Evidence of meeting #34 for Health in the 45th 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.
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Thank you, Dr. Strauss.
Also, thank you, Mr. Mantle. That was a great comment in reminding all of us of what we're discussing here.
I do have one point. I guess it's a clarification again for Mr. Eyolfson.
Does the sponsor still support having a study on PrescribeIT? That's what he's implying online, but I just don't know. If he could just answer that question, a lot of things would be satisfied. My question is whether he still supports the idea of—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
The question has nothing to do with this. I don't think he has a hand up.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Basically, he does not need to answer that, because this is relating to committee business. He himself cannot make that decision. Let's focus on the subamendment, please.
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
If we knew if he still wanted to do a study on PrescribeIT, that would be good. If he doesn't want to answer it, that's—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I appreciate that. If there are no more speakers, I will call the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
We will take the vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are back to the motion brought forward by Dr. Eyolfson and the amendment brought forward by Mr. Mazier. We are on the debate of the motion as amended by Mr. Mazier.
We have Mr. Mantle on the list, then Dr. Strauss.
Liberal
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Sure.
I'm totally confused now. They seem to agree about having the minister come, but they won't have the minister come with any clarity about what she's coming for. She can come, but she can't come to discuss programs under the purview of Health Canada. This is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense in a derogatory sense. I mean it in a tactical sense. I don't understand. They suggested earlier in this meeting that they would vote for Mr. Mazier's amendment, but when I tried to provide some clarity, they voted down the subamendment.
I'm inviting any of them to explain to me what the heck this means.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're back to the amendment to the motion to bring the Minister of Health here to discuss we're not sure what, because the subamendment was defeated, which, again, puts truth to this whole facade going on, on the other side.
My observation is that this calls into question the sincerity of the emergency that Dr. Eyolfson said exists and the necessity for this committee to review it. Of course, we think HIV is an important issue and should be reviewed, but that's not what's happening here. It's pretty clear that the other side is using this to avoid other topics.
Based on your invitation previously, I'd like to move a subamendment to Mr. Mazier's amendment.
It would simply add a comma after the end of his amendment related to bringing the Minister of Health here. It would read, “and Michael Green.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I'm going to pause for a moment.
Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, I hope this is very clear to you. It's just adding “and Michael Green” after “the Minister of Health”.
Is that okay?
Bloc
