Health Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Are you happy with that, Mr. Thibault?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

I would like to make a comment. If, for example, a strategic issue pertaining to health arises on Friday and we have to wait until Monday, that would bother me. Politics is also about strategy. If we have to obtain the approval of the committee at the next meeting, I do not see why the motion should be sent to all...

I do not really agree with that.

[The Clerk]

If a motion were sent on Friday, it would be considered received on Monday. Consequently, the motion could not be put on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting. However, should this sentence not exist, that could happen.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

In that case, the motion could be put on Tuesday's agenda.

I do not really agree with putting it off until Monday. That would mean putting it off for nearly half a week, which is a long time in politics.

I do not agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

As the chair of the committee, I want to make a suggestion. This was put in and was the common practice, which doesn't mean we have to do it that way. It is open for discussion if you want to do something else.

It was assumed that because of the precedent that was set beforehand, we would continue in this way, but 48 hours' notice is something that is very common in a lot of the committees. So it's open for discussion and we can take a vote to see if the committee wants to change it.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It has already been discussed but I'd like clarified again what the words mean on the third line, “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business under consideration”.

[The Clerk]

I can give you an example. In a certain study, such as the one we were doing before on childhood obesity, if there was a motion proposed at that meeting, it didn't need the 48 hours' notice if it had to do with the study we were doing, that subject matter.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Okay.

[The Clerk]

But let's say a member wants to bring forward a motion for a completely different study. Then you need the 48 hours.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I understand. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I hope that helps to clarify. It's not on every single thing. The substantive business would not require 48 hours.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Just to seek clarification on that last sentence, which seems to be the issue in question here, this would mean in my reading of it that if a motion was made and submitted to the office on Friday, the 48-hour period would begin on the Monday, which means that if there was an urgent matter on Friday, we really wouldn't get to it until the following Thursday. So I guess the concern is that if there's something new and urgent, we lose a day in terms of dealing with it. I guess that's the reservation. I think as a general rule there's nothing wrong with it, because in fact it means that staff may have gone by the time we send something over. So it's a courteous thing, and I appreciate that and support it.

If there was some way we could address the urgency issue, then I would also like to see that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

One suggestion would be that we could simply take it out. The other committees don't have that last sentence. That might solve the problem, but I would have to go to the committee.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question actually was exactly the same as that of Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis. I think with our meetings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with the Friday hours not being counted in, we are pushing it back for a week. I would be in favour of taking it out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Fletcher.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

I guess we can go either way. Or can we just say something along the lines of “at the discretion of the chair”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Is that not unanimous?

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I understand the concern, although the notice is just that: it's a notice of motion. So it's put on a list. It's put on the list for debate. It may not get debated for a couple of weeks. I understand the concern. But if you're in the middle of something, if you're having a whole pile of witnesses come, and someone serves you with a notice of motion, it may not get dealt with that day, and it may not get dealt with for a couple of weeks. It's not a big deal.

I suppose what would happen if it were a really serious motion is that there would be some negotiations, presumably, and we would be asking for unanimous.... I don't know what it would take. Does it take unanimous consent or a majority? What would it take? It would take unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm going to take one more and then--

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Some of you have had more experience than I have on these things, but I haven't seen this sentence, this phrase on other committees. So I'm more inclined, if you're looking for a compromise, to take it out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm going to take one more, Mr. Thibault. Following that, we're going to have a vote on whether to leave it in or take it out. I think we can all agree on that, and then we don't waste a lot of time.

Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

If everybody wants to take it out, I don't have a huge concern with it. But I have to tell you I've had 18 months' experience on this committee. Mr. Fletcher has had more than that, as has Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I haven't seen it be a problem in the past.

What it does is give all of us the chance to get informed about these motions before we have to deal with them so that nobody can try to sneak one in on a Friday afternoon that we have to deal with on Tuesday. A lot of us sometimes are in our ridings on the Monday, so it creates a very difficult position. If it is a matter of great urgency, there is always an opportunity for a motion of unanimous consent. It hasn't been a huge problem in the past.

The other thing that it does is that if one party, any party, wants to block things and filibuster things, a very easy way is to have motions and debate them endlessly. If there's a report or a witness you don't want to hear on Tuesday, Friday afternoon you sneak in 20 motions, and on the Tuesday you debate them all. This clause takes that away and I believe makes the committee function a little bit better.

I used to be on the government side and now I'm on the opposition side, and I haven't seen this clause used for the advantage or disadvantage of either side. I think it's good for the good functioning of the committee, and for that reason I'd support it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Is this in the red book?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Order.

Could we make a decision on this? Shall we keep it as is?