Mr. McCauley.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Thanks for allowing me to speak. I'm filling in for Matt today.
I would think, with all respect, Mr. Davies, this should be referred to the subcommittee so that it and other priorities of the committee can be hashed out properly there, rather than our committing to it right now, because there are still the supplementary estimates to be looked after, and the main estimates. With all of the breaks, that's almost going to take us to the end of June.
Really, if you want to lay out priorities, and if this is the priority, I think maybe it needs to be discussed at the subcommittee as it traditionally is, and not through a motion on the very first day the committee has formed. If it's a fulsome study that everybody agrees needs to be done, generally it would be discussed by the chair, the vice-chairs or whoever represents the four parties at the subcommittee, not in a process like this.
Once the schedule is laid out in the subcommittee, that gets presented back and then everyone can hash out from there that priority, or others.
Wrapping up, just refer it to the subcommittee and lay out the business that way rather than pushing it through by a motion.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We have 18 meetings before we rise in June, including this one today.
Mr. Fisher.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's important for us to at least decide on the first study today. We could move forward with the dental care study. We could get the analysts to flesh out what that might look like, and maybe give us a one pager on that. This is Wednesday. We don't meet again until next week. It would be nice if we were able to start the process, and see if we can get rolling on Monday on our first study to take advantage of all of those meetings, rather than sending it to a subcommittee, having it come back to us at our next regular meeting and then discussing it.
For the next several possible studies, we could work while we are working on the dental study. We could have those sent to the subcommittee and work on fleshing out priorities for number two, three, four, five and six. That's my opinion. I would like to see us at least decide today that we are moving forward on one particular study.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
We're still on the amendment. I still don't support the amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Are we going from an amendment that suggests that we have a bit of a timeline to a “let's do this one first” and let's keep it open-ended? Is that correct?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
If the amendment is adopted, we are limited to six meetings, unless we change our minds later on. If the amendment does not succeed, then it's open-ended and we can bring it to an end based on the study itself.
I had a conversation with the analyst before the meeting. If we decide on a study today, we would encourage people to have witness lists submitted by Friday, so that the analyst can prepare a work plan that we could possibly consider on Monday. The first meeting on this study would probably not happen until March 9. In the interim, we do have some opportunities. The supplementary estimates are being released, so we could invite the minister and officials to attend, so that they can give us an update on what's going on.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
What I find a bit challenging is the idea that this be open-ended and starts right away. I don't understand how that works when we have so many other great ideas that need to be looked at. I would suggest that we consider giving a time commitment.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The amendment is whether or not there's to be a time limit. The motion is whether or not we do this study. There's no part of this yet that decides when we begin this study. Whether we proceed from that point to pick a single motion to go forward with now, or whether we refer it to a subcommittee to do that, is really up to the committee to decide, but what we're after right now is a decision on the amendment.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I usually understand quickly. Do you want us to have a vote on the amendment and the motion before we move another motion? Is that the way you'd like to operate this afternoon?
If not, I will put forward one of my motions and I'll explain why I think it's important and why I think it should be a priority. If the subcommittee has to decide, I will explain why it should consider the arguments I'm making today. I would just like someone to tell me exactly how we want to proceed, because it isn't clear.
You told me that anyone could speak and put forward motions. I'm willing to have a vote on Mr. Davies' motion, but I'm not in a position right now to presume that this is the study the committee should be doing. We need to bring forward more, if the committee is to decide today which study should be undertaken.
Can I make my motion at this time or not?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Chair, we're going all over the place, as opposed to where we should be, which is the amendment to the motion.
Let's have a vote on that. Get that off the table. Then have the vote on the motion. Then we can discuss the other aspects of other motions we've put on the table. As opposed to saying this is going to be our first motion, let's get back to where we should be in order.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We have a motion on the floor and an amendment. We can't have any other motions on the floor until we've disposed of them. The amendment is to limit the length of the study. Is there any more discussion?
Mr. Kelloway.
February 19th, 2020 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Kitchen took much of what I was going to say and put it into a good statement. However, as a point of clarification for Mr. Davies with regard to the timelines of the motion, I think he mentioned that he would be open to motions in the future to perhaps accelerate or conclude the study. I just want to make sure I have that correct.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I should point out that it's not at Mr. Davies's discretion. It's up to the committee whether or not we entertain those kinds of motions on an ongoing basis.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any other discussion on the amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
Now we're back on the main motion, which is that the committee should proceed with a dental care study. Is there any discussion on the study itself? We've had a fair bit of discussion on that already. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mrs. Jansen.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The way the motion is written is extremely broad, meaning that we could be at this for 10 years. It's very difficult to understand. He mentioned travelling, and I don't know what all. Is there not a way of encapsulating what this is going to be about?
