Evidence of meeting #40 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.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
With that clarity then, I would move an amendment to the subamendment. I believe that's correct.
I move that at the end of the proposed amendment the following be added: “but that the meetings referenced in this motion be scheduled during regularly scheduled meeting slots prior to the end of day on June 21, 2021”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you very much.
That's just a subamendment, because we're in an amendment. It's not an amendment to an....
Anyway, I have it.
We now have this debate on Ms. Rempel Garner's subamendment.
Mr. Davies, go ahead, please.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think we can probably dispense with this just with the simple understanding, so that we're all on the same page, that the paragraph of the motion that remains unamended says, “That the following regularly scheduled meetings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health be programmed as follows”.
I think the intention, and I hope it's the consensus as to what we want to do by Dr. Powlowski's amendment, is that the meetings will happen on our regular scheduled time between now and June 21. All we're doing is saying that the first meeting, the only meeting that's scheduled for the topic on the date, is the one for this Friday, and then I suppose we leave it up to the clerk to determine when those other meetings will be.
We're going to have a meeting on the documents; we're going to have three meetings with the deputy ministers and we're going to have a meeting just with our witnesses, but we're not allocating those meetings to a certain date.
Dr. Powlowski, is my understanding correct as to what we're doing? Of course, that's with the understanding that, as you said, the meeting with the minister has to be on a Friday or we can't get the three hours.
Is that the intent?
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Yes, that is the intent. We're not trying to get out of any of these meetings. It's just the matter of the timing of the meetings. We just want to make sure that we have the PMPRB, and we have the minister on the Friday and then the other dates to be set by the clerk as agreed upon.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Right.
The only other thing I want to mention, just as a matter just of practicality, is that I believe the clerk has already lined up witnesses for this Friday for the PMPRB, so I think that's taken care of, but Monday is approaching fast.
It being Wednesday, in fairness to the clerk, and to all of us, really, we should have some idea of what meeting we want to have on Monday. The original motion called for that meeting to be the law clerk. If it's not going to be that meeting—and it's fine with me if it's not—that means it would have to be either one of the meetings where we each put two witnesses forward, or the first hour with our witness and the second hour with the deputy ministers.
Before we end this meeting today, we'll have to know what that meeting is because we'll have to get our witnesses in very quickly, I would say probably by the end of tomorrow.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
We will put a pin on that request and see where we end up with this motion.
We have Ms. Rempel Garner again, please.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I just want to reiterate that I would like my subamendment voted on. It seems to be a pretty simple technical request that gives clarity to the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm 100% with that. I like following through so we know clearly what we're doing.
The discussion remains on the subamendment.
You now have the floor, Ms. Gaudreau.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I completely understand the situation regarding the availability of witnesses, deputy ministers and ministers, among others.
Again, it is the intent and purpose that is important. If it will enable the committee to work more quickly and effectively for the well-being of our citizens, I am in favour of this.
I think things are going very well, even if there are subamendments. Things are proceeding.
Liberal
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I'm not sure if it's going to require a formal motion as to what happens on the Monday meeting, but I'm certainly happy with getting some witnesses and getting back to actually studying COVID again. We haven't had a genuine meeting about COVID for a while, so I'd be happy and I think we would be happy to try to get some witnesses together for the meeting on Monday.
I don't know whether that has to be formal or can be an informal agreement.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Pagé
Mr. Chair, the law clerk and all the witnesses for Monday have been contacted by me just to give them a heads-up that I was going to invite them for Monday, so they are prepared to come on Monday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
We will leave the discussion and vote at this point on the subamendment.
The subamendment is on whether to add the text that Ms. Rempel Garner has proposed, to provide that these meetings happen prior to December 23—well, certainly before December but before we rise at the end of September.
That's the vote in question. We have Mr. Davies.
Go ahead, please.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
It was just that last comment you made, Mr. Chair, that confused me, and maybe I'm misunderstanding Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment.
I heard you say, “provided these meetings occur by September”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No, I misspoke. Her amendment is that they happen prior to when we rise this June.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I don't even know if we need this necessarily in writing. I'm happy to do it if we want.
Are we not just in agreement that our regularly scheduled meetings between now and June 21 will be allocated this way?
NDP
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
—and then we're just leaving the clerk open to have flexibility.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's my fault that I misrepresented or misstated what the subamendment is, but that's exactly what Ms. Rempel Garner has proposed, actually, in better language.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Finally, just before we vote on this, I presume that afterwards we will have to come back to the issue of what we do on Monday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Absolutely. Once we decide how we're proceeding, we will be able to carry on.
Seeing no more hands, I will call the vote on Ms. Rempel Garner's subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The subamendment carries.
We go now back to Dr. Powlowski's amendment, which was to remove the dates. Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
That brings us back to the main motion of Ms. Rempel Garner, as amended several times.
Is there any further discussion on the main motion as amended?
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you. The motion as amended carries.
That leaves us with the question of what to do on Monday. I'm very happy to work with the clerk and the various officials involved to plan out the next several weeks and do things as best we can.
Ms. Rempel Garner, I see your hand up.