Evidence of meeting #123 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We have a subamendment to substitute the word “urge” with the word “direct”, as contained in the amendment. The subamendment is in order.
The debate is on the subamendment, and the speakers list resets.
Dr. Ellis, go ahead.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I think it's a bad idea. Let's get to the vote.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Dr. Powlowski has his hand up.
Go ahead, Dr. Powlowski. You have the floor.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I'm speaking to the subamendment of the original motion, but I have to say that I am unhappy that my initial amendments weren't accepted. I think they presented a good compromise.
This motion as it currently stands is basically an attempt by a committee of parliamentarians to overturn the decision of a medical task force, albeit, as I see it, a very flawed medical task force that I agree came to the wrong decision. I don't think it's the place of a bunch of elected parliamentarians to try to overturn the decision of an expert task force, just as it wouldn't be appropriate for us to tell farmers what kinds of seeds to plant in the fields, to tell roofers what kinds of tiles to put on their roof or to tell airplane pilots how they should be flying their planes.
We ought to recognize that there is a degree of expertise here that we do not have. We're coming off as though we're telling them how they should be doing things, ordering them to basically go back to the starting point and review the basic evidence. We are not better than they are at evaluating the evidence, so I don't like the way this is twisted. I don't think it's appropriate that we're trying to dictate to a group of experts what they should and shouldn't be doing. This just ends up looking like a political exercise.
We all disagree with their conclusion, but the right way to do it would be to strongly recommend that they reconsider. Hopefully, they will. We've already put in process other measures to review this. My understanding is that we've also looked at reviewing the way the panel is formed and the way decisions are made by the task force. The minister has already said he's going to do that.
We would have been a lot better off leaving the original amendment. I think this goes too far. Nowadays everybody is an expert in everything, and everybody is an expert on the evidence. We all have to realize that we as parliamentarians are not experts in everything in life, and I think this has gone too far.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.
Are there any further submissions with respect to the subamendment?
Seeing none, are we ready for the question on the subamendment? The subamendment is simply to delete the word “direct” in the amendment and to substitute for it the word “urge”.
All those in favour of the subamendment, please raise your hand. All those opposed?
Only one Liberal voted.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I don't have a clear sense of things. It doesn't appear that people are paying attention.
We will conduct a recorded division on the subamendment.
It is a tie, five-five. The chair votes in favour of the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on the amendment as amended. This is Ms. Zarrillo's amendment with the word “urge” instead of “direct”.
Is there any debate on the amendment as amended? If not, are we ready for the question?
2:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Call the question.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, there seems to be some confusion about the English and French versions. We agree on the word “exhorter” in French, but we don't agree on the word “exhort” in English. I'm not sure I understand. You're saying we're going to replace the word… Which word are we replacing?
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
The word “exhort” exists in English too, and it has the same definition as in French.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
The word “urge” doesn't have the same definition as the word “exhort.”
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Okay.
There are some problems with… I just want to make sure I'm voting on the right thing.
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I don't want to change my vote. I think the word “exhorter,” as you said it and as it was translated, is the most effective word for this context. But my understanding is that there's no equivalent word in English so there's a problem.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
The word “exhort” in English means exactly the same thing as the word “exhorter” in French.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Regardless of the reason, for Mr. Thériault to change his vote requires the unanimous consent of the committee.
Does Mr. Thériault have the unanimous consent of the committee to change—
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I wasn't asking to change my vote, Mr. Chair. You're calling another vote, but before we vote, I just wanted an explanation and some clarification.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay.
I apologize, Mr. Thériault, I misunderstood your intervention. What I understand is that the translated version of the subamendment doesn't used the word “exhorter” but a different word. Do I have that right?
2:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
No, that wasn't it, but you can keep going, Mr. Chair. I'll figure it out.
When you called the vote, you said “exhorter.”