Evidence of meeting #6 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
November 16th, 2020 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
This comment is food for thought and something for the committee to consider.
I'm wondering if we would look at an hour with the law clerk on Monday and then have the second hour with officials. My understanding is that the officials will be joining the minister on Friday as well.
Could that be considered, or at least be some food for thought for committee members to entertain?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
It's productive for all of us to think of those next six or seven meetings. I think we all realize that we have to fit all these pieces together. I'm fine with having the law clerk come for one hour in the first meeting on the COVID study, which should happen a week from today, in my opinion, on Monday.
As Mr. Kelloway astutely observed, although we normally start a study by hearing from the minister and officials, there are two reasons I don't think we have to have them next Monday. One of them is Mr. Kelloway's point, which is that the same people we would expect to come will be here on Friday with the minister, so we'll have heard from them already. Second, in a sense, this is not a brand new study; this is really a continuation of the COVID study that we've already engaged in.
I would rather say that next Monday, if we have the law clerk for the first hour, we could proceed with some other witnesses on the COVID study as another option.
Those would be my suggestions.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm as eager to get started on going forward as everybody else is. I think Mr. Davies' motion on how we might approach the study is an excellent way for us to get started and to put our plan of action forward as soon as we can.
It's also great to see that the minister will be coming back on Friday. We can get some insight from the minister as we get started.
I want to emphasize that if we are eager to get started, perhaps we should find some time to give some consideration to Mr. Davies' motion so we can start planning our studies going forward. I like the context that it has, and it gives us all a voice on how we should move forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
I see no further hands raised, so we shall carry on with the vote on Mr. Barlow's motion.
Mr. Barlow's motion was to amend Ms. Rempel Garner's motion so that instead of having a separate meeting for the law clerk, we would tack him on to a panel at the outset of our study. That's a very blurry summation of Mr. Barlow's motion. I hope I'm close.
We have Mr. Davies putting up his hand. Go ahead.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
No, Mr. Chair, proceed with the vote. I'm just getting ready to speak on the next one. Thank you.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
On a point of information, is the clarification whereby the law clerk would have the first hour and someone else would have the second hour consistent with Mr. Barlow's motion?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No. I think Mr. Barlow's motion would eliminate that second hour. That's a fair point, and we need to be clear on that.
Mr. Barlow, was that your intent?
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Yes. It's not to have that second hour, but that the law clerk would be part of a one-hour panel, in preferably the first meeting at the beginning of the COVID study. He would be a member of a panel for the first hour.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The amendment changes the motion. Instead of inviting the law clerk for a stand-alone meeting for the first hour and having related information in the second hour, that whole meeting goes away and the law clerk would attend on a panel with other officials.
Now we have Mr. Kelloway. Do you wish to speak on this point as well?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's after this. Okay.
Let's have the vote on Mr. Barlow's motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Mr. Barlow's motion carries, so we will add the law clerk to the first panel that we have with officials on the House motion.
Next we have Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move my motion and then speak to it. I did serve notice—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I apologize, but we still have to vote on Ms. Rempel Garner's motion as amended. It is now amended twice.
Is there any discussion on that motion? The motion is now simply that we invite the law clerk to appear on the first panel that we have with officials for the House study.
I have Mr. Davies, Mr. Kelloway and Monsieur Thériault with hands up. Is that on this point or on this discussion? No?
Okay, in that case, let us have the vote on Ms. Rempel Garner's motion as amended.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Can I just make one quick point of order? Did we already amend it to meet in public?
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Chair, just to be clear, would you mind reading the motion as amended, for clarification?
Liberal
The Clerk
I don't have the actual text, but it says that we will invite the law clerk to our first meeting, a public meeting, to be on a panel with other witnesses.
That's my understanding.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Then all the other stuff in Ms. Rempel Garner's original motion goes away.
