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.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
I'll ask the clerk to weigh in on this matter, if it's something you can throw light on.
12:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Can I talk to you in private, please?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Yes, absolutely. We will suspend for a couple of minutes, at the call of the chair.
The meeting is suspended.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, all.
The clerk has suggested that this was a legitimate dilatory motion. It's not one that I am familiar with, but we'll check and get back to you.
In any case, the committee has overruled the chair's decision and we shall carry on. The motion is that we carry on with our regular meetings. We do not have witnesses scheduled at this time. We will have to resume that process in due course.
Ms. Rempel Garner.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
I did check with the law clerk and the law clerk has said that he would be available at this time, so he is waiting.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You just have to call him. Because he is an officer of Parliament, he would already have credentials, so we can just wait right here.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
I think it would be inappropriate to do this because of the other witnesses we had been asked to speak with as well.
Is there any further discussion?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I have a point of order. My hand was up, so I will just keep it up.
Mr. Chair, since the meeting was technically cancelled, because we wanted to discuss something really important—and first of all, I take great offence to the fact that we're not discussing long-term care—doesn't the committee require 48 hours' notice for any meeting to be issued? There is no notice given or an agenda, so how would members of the public...?
I get that the Conservatives, backed up by the opposition members, want to just hold meetings, but we actually live in a democracy where you must demonstrate to the public the business of these meetings. Is there not a requirement for notice to be given, and an agenda and other witnesses to be provided?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead on a point of order.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
We are actually in a meeting right now, so the notice of this meeting was given to the public. Therefore, we are in session. The motion that we just moved gave direction to what the next item of business would be on the committee agenda.
I would also point out that you did give notice to the witnesses to be prepared for Monday. The notice of meeting, as originally scheduled, went out on Friday, so it is in order to proceed and have witnesses appear. These witnesses are ready and waiting, I might add. Any further continued delay on the part of the Liberals is essentially what I said earlier, I would argue, which is that they are trying to avoid accountability on this issue of covering up documents.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
Ms. Sidhu, go ahead on the same point of order.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, on the point of order Ms. O'Connell just raised, I just delivered the rationale for a study. There is a protest that is ongoing in my riding. Other members are not thinking this is an important issue. I delivered the speech to give my own rationale. Long-term care in my riding is a very important issue, and events in long-term care in my riding happened and, as I said, are happening now. I know there is—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. This is not responsive at all to the matter before the committee. You have to intervene, Mr. Chair. You can't allow a member to go on talking about a rationale for long-term care.
The issue before this committee right now is that we have a motion that just passed to proceed to the previously scheduled meeting. That's what we should be doing. You can't continue to entertain such dramatically irrelevant talk as what is coming from Ms. Sidhu right now.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, I don't know what happened. Ms. O'Connell moved a motion.
I want to ask the members whether this is not an important issue. I would like to know what happened to the motion we moved on long-term care. We all want to study long-term care to give recommendations. It's a burning issue in my riding.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Barlow and Ms. Sidhu.
Ms. Sidhu, on the the motion, I'm unsure. I think the motion is basically tabled until we raise it again.
Was it Mr. Barlow who had another point of order?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I seek your advice. By moving 106(4), was the meeting that was originally scheduled cancelled? If that meeting was cancelled, what is the procedure called for when we want to move into a new motion and a new study? I would seek your guidance on that.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
