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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
We have the amendment on the floor and we have to deal with it. I agree that it does clarify your intent quite well.
As soon as Monsieur Thériault has a working copy that he can use....
Monsieur Thériault, are you okay? Do you have a copy of the motion?
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I have now sent it twice, Chair. I've sent it twice.
On a point of order, Chair—and I'm sorry for my frustrations—as a normal course of business, when we are undertaking motions in committee and we are amending them, we don't have to circulate amendments. I'm just saying that we can move forward and get this done today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You're quite correct. However, I think it is important for us to work in a collegial manner and that we all have the information.
Monsieur Thériault did not, for some reason, get the original notice of motion sent by Mr. Davies. I don't know what happened there, but once we can resolve that, I think Monsieur Thériault will be able to deal appropriately with the amendment.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have a point of order too, Mr. Chair.
I want to clarify that I submitted my motion to the clerk last week, far in advance of the required 48 hours' notice. It was distributed in both official languages.
I want to be clear. This was not an error or failure on my part. If Mr. Thériault didn't get the motion, it's because he didn't get it from the clerk, not me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's not up to individual members to distribute these motions to everybody. It is appropriate to send them to the clerk. I received your motion in ample time. It's all square.
I don't know why Mr. Thériault didn't receive it, but I certainly hope he has received it now so that we can go forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The change from Ms. Rempel Garner is to change section (b) to be more specific about how the topics will be dealt with, and in section (c), to change it from four meetings to three meetings.
That being the case, let us go forward with the vote on Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment.
Mr. Clerk, if you would please...
Monsieur Thériault, are you ready to vote on this?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Yes, I am in favour of the amendment that specifies one subject per rotation per party.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Clerk, would you please conduct the vote on Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment does not pass. We'll carry on with the motion as originally moved by Mr. Davies.
Is there any further discussion on Mr. Davies' motion?
Seeing none, let us carry on with the vote, Mr. Clerk.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I did have my hand up, but I wasn't recognized. Can I still say something, or am I past time?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Actually, you know what? That's my fault. I had Windows in the wrong place here. I apologize.
I see Mr. Maguire, Mr. Davies, Mr. Thériault and Mr. Powlowski with their hands up, so let's go ahead with Mr. Maguire, please.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thanks. It was to do with the previous amendment. I'll put my hand down.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Davies, do you have any further discussion? No.
Go ahead, Monsieur Thériault.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, part (c) of the motion says that “the committee will determine ... the number of meetings allocated to each topic, holding a minimum of one meeting and a maximum of three meetings.” That does not take into account the number of meetings we will be having on this study from now until the break.
If I understand correctly, the motion gives us an opening for us to possibly decide to set aside four meetings for the PMPRB, as the motion specifies, and two meetings for this study before Christmas.
Did I understand part (c) of the motion correctly?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
If we pass this motion, we will be obliged to devote all the committee's meetings to the COVID-19 study, which will pose a problem. I don't want to leave the PMPRB study to be dependent on whether or not a room is available. That's what I understood from Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment just now.
If a room is available, we are going to deal with the PMPRB as an extra, whereas the motion specifies that both studies are important. We know very well that the first meeting on COVID-19 will certainly go past the break. It would therefore be logical to set the PMPRB sessions as a priority from now until Christmas, but not necessarily take them all for that study. We could at least set aside four meetings, as stipulated in the motion that we have agreed to.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Monsieur Thériault. Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment did not pass, so that's not relevant anymore. The motion by Mr. Davies, as it stands, is silent on the actual scheduling of the meetings. It speaks to the number of meetings and the priority of how to direct each meeting to a particular topic, but the actual allocation of time is not in the motion.
We go now to Mr. Powlowski. Please go ahead.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I was not talking about Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment that we have just voted on, but the one she withdrew.
November 16th, 2020 / 12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
She removed the amendment. It's not a relevant factor. It's not part of this motion. It's gone.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Sorry, Dr. Powlowski; I think I gave the floor to you briefly.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I wanted to briefly state my total support for Mr. Davies' motion. It's great, and it will be great that we actually start studying this after a while.
I've certainly shared a lot of people's frustration here in seeing this committee not addressing the issues. I think we really have to start shining a light on COVID again here in this committee. None of us is in a position—perhaps short of the parliamentary secretary—to influence how things are going to go in terms of how we deal with the pandemic, but I think we can certainly shine a light on various aspects of the problem.
It's certainly frustrating. With two vaccines now on the near horizon, I'm hoping that in early spring we'll be starting to mass-immunize. With a light at the end of the tunnel, it turns out this wasn't quite the marathon that maybe we thought it was going to be. It looks more like a 1,500-metre race. For the first three laps, we were doing fantastically as a country, and now, in the last lap, the wheels have fallen off the bus, it seems. We're either dying or stopping for a smoke, or we're going into the stands and starting to talk to our colleagues. We have to get across that finish line. To do that, one thing we want to do as a committee is to start addressing the issues. I think this is a great way forward, and we want to start shining a light on the actual problems.
It's a great motion, Mr. Davies.
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, I move the following amendment to the motion under section (b). The motion is that section (b) would read as follows: “Each topic be examined in turn and by priority on the following rotation: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, NDP, with no more than one topic per party per rotation”.