if the amendment includes the Minister of Health, what you are doing is removing the Minister of Health from the original amendment. Is that right?
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Sorry, I meant it the other way around. Initially, I'd like the discussion to be around excluding the Prime Minister's Office, and then have the subsequent discussion dealing with each one of those offices separately.
Now, I don't know how we would do that officially, and perhaps the clerk can be of some help to us, but it seems a straightforward request that we deal with each one of those offices individually, because people may have different reasons for supporting each one of those with respect to the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Kelloway's amendment was to remove both the PMO and the Ministry of Health from Mr. Jeneroux's motion. The upshot of your amendment would be to only remove the PMO from this.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
The PMO, yes. I think it's going back to the point that was made by Ms. Kwan, which is that this is the health committee, and so, for very different reasons, people might want to consider that ministry separately from the PMO. I think that should be a discussion that we have, and, as I said, I'm not as familiar with the federal protocols, but that's the intent or the upshot of what I'd like to accomplish.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The subamendment, then, is that you're moving to remove from Mr. Kelloway's amendment the mention of the Minister of Health's office. Correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well, the subamendment is so moved.
Is there any discussion on the subamendment?
Seeing no discussion on the subamendment, we'll go for a vote on the subamendment.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Please clarify for me, Mr. Chair, what the outcome of voting in favour or against this subamendment is. I know what the intent is, but I just want to be sure that's what is accomplished.
Liberal
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I follow this correctly, what Mr. Van Bynen is proposing is that the words “the Prime Ministers Office” be considered as a separate amendment. That would be your subamendment. In this case, you're further clarifying this. So, if you voted in favour that the words “the Prime Ministers Office” be considered as a separate amendment, then you would deal with the first amendment, which is “the Minister of Health's office”. After you completed that, you would move then to your separate amendment, which is “the Prime Ministers Office”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. Actually, my understanding was different.
Mr. Kelloway moved to remove “the Prime Ministers Office” and “the Minister of Health's office” from Mr. Jeneroux's motion. Mr. Van Bynen, I believe, has just moved to remove from Mr. Kelloway's amendment the mention of the....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think you removed the health minister's office from Mr. Kelloway's amendment. By doing so, if Mr. Kelloway's motion passes, as amended, it would simply remove “the Prime Ministers Office” from the original motion.
Are we as clear as mud at this point?
Just to clarify one more time, Mr. Kelloway moved to remove from Mr. Jeneroux's motion, as amended, “the Prime Ministers Office” and “the Minister of Health's office”. Mr. Van Bynen's subamendment removes from Kelloway's motion mention of the Minister of Health's office.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, the subamendment is that the words “Prime Minister's office” be removed from the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think not. I think the subamendment is that “the Minister of Health's office” be removed from Mr. Kelloway's amendment. If that subamendment passes, then Mr. Kelloway's amendment would be simply to remove “the Prime Minister's office” from the original motion.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Well, that's really the issue. It's about whether or not we're dealing with the Prime Minister's Office. I just want to deal with them separately, Mr. Chair. As I said, I have yet to develop a better understanding of the procedural gymnastics.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Van Bynen, your subamendment, if it passes, would make Mr. Kelloway's amendment simply that “the Prime Minister's office” be removed from the original motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
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])
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])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Discussion now goes to Mr. Jeneroux's motion as amended. Is there any further discussion on Mr. Jeneroux's motion as amended?
Mr. Fisher, please go ahead.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Can we read the amended motion that we are getting ready to support? My understanding is that “the health minister's office” and “the Prime Minister's office” are now removed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's not correct. It is to remove the Prime Minister's office only, and the dates were changed, according to Mr. Kelloway's amendment. The language for vetting, according to Ms. Kwan, has been added. Previously, we removed the references to emails.
Do you still require the motion to be read?
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Yes, please. I'd like to hear what the motion says. Mine is all scratched up.
Liberal
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It reads: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee send for the following documents to be provided by the government by Monday, August 31, 2020 and that the documents be published publicly on the committee’s website by Monday, September 7, 2020:
All documents, briefing notes and memorandums, regarding the emerging evidence that altered the government’s advice on the wearing of masks referenced by Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer, at her appearance before the Standing Committee on Health on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, and that all documents, briefing notes and memorandums to/from/between Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Minister of Health’s Office and the Privy Council regarding the management of the National Emergency Strategic Stockpile from 2005 to 2020 be provided by the government by Wednesday, September 30, 2020 and that the documents be published publicly on the committee’s website by Wednesday, October 7, 2020, including supply inventory broken down by number and all updates sent to the government and the Government of Canada’s contracts for personal protective equipment since January 2020, provided that the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel vet the documents for matters of cabinet confidence and national security as well as privacy related to names and personal information.