Evidence of meeting #137 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I guess we need to decide. Right now, we have one more meeting on the books.
Could you clarify that, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I want to make sure I'm clear on Mr. Thériault's suggestion, because I like it. We move, right after that meeting, to an interim report, then have other meetings and continue after that.
However, I think we need to get to a report. We don't know what this is going to look like. I agree with Mr. Thériault that there are enough things around the table we can all agree on. Despite our differences on some of the issues, we've heard enough things that we have to figure out.
Conservative
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
First, we had a motion, then an amended motion. Now we have a subamended motion.
The current conversation, while pertinent to the overall conversation, is not on the subamendment. If we want to try to get to a vote before question period, I think we need to deal with the subamendment at hand.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Go ahead, Mr. Johns. However, if you're going to propose an interim report, we need to deal with the amendments in front of us and perhaps introduce a new motion.
This is part and parcel to the discussion as to how we proceed, so it's not really out of order.
However, if we're going to deal with it, we'll need a motion outside of the one we're talking about now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
No. The appropriate way to go, if that's what you want to do, is to vote down what's in front of us and move something new. You can't subamend a subamendment, and that's where we are now. The debate is on the subamendment.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Okay. I will talk about the subamendment. The reason I want to talk about that is, if we defeat the subamendment, Mr. Chair, and we move a subamendment that we support the motion after we do an interim report, that gives us a pathway to getting started on an interim report, and then we go to meetings and come back to the main report after. I will support defeating the amendment so that we can get to that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The speakers list is now exhausted. No, it's not. I'm the one who's exhausted.
Dr. Powlowski, go ahead.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I'd like to get to a vote.
I don't like the idea of an interim report. I do think we need to come to a conclusion of this study. There are other things to study, for example, the cancer study, which I know a lot of people in the cancer community are really waiting for.
Anyhow, I'd like to get to the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
There's no one else on the speakers list, so the question for the committee is on the subamendment. The subamendment proposes to fix the number of additional meetings at four and to specifically include a reference to indigenous peoples. Are we clear on the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived)
The debate is now on the amendment proposed by Dr. Powlowski.
The amendment proposed by Dr. Powlowski is to delete the words “given recent reports from the British Columbia coroner service that the death rate from illicit drugs among women and girls is up 60% from four years ago”; to add, before the words “three”, “up to”, so that it's “up to three”; and then to add, at the end of Dr. Ellis's motion, the other topics, which are “the role of drug courts in addressing addiction and the use of mandatory treatment for mixed substance use in mental disorder cases”.
Are we clear on the amendment? The vote is on the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
The question is now on the main motion as amended. Do you need that read?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You're clear on the main motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Before I let you go, you received a supplementary budget for the opioid study. As luck would have it, this budget is probably sufficient to allow for the motion that was just adopted because it presumes 10 working meals.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt the supplementary project budget, as presented?
(Motion agreed to)
Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?