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.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Hang on a minute.
Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.
Yes, the meeting formerly scheduled for this time slot was cancelled, and this was raised in its stead. This meeting did not have any witnesses invited to it.
Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead, please.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Chair, we're now wasting time. As I said earlier, this meeting was called. We are in a meeting right now. We used appropriate procedure to move to another order of business, and the witnesses are standing by.
Any further attempts by the Liberals to continue to obstruct that, I think is a breach of the rest of the members' privilege. We need to proceed. There is no other procedure here.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead, on a point of order.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This meeting was convened on a request under Standing Order 106(4), and it's not as if the Conservatives haven't used the same format to gain a discussion on things that were important to them.
However, my question is this: If the meeting was cancelled, where does Ms. Rempel Garner get the authority to invite witnesses? I thought that was supposed to be done through the clerk and/or through the chair. How is it that these witnesses were invited? I mean, can I invite some witnesses?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead on the same point of order.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
We are in a meeting right now, so to my colleagues who aren't aware of that, we are in a duly constituted meeting that is being broadcast to the public. We used appropriate procedure to proceed to another order of business, which specified what the order of business was, and the witnesses are ready to proceed.
I can't help that the Liberals are worse at procedure than I am. This is all immaterial. We need to proceed.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
The members are entitled to raise points of order.
Ms. O'Connell, go ahead on a point of order.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
It's not my problem that the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP don't care about what happened in long-term care, but I guess as long as Ms. Rempel Garner thinks she's better at procedure, then she—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm sorry. I've been recognized.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to—
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
What was just said is very defamatory and it is in provincial jurisdiction anyway.
They are talking about getting into provincial jurisdiction and,…
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
And then for the Liberals to accuse the Bloc Québécois of wanting to protect the interests of the provinces is unacceptable.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Lemire, you're out of order. Please wait until you're recognized.
Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead with your point of order.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's unfortunate that the Bloc gets upset when the Conservatives want to challenge our competence when it comes to procedure.
Allow me to read from Bosc and Gagnon:
...to avoid situations where the members of a committee are forced to consider issues without warning, committees usually deem it appropriate to adopt rules on notice for substantive motions. Such notices are normally 24 [to] 48 hours.
Mr. Chair, while the members may have procedurally moved ahead.... First of all, the Liberal members moved ahead procedurally with an issue that mattered to us. If they wanted to steamroll the committee, and frankly Canadians, to not talk about long-term care, that's their procedural prerogative. However, the suggestion and the boasting and the gloating, to somehow say that our caring about long-term care.... They completely railroaded us from voting on it and talking about it. The fact that this is a point of pride for them is frankly disgusting, but that's for them and their voters to deal with.
Mr. Chair, on the motion, or moving forward as it is, first of all, I would challenge that what Ms. Rempel Garner is proposing is actually even consistent with the motion. If you recall from our motions previously, the programming motion, there was to be a weighted balance in terms of witnesses. Ms. Rempel Garner has been in contact with certain witnesses. I don't know who, and it doesn't actually provide for Liberal members—I don't know about the Bloc and the NDP, as I'm assuming they all worked together on this—to have the witnesses we proposed, because unless she—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Chair, this is debate. We need to move on. The motion has been made and voted on. This is clearly debate.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
—Conservative members feeling that they can just speak over me.
I have been recognized by the chair as having the floor. I get that Mr. Barlow doesn't want to hear from me. That's his prerogative, but I am duly elected and have been recognized by the chair.
If the chair wants to cut me off, he can do so, but it is not the right of Mr. Barlow to step in and tell me to be quiet.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
