Health Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I do have an amendment, but the first amendment would take priority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

There's no amendment here.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Was it not an amendment? Okay.

Then my amendment to this would be that all parties are given equal time in speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

All parties are given equal time in speaking. So that's against the intent of this motion. We can't accept that as an amendment, I don't believe.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

All right.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

We have an amendment, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, maybe in keeping with a good spirit here in starting off this 39th Parliament in the health committee, maybe just about all members of the committee would be agreeable to the idea of keeping everything as it is except for the last part, which says “and that subsequent questions be alternately shared between government and opposition members, at the discretion of the Chair.”

I would move an amendment to say “and that subsequent questions ensure that all members of the committee wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so, and after such time questions be alternately shared between government and opposition members, at the discretion of the Chair”.

That's all we're trying to do here. We're very flexible in terms of the amount of time and the fact that the official opposition gets the two first spots. We're simply trying to ensure that every member of the committee is able to put forward his or her views before another member speaks twice. And the crux of this—at least in the committee I was part of in the last Parliament—really becomes the New Democratic Party, in that there is a reason why we have different numbers of Liberal members, Bloc Québécois members, and NDP members. And regarding Ms. Priddy, as much as I've enjoyed her interventions in the House and know that she's going to have a very valuable input to this committee, I don't believe she should be allowed to speak twice before members who haven't even spoken for a first time.

That's my amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. We have an amendment on the floor now.

I'm just trying to get some consensus, and I'm wondering if the mover would accept a friendly suggestion, and maybe the amender would as well, that we leave it the same as it is up to “Chair”, and then add after that “with a principle” or “with the spirit of allowing all members who wish to speak that opportunity”. That really is what I believe you're saying, and it's not changing anything other than giving this motion the intent of everyone being equal on this.

Is that fair?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

I do not think so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I have a question then for the mover of the amendment. Would you be satisfied with that as your amendment? All right.

Now, we're debating the amendment.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Chairman, last year, government members, who were at that time opposition members, were extremely satisfied with the way in which this committee operated. As far as I know, there were never any complaints. Our chair was extremely impartial and objective. When members who had not yet spoken expressed a desire to do so, they were given the floor. Could we not continue in the same manner, as opposed to binding ourselves to a specific order of questioning for the third round?

Contrary to what Mr. Batters was saying, it could well happen that a member has not finished his or her line of questioning and that, even if he had the opportunity to do so, he would not be allowed to take the floor again because the last round would be exclusively for those members who had not yet spoken. If, one day, only six members were to attend the committee as opposed to the usual number, would we have to hear them all before taking the floor for a second time? That is not right, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes. I'm starting to get a little phobic, as the chair, around this area.

I'm suggesting to you that when you really put in the principle of everybody being equal in a sense of wanting to speak and being able to speak on an issue, that gives me the discretion. I intend to make sure that everybody who wants to speak or has questions that are appropriate will have the opportunity to do so. That's really what I think we're arguing about.

I don't think what you're saying is really different from what is here. We're actually saying it's the same as the last time, with the principle that everybody has a fair and open opportunity.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

If you recall, Mr. Chair, as the meeting was coming to an end, people who had a turn were asked if they would pass to somebody who didn't have a turn, and that always worked. In the early part of the meeting, you'd follow the rules, and then towards the end, the chair tries to make sure everybody gets in. I think that's the spirit of what they're saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, I think so. I don't think we've changed much. I don't think we're actually very far apart. In fact, I don't think we're apart at all.

If we have a small amended line carrying the principle and an amended motion, first, on the amendment, all those in favour?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

On the amended version, the clerk asked me if we wanted that same principle to carry on in the second paragraph.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Have we voted on the amendment?

[The Chairman]

Yes, we have.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

I am not in favour of the amendment. I did not realize that we were voting on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Were you for it?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We recorded you as against it. There were three against it, and the rest were for it.

On going back to it for clarification, I don't know if we should open it up again. Let's just leave it.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Motion 7, witnesses' expenses, is standard. Could we entertain a motion?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I so move that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. The motion is on the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Motion number 8 is on staff at in camera meetings. This was an issue that had some debate the last time. This is different from what we practised the last time. I think the last time we said there could only be a staff member if a member could not be in attendance.

We have this motion. We would entertain a mover.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Do you want to do this one first, or do you want an alternate?