Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Fisher, Ms. Rempel Garner was recognized on a point of order.
I would ask Ms. Rempel Garner to finish her point.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Sure. I'm asking, Chair, whether it's a substantive motion in and of itself. It's not an amendment to the document production.
The other—
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
It is, actually.
Mr. Chair, I did ask for a point of order.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes, it is.
Actually, Mr. Fisher, when you're talking about the substance of a motion and whether or not it's admissible, that's actually the definition of a point of order. Thank you.
The other point I would raise on this is that I'd like some clarity on the way this motion is worded now, and I don't need a week to look at it. It actually doesn't have any clarity on who is determining the relevancy of the documents. To me, that's problematic as well. It has also removed all of the stipulations around what would be confidential and what wouldn't. That's also, I think, such a substantive amendment that it would be its own motion. I would like clarity on that point, too, because it seems like a pretty big change from the original form and spirit of the motion.
Thank you.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
Mr. Fisher, do you wish to respond to the points raised in this point of order?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Again, I wasn't removing the documents. I was suggesting that they would be determined, as Mr. Davies had suggested, when they are needed, based on things that we are studying.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm not quite sure that Mr. Fisher has properly characterized what I said, but I do appreciate the attempt to deal with production. At least we have something on the table.
I'm wondering about this. The first part of the motion, I suspect, may be largely acceptable to the committee members, but the second part is clearly something that is going to require some focus. Can we get that second part on production sent around in writing?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Certainly. Mr. Fisher has moved the amendment. I take it as a valid amendment.
Mr. Fisher, have you—
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Can we take five minutes to have that sent around to all our colleagues here, Mr. Chair?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Sure, but before we do that, let me observe that we have passed the normal termination time of our meeting. I am asking if it is the will of the committee to carry on. Is there any dissent?
There is no dissent, so we will carry on.
Mr. Thériault, go ahead.
October 19th, 2020 / 1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I want there to be a time limit. The Liberals have been talking non-stop for two hours, and only now are they moving an amendment.
We must remain serious on this committee. If we want people to collaborate and work together, we should be serious and respect the time limits we are given, not pull moves like this at the last minute. If the Liberals had been willing to work today, they would have moved an amendment right at the start rather than talking non-stop and repeating themselves.
So, Mr. Chair, if we have an extension, I'd like it to be for a set period of time. Then we can adjourn and reconvene later on, when each of us has done what they have to do.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
I do not have the option to arbitrarily terminate the meeting, unless there is excessive disorder or there are physical impediments, such as not having access to the resources. It is up to the committee whether or not to continue. I have asked the committee if there is any dissent to carry on. It's up to you as members of the committee to do so or not.
Did you wish to make a motion to adjourn at this time? What is your...? Please clarify your point.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think that would require.... It's an amendment to adjourn at a specific time. I'm not sure if that's in order at this time.
Mr. Clerk, I wonder if you could give me some advice on this.
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes while I talk to the clerk. Thank you very much.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you to the committee. We shall resume.
A motion to adjourn with condition is a substantive motion. Since there is already a motion, as well as an amendment, on the floor, a substantive motion at this time would not be in order.
Mr. Thériault, you're certainly welcome to raise a motion of adjournment when the time comes. We do not have the will of the committee to adjourn at this time. We will carry on now with Ms. Sidhu.
Please go ahead. We are now dealing with Mr. Fisher's amendment.
Does the committee wish to have some time, as Mr. Fisher suggested, to receive the amendment and consider it?
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Chair, just on a point of order on that, we did ask for clarification as to whether Mr. Fisher's proposed amendment should be a motion in and of itself. I think it substantially changes the motion we're talking about. It completely neuters the initial motion on the floor. I think we're looking for some direction from the chair to make a ruling as to whether the amendment from Mr. Fisher is indeed an amendment or a substantive enough document that it should be a motion on its own.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe I already ruled on that. It is a legitimate amendment. It's really up to the mover of the amendment to decide to what extent it seeks to modify the original motion. I believe it is in order. I believe we do have an amendment on the floor.
My question again to the committee is whether we wish to suspend for five or 10 minutes while the amendment is distributed.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No, we're still dealing with the matter of whether or not we are going to suspend and so forth. After we resolve this, we will certainly go to you because you were next on the list.
Is there anyone who objects to our suspending for, say, 10 minutes while the amendment is distributed?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Chair, given that we still have to take a look at the amendment, and given the concerns that have been expressed by our colleague, why don't we adjourn this meeting until our next meeting, and that will give us an opportunity to take a look at the amendments being proposed? Also, we are getting close to question period, if I understand correctly.
That's a motion to adjourn.
