Health Committee on March 9th, 2023

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Yes, it's just been shortened to, “That pursuant” and all of that, and then “the committee conduct a study on the PMPRB board; and that the committee invite the following witnesses in addition to” any others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. The amendment is in order. If you have it to circulate, that would be helpful.

Mr. Davies has his hand up.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. van Koeverden and I have had a chance to discuss the amendment and I would accept it as a friendly amendment. It gets at the same substance, which is simply to focus on the PMPRB and, obviously, hear from the relevant witnesses. It's broad enough to include the issues that were included in mine and it removes language that perhaps was more directive.

If it's a way to expedite this process, I'm happy to say that I accept that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Seeing none, is it the will of the committee to adopt the....

Okay. Please reread the amendment.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Yes. It is “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee conduct a study on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board; that the committee invite the following witnesses, in addition to any further witnesses the committee may consider relevant: Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Health; Matthew Herder, former member, PMPRB; Mélanie Bourassa Forcier, former acting chair, PMPRB; and Douglas Clark, former executive director, PMPRB; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Are we ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

The debate is now on the main motion, as amended.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's just in terms of scheduling, Mr. Chair. Of course this motion was stimulated by recent events, so I would suggest that we schedule one day, perhaps in early to mid-April, just to hear from these four witnesses.

I'll leave it to you and the clerk to maybe work this out for the next meeting. Then I think the committee can assess where we want to go from there, because the motion does permit us to consider hearing from further witnesses if the committee believes we need to. It leaves it open. I'm mindful of people like former chair Mitchell Levine as a another potential witness. There may even be a couple of people from civil society. I don't want to make that determination now, because maybe these are all we need to hear from.

I do think that before we break for next week, I would like to ensure that we have one meeting sometime in April to hear from these four witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion on the motion? Are we ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion as amended, please raise your hand.

All those opposed....

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Excuse me, but I'm not sure I properly understood the interpretation earlier.

For the witnesses, are we only going to hear from Mr. Duclos, Mr. Herder and Ms. Forcier?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, the list of witnesses did not change in the amendment.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

I would like to propose an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right.

You can present it now.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I would like Mr. Clark's name to be withdrawn from the list. The reason is straightforward: three individuals were involved in an event and were present at the event, and there was a person who was not present in any way. Mr. Clark was not at the PMPRB at the time of the events. So if, at an initial meeting, in view of the testimony—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Please wait a moment, Mr. Thériault.

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe we already voted on the amendment and the motion, so I'm not sure if it is in order to be discussing this at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Normally I would be inclined to agree with you, but Mr. Thériault indicated that there was a problem with the translation that affected his ability to participate. I think that in those circumstances, we may very well end up back in the same place, but I would like to extend to him the fairness that the situation calls for.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the fact is that we voted and it's been a recorded vote. We either have to rescind that vote in order to do that.... We've already had that vote, even though there was an error. I get that. I understand about translation, but the vote was put in place. From a procedural point of view, I would call for the clerk to maybe give us a better understanding whether that can....

My understanding would be that we voted on the motion. It has been approved. This would have to be a new motion or we would have to rescind the vote that we did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I take your point of order.

First of all, it wasn't a standing vote, but you've asked for a ruling on it.

Mr. Thériault, did you have something you wanted to add on the point of order?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We voted on Mr. van Koeverden's amendment and, before voting on the amended proposal, I said that I wanted to propose an amendment. You can propose an amendment after having voted on an amendment. That's all. I think I'm explaining my amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. A moment, please.

I need to rule on the point of order.

Mr. Kitchen asked if it would be possible to have the clerk comment. I invite him to do so.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Patrick Williams]

Typically, yes, a vote that has taken place would need to be rescinded by unanimous consent in order to revoke the decision and then put another amendment forward.

If it was clear to the committee that the vote on the main motion had taken place, that would be a typical way to proceed, for example, in the House. Unanimous consent to rescind could be granted to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. What I'm going to do is reject the point of order and entertain Mr. Thériault's amendment. It is open to anyone here to challenge the chair if they don't like that decision.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Certainly I will challenge the chair on that, in the sense that you were, sir, in the midst of counting the votes on the main motion at the time. I think it was very clear around the table that there was a consensus.

I'm fully respectful of the fact that Mr. Thériault missed the translation. I think that's very important. I think we all need to be respectful of that. I think Dr. Kitchen's point is also very important: We also need to be respectful of the rules of how this committee should operate. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that the chair consider another course of action and perhaps ask for unanimous consent to reverse direction, simply because of the fact that I do believe that it's an exceedingly important point that Mr. Thériault is bringing forward.

Again, I can't comment on the translation. I wasn't listening in French. However, I would suggest that because we're at the point of counting votes on the actual main motion, the chair reconsider his ruling and move back to a different position.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

A motion to challenge the chair is not debatable. We're going to proceed directly to a vote. Just so we're all clear on what we're voting on, I have ruled that the motion has not been adopted and that Mr. Thériault is to have the floor to move his amendment. That ruling has been challenged.

The question for you is whether the ruling of the chair shall be sustained.

Do we need to do a standing vote on something like this? No?

By a show of hands, on the ruling of the chair that Mr. Thériault is now allowed to present an amendment and the motion has not yet passed, is it the will of the committee to sustain the ruling of the chair?

All those in favour of sustaining the chair...one, two, three, four, five.

All those opposed...one, two, three, four, five

Madam Sidhu, did you vote in favour or opposed?