Health Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes, that is reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Is there any other discussion?

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Before we vote, I'd like to understand again what the difference is. Are we voting on the notice of motions the way it was handled in the previous Parliament's committee or on the proposal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We're filling in what it was from what we had previously.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Then we are voting on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'll read it out again:

That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages

That's for notice of motions. This is new this year, Ms. Murray.

What we had last year when we were operating was very similar. It says:

That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages; and that notice given on Friday be deemed to have been given on the following Monday.

That was last year's.

[An hon, member]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

That's fine? Let's have a discussion as to which one you would like to vote on, the one we had last year or the new one. Can I have a discussion on that?

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I have a question as to what the implication of taking that last phrase out is and why it provides a better operating procedure than what you were doing in the committee last time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Do you want to answer that, or do you want me to answer?

[The Clerk]

Putting in that a notice given on a Friday be deemed to have been given on the following Monday means that the clock doesn't start ticking on Friday, but starts ticking on Monday: the 48 hours, when it's given on a Friday, would normally start on a Monday. If I receive a notice, let's say, on Friday at 6 o'clock and members are already gone, I can only put out a notice to members' offices on the Monday morning. So the clock doesn't start ticking on the Friday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

That's a very good question.

Mr. Carrie, do you want to speak to this one?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think this is a good line to have in there for the sake of communications, because there are some members who actually leave on Thursday. They may be back in their constituency, and if a motion is put forward, the members may not get the communication until Monday morning anyway. This would give them the full 48 hours. I like the way it was done last year better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Yes, to tell you the truth, last year it worked very well. That's why we put it in last year: notice “given on Friday be deemed to have been given on the following Monday”. It was for the reasons we're discussing right now. I don't really know why this was put in this way.

Dr. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I'm not sure about.... Does it say at what time on Friday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

No, it is any time on Friday. Anything put in on Friday will be deemed to be in on Monday, because—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Well, no. If you get it in before 3:30 on Friday, you want to be able to vote on something on Tuesday. I think if something gets in early in the day on Friday, you don't want it put off until Monday, because then you can't vote on it on Tuesday. So I would say “before 3:30 on Friday”; that would be, in effect, 48 working hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You are making an amendment to this saying that we should add in “before 3:30 on Friday”?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

It should be “after 3:30”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, “after 3:30 on Friday”.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I was just going to say that I was okay with how you had it last year. If you want to change it to a different....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

To be more precise, right? So may I read out the more precise one, so we're all in agreement and nobody comes back to me afterwards and says they didn't understand?

That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages; and that notice given after 3:30 p.m. on Friday be deemed to be given on the following Monday.

So we'll put in “after 3:30“.

Okay? All in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, we'll go on to.... What do we have next? Oh, yes, time limits for witness statements and questioning. Now this is what we had last time:

That the witnesses from any one organization shall be allowed ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement. During the questioning of witnesses, there shall be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first round of questioning and thereafter five (5) minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning. The order of questions for the first round of questioning shall be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative (CPC). Questioning during subsequent rounds shall alternate between the opposition members and government members, in the following fashion: Liberal, CPC, Bloc, CPC, NDP, CPC, Liberal, CPC, Bloc, CPC, NDP, CPC, for so long as time allows.

That during the appearance of a Minister, the Chair direct the first fifteen (15) minutes to members of the Official Opposition, ten (10) minutes to the Bloc Québécois, ten (10) minutes to the New Democratic Party and ten (10) minutes to the Conservative Party during the first round of questioning; and that thereafter five (5) minutes per party be allocated alternating between the opposition and government members, at the discretion of the Chair.

Now here for this time, in speaking order, we have to.... Because this was time limits for witnesses' statements last year compiled with speaking order, there has been a change this year, because we have one more member, a Conservative member.

So having said that, the time limits.... I shouldn't have read out the time limits because they don't apply this year. I mean the speaking order, rather, doesn't apply this year because of the makeup of the committee. So the time limits for witnesses are ten minutes, seven minutes, five minutes, as they were last year, but the speaking order.... Listen carefully to this so you understand the speaking order and we can discuss it:

The order of questions for the first round of questioning should be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative.

That allows for each member of each party to be able to ask a question and not be left out.

Questioning during the second round shall alternate between the opposition members and the government members in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two at the discretion of the Chair.

So we want to make sure, before someone else speaks, that every member of every party gets a chance to speak.

By the way, there's food up here if anyone wants it.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

First of all, I don't have a problem obviously with the reduced time being recommended. The seven minutes in the first round, I think, makes sense, and obviously I appreciate the fact that each party gets a chance in the first round.

I think the principle behind that has to be continued on into the other rounds. This is a committee that is based on party representation. All committees are based on party representation. It's not based on individual representation. The longstanding traditions of committees in the House of Commons have been to find the best way possible to have maximum participation without violating the principle of prorated questions based on party status.

So I'd have to speak as strongly as possible against the proposal for the second round. That goes against everything, I think, that we've tried to accomplish at this committee and other committees. It would obviously exclude me and exclude the NDP voice from most of the discussion. I think the way in which you achieve the goal—if that's your goal on your side, to have everyone speak—is to share the load, to share the time, to divvy up responsibilities without violating the principle of party representation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Can you give a suggestion, please, for what you would like to see the second round look like, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?