header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  31. older entries...

2017-10-05 15:12 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Committee studies and activities, Opposition motions, Pharmacare, Prescription drugs, Standing Committee on Health

Activités et études des comités, Comité permanent de la santé, Médicaments sur ordonnance

Mr. Speaker, this spring, at the procedure and House affairs committee, there was a fairly large blow-up when a bill arrived in our lap that apparently was related to a study that was under way at that time. I am sure the member from Hamilton remembers that quite well.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway, whose name this motion stands under, has brought forward this motion on the pharmacare program, which in its own right is not a bad thing. However, there is a study under way at the health committee, which has seen 89 witnesses over 20 meetings, to study this very issue. It has not finished that study. It is ongoing.

Therefore, I wonder if the New Democrats have respect for the process here after the biggest part of the blow-up came from that side on that bill, or if they are not really interested in the study actually considering it and just want the credit for the results.

Monsieur le Président, une crise a éclaté au comité de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre au printemps dernier quand un projet de loi apparemment lié à une étude en cours à ce moment-là nous a été renvoyé. Je suis sûr que le député d'Hamilton s'en souvient très bien.

Le député de Vancouver Kingsway a présenté la motion sur le programme d'assurance-médicaments en son nom. Ce n'est pas une mauvaise chose en soi. Toutefois, il y a déjà une étude en cours au comité sur la santé exactement sur le même sujet; 89 personnes ont témoigné au cours de 20 réunions. L'étude n'est pas terminée. Elle se poursuit.

Les néo-démocrates n'ont-ils donc aucun respect pour le processus parlementaire? Après tout, c'est surtout eux qui avaient été dérangés par le projet de loi. Est-ce que, au fond, ils se fichent que l'étude explore vraiment la question parce qu'ils veulent simplement s'attribuer le mérite des résultats?

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 15:26 on October 05, 2017

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2017-10-05 PROC 72 | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2017-10-05 17:15 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.