Evidence of meeting #46 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I get that Conservatives don't like to hear women speak, but that's fine. They want to to just interrupt me.
Conservative
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, my point on this is that the original motion had conditions in terms of witnesses and each party having the opportunity to bring witnesses forward, so if Ms. Rempel Garner is simply going to control the witness list, then that's not consistent with what this committee had previously agreed to.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I have a point of order on that point of order, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner. I'm just about ready to rule on this.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
The witnesses are prescribed by the programming motion that was referenced in my dilatory motion, so I would argue that Ms. O'Connell is wrong. I would also argue that continued attempts by the Liberals to raise points of order on this are filibustering to waste time so that the witnesses can't come here and the Liberals can't be held accountable for producing documents.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
Mr. Lemire, did you have a point of order?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I just want us to remember that, if we are talking about infringing on rights, we must also make sure that we respect areas of jurisdiction. The motion as initially submitted infringed on areas of jurisdiction.
That being the case, Mr. Chair, I feel that you should have ruled the initial motion out of order because it deals with standards in long-term care homes.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
My understanding is this:
That a 48 hours notice, interpreted as two nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday—
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
On a point of order, Chair, it was not a substantive motion; it was a dilatory motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
—so I would appreciate the same courtesy.
...that (2) the motion be distributed to members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour, and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day; and that when the committee is travelling—
Conservative
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
—outside the Parliamentary Precinct, no substantive motions may be moved.
My point is exactly that. We were unable to be prepared. I was prepared to deal with 106(4), and now, all of a sudden, we're being asked to be prepared to ask questions of witnesses who are not here because the meeting was cancelled. Now, all of a sudden, Ms. Rempel Garner takes on the role of the clerk and/or chair and takes it upon herself to invite other witnesses, and I am denied the opportunity to prepare my questions and pursue the line of questioning that's appropriate.
At this point, I think, if we want to talk about democracy, these procedural gymnastics are defeating the democracy that we've very hard worked for.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
We have Mr. Maguire first.
Go ahead, Mr. Maguire, on a point of order.
Conservative
Liberal
