Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, given the many events currently taking place, my colleagues and I can no longer continue this evening's meeting.
5:35 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. There's nobody on the list, so let's just call the question to end the meeting.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We now have somebody on the list.
What I had indicated prior to Mr. Berthold's intervention was that we would.... I'm happy to entertain a motion for adjournment, if somebody wants to bring it. Otherwise, I suggest we suspend to ensure that we have the resources to be able to continue the meeting.
With that, we stand suspended.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I call the meeting back to order, with apologies.
This is one of the challenges associated with working in different time zones. My advice from the clerk was that we had sufficient resources to go until 6:30. From where I sit, it is 6:40, but from where he sits, it's 5:30, so we have adequate resources to continue for another 50 minutes. If we're not done by then, we will have to suspend to see if we can go further. My apologies for the mix-up. That's entirely as a result of being an hour behind the centre of the universe.
Is there any further debate on the amendment proposed by Mr. Davies?
Mr. van Koeverden, please go ahead.
February 2nd, 2022 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you.
I don't want to belabour this at all. I just think it's important to note that while we are in favour of a children's health study, seemingly, and in favour of voting on this as soon as possible, it doesn't remove the possibility that we have other studies to discuss, and then, collectively, we have to rank those as priorities and determine which one goes first.
I think we should move to vote on Don's amendment. If time allows, then we can discuss other studies, but I don't think it's necessarily decided that any of these studies will go first.
5:40 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I thought we were close because there was nobody on the speakers list when I was saying that we were so close to passing it and that it would be nice to just finish it. I was going to weigh in and say that, given that it was just for one study and that I'm new to the committee, I didn't want to get in the way of agreement, so I was going to nod to Don's idea for this study in the hope of moving forward and having a little bit of a plan. However, it sounds like there may be more discussion that needs to be had, which is probably going to take us longer than we need tonight, so I move that we adjourn.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That motion is not debatable.
Is it the will of the meeting that we adjourn, or do we require a standing vote?
I'm not sure that I see a consensus.
Mr. Clerk, I would ask you to conduct a standing vote on Mr. Lake's motion that we do now adjourn.
5:40 p.m.
The Clerk
I will do so, Mr. Chair.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I apologize, Mr. Chair.
If there are no further discussions on the main motion, can we vote on this motion and then vote on Mr. Lake's motion?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mr. Clerk, I will take your advice on this, even though we had not yet dispensed with the motion that was before us. We do have a motion to adjourn, which I understand takes precedence, isn't debatable and has to be dealt with. Am I off base?
5:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Just a moment, Mr. Chair. I need about a minute, and then I'll get back to you on that.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
My question was purely rhetorical. If we have to vote on Mr. Lake's motion first, I have no problem with that. I understand that the discussion on Mr. Berthold's motion is probably not over. I just wanted to get a clarification so I can understand better.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Yes, that was also my understanding, but I asked for an expert's advice, which we will follow.
Thank you very much.
5:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, such a motion is a privileged motion, and it is dilatory, so it goes to question without debate.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I don't believe we have consensus in the room, so I would ask you to take a standing vote on whether we do now adjourn.
5:45 p.m.
The Clerk
The vote is on the motion by Mr. Lake, that this committee do now adjourn.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
5:50 p.m.
Liberal