Evidence of meeting #118 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pharmacare.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Dr. Ellis, hold that thought.
I'm going back now to the definitions section, which we had agreed to postpone. Then we'll come back to the preamble.
(On clause 2)
As members had earlier agreed to postpone clause 2, the committee will now consider clause 2 and its proposed amendments, which can be found on pages 1 to 6 in the package of amendments. Therefore, we're now considering clause 2, and we're on CPC-1.
Shall CPC-1 carry?
8:55 p.m.
Conservative
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
There's a recorded division for CPC-1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on CPC-2. This amendment seeks to make a substantive modification to the definitions clause by adding a definition of “Indigenous governing body”, a term that is not used—
9 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Excuse me, Chair. We request unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw CPC-2?
(Amendment withdrawn)
That brings us to CPC-3. If CPC-3 is adopted, CPC-4 can't be moved, because they both define the term “national bulk purchasing strategy”.
The question for the committee is whether CPC-3 shall carry.
Do you want a recorded division?
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Call CPC-3, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on CPC-4.
Shall CPC-4 carry?
9 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I'm sorry, Chair. There appears to be a bit of confusion. We didn't want CPC-4 in there, so I'll request unanimous consent to withdraw it.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw CPC-4?
(Amendment withdrawn)
Shall CPC-5 carry?
9 p.m.
Conservative
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Could we have a recorded division on CPC-5, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to CPC-6. Shall CPC-6 carry?
Could we have a recorded division on CPC-6, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 2 carry?
(Clause 2 agreed to on division)
That brings us, then, to the preamble.
We have an indication from Dr. Ellis that he intends to seek unanimous consent to withdraw CPC-35. Is that still the case, Dr. Ellis?
9 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Could we do both CPC-35 and CPC-36 at once, Chair?
9 p.m.
Liberal
9 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That brings us to CPC-37.
The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification in the preamble by deleting the words “and carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare;”. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774, “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.”
In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is substantive, and since no amendment has been adopted to warrant this deletion, I declare the amendment inadmissible.
That brings us to CPC-38.
In connection with CPC-38, I have the exact same comments and the exact same conclusion, so I will spare you the reading of the details and simply indicate to you that I find that since the proposed amendment is substantive and no amendment has been adopted to warrant the decision, I declare the amendment inadmissible.
That brings us, then, to CPC-39.
My ruling on CPC-39 is identical to that on CPC-37 and CPC-38. For the reasons previously stated in connection with CPC-37 and CPC-38, I declare this amendment inadmissible.
That brings us to CPC-40.
It is the same ruling, the same logic and the same conclusion. I declare CPC-40 inadmissible.
That brings us to the preamble.
Shall the preamble carry?
9:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:05 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That brings us to the short title.
CPC-41 is the first amendment of the short title. This amendment seeks to make an amendment to the short title. As a House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on line 775, “Titles, whether it be the long, short or alternative title, may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.”
In the opinion of the chair, no amendment has been made to the bill that would necessitate a change to the short title; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
That brings us to CPC-42. CPC-42 seeks to amend clause 1, the short title, by adding content that appears to relate to another clause. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “An amendment is also out of order if it is moved at the wrong place in the bill, if it is tendered in a spirit of mockery, or if it is vague or trifling.”
In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment seeks to modify the wrong clause of the bill. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.
Shall the short title carry?
9:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:05 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That brings us to the title. There is an amendment from the Conservatives, CPC-43. This amendment seeks to make an amendment to the title. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 775, “Titles, whether it be the long, short or alternative title, may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.”
In the opinion of the chair, no amendment has been made to the bill that would necessitate a change to the title. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Chair, I would like to challenge the ruling, please.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The ruling of the chair has been challenged. The question for the committee is: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
Can we have a recorded division, please?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
Shall the title carry?
9:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.