Health Committee on Nov. 16th, 2020

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to take a stab at amending the motion so that everybody's concerns can be taken into consideration here, including Mr. Thériault's. I propose that we amend the motion as follows.

First of all, just to clarify what Mr. Davies said with regard to the rotation of topic rather than the rotation of everybody's list, I don't want to see it happen that the Liberal Party exhausts their topic list and then we move on to the Conservatives, so I would amend the motion, under section (b), to read:

(b) each topic will be examined in turn and by priority, on the following rotation: one topic by the Liberal Party, one topic by the Conservative Party, one topic by the Bloc Québécois, one topic by the NDP;

Then, under section (c), given the number of meetings we have regularly scheduled up to Christmas, I would say “a maximum of three meetings” instead of four. The government would have three meetings for a topic of their choice, but we would have at least one opposition-selected meeting prior to Christmas.

To Mr. Thériault's point, I would add a section (g) at the end of the motion:

(g) that meetings related to the PMPRB study be held as extra meetings to the meetings scheduled for the COVID study, for example, on Monday evenings during available time slots, as determined by the clerk.

I move those amendments to the motion, Clerk. My rationale is as follows.

My understanding is that there are extra meeting slots available. We could be starting the study on the PMPRB immediately. We could also be starting the COVID study immediately as well. This would allow us to get a couple of meetings in almost instantly for the PMPRB study, as well as start the COVID study.

I hope that addresses my colleagues' concerns. I think the amendment on the first part is to just be super-clear on the fact that we would rotate by topic and not by exhausting topic lists. A maximum of three meetings, I think, is probably a better number, especially given the number of meetings we have scheduled before Christmas. To Mr. Thériault's comments, we would be instructing the clerk to look for additional meeting slots so that we could be looking at both studies concurrently.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

On your motion to amend, perhaps I can ask you to clarify. You want to modify section (b) of Mr. Davies' motion, which says:

(b) each topic will be examined in turn and by priority, on the following rotation: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, NDP;

You want to change that—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Would it be easier if I just read the whole motion as amended?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Sure.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It reads as follows:

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 26, 2020, the committee commence its study of the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the following manner: (a) each party shall submit four topics ranked in order of priority by the close of business Wednesday, November 18, 2020; (b) each topic will be examined in turn and by priority, on the following rotation: one topic by the Liberal Party, one topic by the Conservative Party, one topic by the Bloc Québécois, one topic by the NDP; (c) the committee will determine by majority vote the number of meetings allocated to each topic, holding a minimum of one meeting and a maximum of three meetings, unless determined by unanimous consent to hold additional meetings; (d) each party shall be entitled to an equal number of witnesses in accordance with the mandatory instruction from the House outlined in the order of reference of Monday, October 26, 2020; (e) all witnesses for the first round of prioritized topics shall be submitted within one week of the number of meetings for each topic being agreed to; (f) once all four topics submitted by the four parties have been completed, the committee will determine if there are additional topics to be scheduled and, if so, will follow the process outlined in this motion once again; and (g) that meetings related to the PMPRB study be held as extra meetings to the meetings scheduled for the COVID study, for example, on Monday evenings during available time slots, as determined by the clerk.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

We have the motion as amended. The discussion now is on the—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead on a point of order, Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

First, I would have liked the opportunity to have the text of this motion in my hand. I don't have Ms. Rempel Garner's memory. I don't have all the points in my head at the moment.

Her amendment does not seem to me to be in order, because it runs counter to the motion we have passed on the PMPRB. There was never a question in the PMPRB motion that the study would turn into a complementary study, if ever there was extra room. The motion we were discussing about the COVID-19 study specified that we had to study them simultaneously. We have six weeks left and we have had five opportunities—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have the floor at the moment. I have not finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

—this is going beyond a point of order. This is debate. Your point of order was to request the text of the motion. If you want to get into the debate, we can certainly put you on the list for the debate.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

No, I am not getting into a debate. I am asking you to rule this amendment out of order. I don't know why we are going to be discussing it.

This is a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You are accepting this motion, even though the amendment does not accommodate the motion that was passed, and, moreover, that took plenty of time to be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault, for your intervention.

I don't agree that it's contrary to the motion. I think it is in order. I do think it's a little problematic because we don't necessarily have extra slots to deal with PMPRB, but the motion for the PMPRB did provide that we would deal with the PMPRB in parallel with the House motion, which certainly does have priority.

Mr. Clerk, I wonder if you can arrange to get Mr. Thériault a copy of the text of Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment. I don't know if Ms. Rempel Garner has sent you a hard copy of it at this point.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I did, Chair.

To be honest with you, I was adding section (g) to help Mr. Thériault. I am perfectly fine to remove section (g), so I will remove section (g) from my amendment.

My intent—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do not have the motion at hand. In order to amend that motion, people have to have received the text. I do not have the text. Perhaps Mr. Davies could pass it along to me.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair, just for clarification—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Just hold up here.

Monsieur Thériault, Mr. Davies' motion was distributed in both languages by the clerk. Did you get that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

No, I don't have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. I'll ask the clerk to get that to you.

Ms. Rempel Garner's amendments, apart from section (g), which she is talking about removing from her amendment, are a fairly simple change to that motion.

I'll wait and make sure that you get a copy of Mr. Davies' original motion.

Ms. Rempel Garner, did you have a further point?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I will remove section (g) from the amendment. Again, I put it in place to help Mr. Thériault so that we could get the study going, but I am perfectly fine to remove it from the motion.

For Mr. Thériault's benefit, this was not distributed to anyone ahead of time. I was just trying to amend the motion so it would be palatable to all parties, as parliamentarians do during the normal course of business. I did send him a copy of what I just read—I typed it out as a I read it—and I am also happy to send that to the clerk right now, but I do remove section (g) from my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll ask the committee if they are in agreement with the removal of section (g) from the amendment as moved. Is there any dissent?

I am seeing no dissent. We will accept that change.

Ms. Rempel Garner's motion basically changes section (b) of Mr. Davies' motion slightly to add more specificity for one Liberal topic, one Conservative topic, one Bloc topic and one NDP topic. It also changes the number of meetings in part (c) to three instead of four.

Mr. Thériault—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, as the author of the motion, I want to say that when I drafted the motion I intended it—and I think it does read—to reflect exactly what Ms. Rempel Garner wants it to read in terms of the rotation.

If it's helpful, at least with that part of the amendment, I want to be clear that I always intended it to proceed as the Liberals' first choice, then the Conservatives' first choice, then the Bloc's first choice, then the NDP's first choice, and then we'd come around to the Liberals' second, the Conservatives' second, etc.

I think it reads that way now. I'm happy, just as a friendly amendment, to give that assurance to Ms. Rempel Garner if she feels that she needs that clarified in the motion. I'm okay with that. I just want to say that's exactly the process I intended.