Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes. There is no intention of excluding anybody with any language. I'm sure we can ensure that we can have interpretation available for any form of meeting. I'm just looking for a solution on a way forward, given that the House of Commons is telling our committees that we don't have the IT resources to have more than one or two meetings a week. I'm looking for ways to move forward on behalf of the Canadian people, showing that we have are resilient and innovative in being able to meet beyond our scheduled meeting times. I'm sure that interpretation is possible.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'll add a point of clarification. We went through this process at some length in the spring when we had to hold informal meetings and were only able to get consecutive translation, which doubles the length of the meetings and makes it awkward to get anything done.
That's why, to use House resources, a subcommittee meeting or a regular meeting of the committee was proposed.
We will go now to Mr. Kelloway.
Noon
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
What MP Don Davies has put forward would get right to the heart of the matter.
My dearly departed dad, who was in charge of mine rescue for years here in Cape Breton, would say “Pitter, patter, let's get at it”, and in that respect, this motion is fair. It is balanced, and I support it.
Whatever party you are with, it's time now to get to work, and this does that as well.
Again, details and facts matter, and being new to this, I don't know about our ability to get translation services for an informal or formal meeting. I'll defer to the clerk on that, but we need to make sure that we have access to it, and as Ms. Rempel said, to make sure that everybody is included. I want to put that on the table as well.
To sum up, I would love to be able to leave this meeting with some wind at our backs with respect to Don Davies's motion.
Let's get to it. Canadians are depending on us.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just quickly, I'm not certain whether Mr. Davies moved a motion.
I would support something similar to what he moved, if he's willing to move a motion, but I don't know whether he put a suggestion on the table or an actual motion.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
As a point of clarification on my part, maybe I'm just too eager to get going, so I'll retract that last statement.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, with the indulgence of my colleagues, I'm happy to move that, if it helps move the conversation forward.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
November 2nd, 2020 / 12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start with Mr. Davies' concluding remarks about the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the study.
We agreed that November 6 was the deadline for witnesses to submit plans to appear along with a brief or document that would help us make the right choices. However, I want to remind my colleagues that the committee voted on this type of motion because, throughout this whole process, people have been feeling denied the opportunity to come and speak. I wouldn't want us to interpret the limitation of witnesses in a narrow or exclusive way. I don't think that it's in our interest to do so. We must still see, on November 6, how many people have submitted a plan to appear along with a brief.
In terms of informal meetings, if there isn't any interpretation, then count me out. Clearly, we can work properly in a subcommittee as many times a week as we want. The bottom line is that I think that we should work formally, whether we do so in a committee or subcommittee. I'm not interested in informal meetings, especially if there isn't any interpretation. It must be made clear that this is out of the question.
It's time for us to start working. However, I supported this motion in particular to ensure that we don't overlook all the work done earlier. Logically speaking, when we want to be briefed on the topic, we usually need a summary. It turns out that the analysts have been working very hard. I wish that we could have received this and that we could have found a way to ask questions and have a short presentation. I think that, when we want to move forward, we must also look at what has been done and remember a number of things. I would have been in favour of this.
We're spending a considerable amount of time trying to find a methodology, but we're wasting a great deal of time right now. Maybe we should agree to speed up our approach a bit.
This was what I had to say this morning. I think that the constituents deserve to see us focus on this study, and we must move forward.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Colleagues, the bells are ringing. We require unanimous consent to proceed any further. I suggest that we could go for another five minutes.
Would there be unanimous consent to do that?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Chair, I'm just concerned because some of my colleagues are on rural Wi-Fi, and they need a little bit longer to make sure that they're logged in appropriately. We've had incidents when people have not been able to log in ahead of votes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Can we just get to the point where we get the motion on the floor, and then just agree quickly with moving in that direction so that we can get our lists submitted by end of day tomorrow?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The votes will take quite some time. I suspect that there will be no time after the votes to carry on the meeting, so I propose that we adjourn at this time.
That being said, the meeting is now adjourned.