Health Committee on April 27th, 2023

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

That's correct, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The question for the committee now is whether the ruling of the chair be sustained.

The chair has ruled the dilatory motion to adjourn debate to be in order. The question for you is whether that ruling shall be sustained.

To be clear—

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

Excuse me, sir. I would request a recorded division.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

The question for the committee is whether the ruling of the chair shall be sustained. If you vote in favour, we will proceed to a vote on whether the debate shall be adjourned. If you vote against, there will be no vote on the motion to adjourn the debate, because it will be considered out of order.

I hope I haven't confused you.

The question for you is whether the ruling of the chair shall be sustained. I will ask the clerk to conduct a standing vote.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a question before we vote.

I am wondering if we can ask the clerk for his advice. To me, this is not a question of a majority vote. A motion to adjourn is either in order or it's not in order at any time during the meeting. As much as I might sympathize with the purpose of my Conservative colleagues, I believe a motion to adjourn is always in order. It's always happening in the middle of something.

I wonder if the clerk can give us some guidance on whether his view is that a motion to adjourn can be made when there is a current motion being debated, because to me, that's almost always when motions to adjourn occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's what I thought, too, which is why I ruled as I did.

I'll have the clerk answer the question.

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

A motion to adjourn the debate is a dilatory motion. By definition, its purpose is to prevent an ongoing debate. It can also be called a “superseding motion” in the sense that it is essentially a layer on top of the main motion.

My advice to the chair would be that a motion to move to adjourn debate would be in order in this circumstance.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We will proceed with the standing vote on whether the ruling of the chair shall be sustained.

Go ahead, Dr. Kitchen.

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

Thank you.

There was already one that was put forward on this, which was defeated. The clarification is this: Can they be put forward two, three or four times?

My understanding is that just once moved the debate on, but can I get some clarification, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The answer to that question is yes. There can be multiple motions to adjourn debate.

If you want to hear from the clerk on it, Mr. Clerk can answer.

[The Clerk]

It's a difficult question. Typically, the principle is that if there is an intervening proceeding between the moving of the motions, then the motion can be moved a second time.

The question is how much of an intervening proceeding is required and whether questions asked to a witness can constitute an intervening proceeding or whether another motion would have to have been moved. That is a grey procedural area, so it's a difficult question to answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Aboultaif.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Thériault changed his mind after he voted on the first motion to adjourn. Procedurally, in order for him to change his mind, is there a way to change that? How does the mechanism work?

He said he changed his mind because he made a mistake, but he was aware of the question and he voted in full capacity. All of a sudden, he changed his mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

He presented a motion to adjourn debate, which I ruled to be in order—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I had raised my hand at the same time as the people on the other side of the table, but you didn't notice it. I thought you had. When you asked me whether I was in favour of the motion, I had the notice of motion in front of me and said that I was opposed. I voted on it. What I was in favour of was to adjourn debate, as I just explained.

I allowed my colleagues to withdraw their motion and said that we would move another motion to adjourn. I didn't make a mistake. The chair should have seen my hand raised when I initially voted. In any event, the end result is the one I wanted to avoid, which was that we would come to the end of the meeting without the witness having had the opportunity to speak within this hour-long period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're now at the standing vote on—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, and then Mr. van Koeverden. There are two points of order.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, can we please release the witness? Can we let Ms. Bourassa Forcier go, as it is already 1 p.m., and we can bring her back again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. van Koeverden, go ahead.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I would recommend the same. This debate has greatly chewed into the time available for us to ask the witness questions. I would ask that if she's available, she be asked to rejoin the meeting on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Can we take things in order here?

The first thing we need to deal with is the challenge to the chair. After that, we can move on these points of order as to whether we invite the witness back on Tuesday.

Dr. Ellis, go ahead.

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

Sir, if it might be simpler, we're certainly agreeable to asking Madame Forcier to return. I think it's reasonable to allow her to leave now on a friendly basis. We're happy to do that.