Evidence of meeting #5 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Is it the will of the meeting to adjourn debate? It would require a standing vote.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Next on the list of speakers, we have Monsieur Berthold.
The debate is on the motion.
Conservative
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I've been waiting to speak to the point of order. It seemed to me that we were voting to adjourn debate on the point of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
No. We were voting on whether to adjourn debate on Mr. Hanley's motion. That was defeated.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry. I had wanted to speak to the point of order. I don't know where that leaves us.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm going to raise a point of order of my own, at this point. My point of order is it would be helpful for the committee, in our future proceedings, to know how we're going to proceed.
I was a bit taken aback at the way this meeting began, as my colleague Monsieur Thériault was. It's been my understanding that when a meeting is adjourned, as the last meeting was, when we start the new meeting, we don't pick up where the last motion was. It's a brand new meeting.
I totally understand, Mr. Chair, that you were trying to be helpful and I appreciate that, but if that is going to be the way the committee proceeds, we should know that. I'm not even sure if it is permitted or not. Perhaps the clerk could elucidate on that.
It's been my experience that when a meeting ends, the meeting's ended. When the new meeting comes, it's a brand new open floor, which would have made Mr. Hanley's motion in order.
We need to know when we come to a new meeting whether we're picking up where we were at the last meeting, or we're starting a brand new meeting. My assumption was that it's a brand new meeting.
Regardless of what flexibility you may have, Mr. Chair, I would suggest to my colleagues that we proceed on that basis. It's clear to everybody, then, that when we come to a new meeting, it's a brand new meeting and whoever gets the floor, gets the floor. Of course, we follow the business that has been prescribed to the meeting.
It was my understanding that this meeting was called for us to receive a briefing from the analysts on the evidence that was received in the last Parliament on the COVID study. That's what I came prepared to begin the meeting with; to hear the briefing. I thought that at the end, we might deal with committee business.
I'm in my colleagues' hands. If we prefer to deal with committee business, we can if that's what the majority wants to do. It would be helpful—for me, anyway, and most of us—if we know what the procedure's going to be when we come into a brand new meeting.
We were debating Mr. Berthold's motion last meeting, and I moved an amendment to it. It was the Conservatives, if I'm not mistaken, who moved to adjourn the meeting. When that happens, the meeting's killed. I don't think we come back to this meeting picking up where we left off. At least that's my sense of it. It would help if we had that clarified.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You're exactly right. That's exactly what we did. The last meeting was adjourned, then this one started anew with committee business. There was a motion put on the floor and we are now debating the motion.
You are correct that at the last meeting, we made a commitment to hear from the analysts and we made a commitment to complete the debate on the previous motion. That doesn't necessarily give them precedence when you start with a clean slate at the next meeting, which is what we've done.
Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In this case, Mr. Chair, on that point of clarification, why open the meeting the way you did, since you raised a question that wasn't related to what was just said?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I've answered your question and made my decision, so we're going to move on.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
No, Mr. Chair, this isn't a debate.
You gave Mr. Davies the right to clarify the meaning of the adjournment of our meetings, and he then asked you to clarify the situation and tell us exactly where we stand from the previous meeting. However, the way you opened the meeting did not allow us to go in the direction that Mr. Davies mentioned.
So I humbly submit to you, Mr. Chair, that your intervention simply allowed Mr. Hanley's motion to be moved. Although he was entitled to do so, the fact remains that, in the interest of consistency and the organization of the work we have to do, I thought that common sense would lead us to settle the first issue.
Having said that, we will be faster next time.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose an amendment to Mr. Hanley's motion. I would suggest that we remove the last words that the committee will prioritize this study. Unfortunately, those words don't appear in the version I have here. I would like that part to be deleted completely.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The amendment is in order. The debate is now on the amendment.
Mr. Davies, go ahead, please.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I was going to ask for clarification on the motion.
My staff put together a number of motions for me that have been filed on this. I'm pretty sure there were several versions of a motion that were put forward. I think it would be helpful if the clerk read out Mr. Hanley's motion, if that is possible. If I'm not mistaken, there was more than one version. I may be mistaken in that, but I'm not—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You're absolutely right. The latest version was presented today.
I'm sorry to interrupt. Go ahead, Mr. Davies.