Evidence of meeting #1 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mrs. Carmen DePape
Honourable members of the committee, we have a quorum.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1), your first order of business is to elect a chair. I am now ready to receive nominations to that effect.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
I would like to nominate Rob Merrifield for chair.
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
Are there further nominations?
It has been moved by Mr. Fletcher that Mr. Merrifield be elected chair of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
We'll now proceed to the election of the first vice-chair, who will be a member of the official opposition.
Are there any nominations to that effect?
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
Are there further nominations?
It has been moved by Ms. Sgro that Ms. Brown be elected first vice-chair of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
I declare Ms. Brown elected as first vice-chair of the committee.
I am now ready to receive nominations for the position of second vice-chair. He or she must be from a party other than the official opposition.
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
Are there further nominations?
It is moved by Ms. Priddy that Ms. Gagnon be elected vice-chair of the committee.
Are there any further nominations?
Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
I declare Ms. Gagnon elected as second vice-chair of the committee.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
First of all, I want to thank everybody for their confidence in me as chair. I appreciate that very much. I know that Bonnie and I worked together very closely in the last committee, and we expect that won't change at all.
Welcome to some of the new faces around the table. Hopefully it will be a very productive committee. That's certainly going to be our goal, to make it as non-partisan as possible while dealing with some of the issues in as aggressive a way as we possibly can, and to be able to move issues along for the betterment of all Canadians. That's the way we approached it before, and hopefully we can continue with that and be even more fruitful in this session.
I want to thank you. We have a lot of work to do. Today it's a matter of going through routine procedures. We want to get going with that.
Yes.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Our clerk, Ms. DePape, proceeded to the election of the second vice-chair, but what happened to electing the first vice-chair? We have a co-chair, Ms. Brown. Should we not also have two vice-chairs? Ms. Brown is the co-chair, and Ms. Gagnon is the second vice-chair.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
That's right. First vice-chair is Ms. Brown and second vice-chair is Ms. Gagnon. That was all done. It may have happened very fast.
We should all have the routine motions in front of us. We'll start with number one, the services of analysts from the Library of Parliament.
We need a mover for that. Ms. Davidson moves it.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Before we move on to the next motion, let's follow through on this one and introduce our staff. Let's have them join us at the table.
First of all, we'd like to invite our analysts from the Library of Parliament to join us. This is a couple we know very well at this committee.
Nancy Miller Chenier and Sonya Norris, it's good to have you with us again.
I think those who were on the committee previously can speak to how valuable these two ladies are to us as a committee in terms of the work they do and how hard they work to try to facilitate the work of the committee. We do appreciate that.
I understand that you want to introduce some others who we will have as resources to the committee.
11:20 a.m.
Nancy Miller Chenier Committee Researcher
Thank you very much for inviting us to come and serve you again. It's always a challenge and a pleasure.
In addition to Sonya and me, a couple of other analysts are available to the committee should members need assistance with any of their work. We have Odette Madore, an economist, and Marlisa Tiedemann, a lawyer. This rounds out our skills. Sonya is a scientist, and I come from the political and social side of things.
We hope you'll use our services and that you'll think you're well served.
Thank you.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I'm sure we will be well served. We look forward to the good work that we'll all do together.
Back to routine procedures, number two, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Do we have a motion in regard to the subcommittee?
Madam Demers moves that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure--
Okay, Ms. Brown.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
A question, Mr. Chairman. This committee has always operated as a committee of the whole. I'm wondering, is it your wish as the new chair to have this, to have what is essentially a steering committee?
As I explained in other times, it seems to me that when you have a steering committee trying to make these decisions, the decisions often have to be totally rehashed at the full committee anyway. Sometimes it becomes a little bit of a waste of time. Very often the committee reverses the choice of the members of the subcommittee.
So if you want to have this, as the new chair it's your prerogative. I know that this is the kind of regular motion that's put forward by the clerk. Or did you ask for this motion?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
No, this is a motion that's regularly put through by the clerk. I realize what we did in the last committees. I think we want some debate on that. I think it's appropriate for you to voice those concerns. We can open the floor to any other debate on it.
Mr. Batters.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Congratulations on your election and to the other chairs as well.
Ms. Brown's point is well taken. Often you can debate things at a steering committee and then have to rehash them again at the full committee. I guess that is the pitfall. However, if we determine that this is the best way to go—this is a new Parliament with a new chair and new officials—perhaps we can get off on a fresh footing and have these matters successfully resolved by the steering committee. Once they were resolved at the steering committee with appropriate representation, the decision would be made and wouldn't have to be rehashed here at the full committee. We would empower the steering committee to make these decisions. That would be my recommendation. Of course, we're adequately represented on the steering committee by members of the opposition parties as well.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Well, actually, Bonnie, it looks as if I'm going to be in agreement with you. I think the way you did it or that it happened last time worked out fine. Your point about things being rehashed is well taken, because that may be what happens anyway.
The other advantage of doing it as a whole is that everything's done in a transparent and thorough way, and everyone has a certain amount of input. Certainly we did proceed with the agenda in that way.
So it looks as if we're off to a good start, Ms. Brown.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
I am familiar with both systems. In 1993, the Human Resources Committee had a steering committee. However, prior to the last election, the Human Resources and Social Development Committee operated as a committee of the whole. Matters did not progress any faster when we dealt with them as a committee of the whole, rather than referring them to a subcommittee. But, it is for the chair to decide how we should proceed. I would say, however, that it is a fallacy to assert that matters move more swiftly when we operate as a committee of the whole. On several occasions, it took us longer to reach a consensus on certain matters. It is a decision for the chair to make. Personally, I preferred working as part of a subcommittee; it meant that we had a better understanding of the matter when we brought it back before the committee of the whole. Some decisions were made by the committee, but some work had already been initiated by the subcommittee. It means that there are no stumbling blocks when it comes to presenting the facts to the committee of the whole. Bear in mind that, often, some members of the committee are not able to attend meetings. When some committee members only attend one or two working sessions, it makes it harder to get a handle on the issues. There are all sorts of reasons why some members are unable to attend certain meetings. The steering committee was also able to make sure that we followed up on important issues.
Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to have a steering committee, but if the majority of members are contrary-minded, I am happy to go with the flow.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Before we add any more discussion, because we can get bogged down on a little issue, in a sense, why don't we...? This is a routine procedure. It's allowing for a subcommittee if it's needed, not that we should necessarily exercise it all the time, or maybe even very often. As the chair, I certainly wouldn't see this being exercised very much. But if at any time it could be exercised to help facilitate moving the committee's work forward, that would be an appropriate time for it, and only then, rather than routinely or all the time.
That's how I would see it, if it were passed this way. I hope that solves both sides a little bit. That's the way I would see proceeding.
Bonnie.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
I'm not wedded to either format, and whatever you prefer, Mr. Chair, is fine with me.
The reason I raised the question is that when I first came here, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, known as the steering committee, actually did control the agenda for the most part, whereas we did it differently for one specific reason: so that we would not have what I called the tier-one members controlling the agenda and the tier-two members not having much input into the agenda. We did it by a system whereby everybody could submit their ideas of subjects they'd like to study, etc. Then we ranked them to be sure that the agenda we were following was indeed a consensual one. So there wasn't an A-team and B-team. It was really to make sure that new members in particular felt totally a part of the process. That's why I questioned this motion.
However, I trust the chair, who has experienced that more open democratic method of engaging all members, if we do pass this, not to use it all the time, but to still give every member of the committee access to the agenda.
