Health Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I remember your earlier advice to me, Mr. Clerk, that there is no such thing as a friendly amendment, so what we have is a subamendment, unless the consensus of the room is that we're okay to proceed with that.

It is fine as a subamendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The motion just read by the clerk isn't the same as the one that I moved.

I think that I'll invite my colleagues to defeat the motion that I moved. We should listen to the clerk re‑read the motion that he just presented, because it's exactly what must be said. He used the right words to say exactly what I wanted to say.

I fully support a vote on the motion just read by the clerk with amendments to what Mr. Lake proposed. The motion read by the clerk is perfect. It says exactly what I wanted to say. We aren't talking about an additional meeting anymore.

I'd like to invite my colleagues to defeat my motion and to work on the clerk's motion, which is excellent.

Mr. Chair, we could do this very quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Colleagues, I'm sorry to be overly technical but the way we are obligated to proceed is to consider Mr. Lake's suggestion as a subamendment. We need to decide either by consensus or by a standing vote whether the words “at least” should be deleted from the amendment. Then we need to deal with the amendment. Then we need to deal with any other amendments. Then we need to deal with the motion.

The debate now is on the words “at least”—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, and I don't want to be technical, but we cannot talk about an amendment to a motion that is not the motion that I presented. That's the problem right now, because what the clerk just read is not my motion.

Mr. Lake wanted an amendment to the motion. That is not my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. I understand now.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I was, on the request of Monsieur Berthold, providing some alternate language to accomplish what he requested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay, but the language he is most comfortable with does not include the words “at least”.

We are now proceeding with the amendment proposed by Monsieur Berthold, which does not include the words “at least”.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The essence of the amendment is to dedicate one half of our time to the COVID study.

[Mike Lake]

On a point of order, can we, for clarity—I hate to belabour this—have the clerk read the motion we're about to vote on, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's a good idea.

Mr. Clerk, take two.

[The Clerk]

I would actually ask for members' indulgence to have Mr. Berthold clarify his original amendment or we can go by unanimous consent to withdraw and start anew.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I'm asking for unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.

I want everyone to agree and to work only on the clerk's motion, which I think is fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is it the will of the committee that we proceed in this fashion?

I see no objection.

Mr. Clerk, could you suggest wording for the amendment to be reintroduced by Monsieur Berthold?

[The Clerk]

My understanding is that it has now been withdrawn and Monsieur Berthold is moving an amendment to the subcommittee report that is now before us and that would read as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Emergency Situation Facing Canadians in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session, that the committee hold additional meetings on this study in the current session, that the committee dedicate half of its meetings to this study, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.”

That would be the subcommittee report if it were amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The debate is on the amendment, as you just heard.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but I want to be clear that we're voting on the amendment. I also have an amendment, so I want to make sure we're not voting on the motion and that I'll have a chance to move another amendment after we deal with this. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Indeed you will, and I think we might have one from Mr. van Koeverden as well.

This is on the amendment to the subcommittee report.

Mr. Lake, do you have a further intervention? I didn't mean to cut you off. I know you had asked that the amendment be reread, but I didn't know if you had some comments on it as well.

[Mike Lake]

No, I think we should vote on this.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The motion is amended.

I recognize Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a very simple amendment. It's just to remove the words “the Second Session” so it reads “that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the 43rd Parliament be taken into consideration”. We received evidence and documentation in the first session and the second session, so I think we should have all of that available to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The amendment is in order.

The debate is on the amendment to delete the words “the Second Session”.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. van Koeverden, do you have another amendment?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I do. I gave you a little preview earlier. It's just that we add “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee request a government response”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The debate is now on the amendment, which is in order.

Is there any debate on the amendment proposed by Mr. van Koeverden? Seeing none, is it the will of the committee to adopt the amendment as presented?

(Amendment agreed to)

The motion to amend is so adopted. I believe we are now ready to vote on the main motion as thrice amended.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.