Health Committee on May 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's just giving a snapshot of what you're trying to say, is it?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

A basic concept is that every member should have an opportunity to speak before another member gets a second kick at the can, as it were.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Just to clarify what I'm hearing you say, if you're going to follow that, the first round would be as laid out--and whether it's seven or ten minutes, it doesn't matter--and then after that it alternates until everyone who wants to speak has had an opportunity to do so.

Is that what you're saying?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Sorry, could you just recap that one more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. The first round would be as was laid out, whether it's ten minutes or seven minutes. So it would be ten, five, five.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

What that is is a sample suggestion, Mr. Chair. The only point I would like to see adopted by the committee is simply the principle that every elected representative at this committee gets to speak before another representative speaks twice, and however we'd like to word that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Fair enough.

Mr. Fletcher, and then Ms. Brown.

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

I'd like to support Mr. Batters in that suggestion. I think that is the appropriate thing to do.

And if I could just make a suggestion, it is that if the lead speaker on the Liberal side wanted to split their time they be allowed to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Fair enough. So that's following what we have in the past, with the principle that everyone speak before somebody speaks twice.

Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thanks.

I can see what Mr. Batters is doing. This particular complicated motion took us about three meetings to agree on in the last Parliament, and I know this is a new Parliament.

I'm going to respond to Ms. Gagnon first, who wanted to do two rounds in the formal order, whereas we agreed to only do one and then begin to alternate. The purpose of that was to make sure government members did get a turn.

I'm not willing to support the idea that everybody speaks once before somebody speaks twice, because the government has the power, and therefore, this is one place where the opposition parties often get a slight advantage in time. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as all the government members get into the discussion before the meeting is over.

This took a long time to work out, and to reduce the official opposition to seven minutes from the ten that we've had before, and that you had, and also to say that all members speak once before anybody speaks twice, would be quite a reversal of the traditions of all committees, not just this one.

So I'm speaking in support of the motion that is printed here. But, Mr. Chair, I'm finding the order rather odd, because it seems to me that you get a motion moved before you start looking at alternate things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes. I was just going to say we've discussed it enough now and I'd entertain a motion, if you want to make that.

Do you want to make that, Ms. Brown?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'll move the motion that's on the paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

So we have a motion on the paper right now. The reason I allowed the discussion is to try to get some consensus prior to it, but we've got a motion on the floor now, so now we're debating that motion.

The motion is as is on the paper. Is that correct?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, that's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Now, we open the floor to debate on the motion.

Yes, Ms. Priddy.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

It seems we've probably really had the debate on the motion and done this a bit backwards, but my concern is not the amount, but the opportunity for there not to be a difference between the number of minutes allowed. We all have a position to put forward and views to put forward, and the fact that we don't have as many members in the House doesn't mean that you exponentially work out how many members and how many minutes.

My point to this would be that, whether it's 10 or 15, or whatever it is, they be equal amongst parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Are you speaking for or against the motion?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Against.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Against the motion.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

In regard to Ms. Brown's comments, while I understand in terms of the second, I think they're somewhat inconsistent with how you spoke about whether or not we should have a steering committee, in the sense that everyone who sits on the committee deserved equal opportunity to put forward ideas, to put forward concepts, to put forward issues that we may speak on.

I think that your logic in reference to a steering committee is not different from what we're saying here: that everyone should have an equal opportunity, as a member of the committee, to speak. I think the motion doesn't actually allow that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's on the amendment, and if you're speaking against it—unless you want to entertain an amendment—then I would suggest.... If not, is there any other discussion on the motion on the floor?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I would simply suggest that the amendment would be contrary to the motion, so it would probably have to be defeated and another motion be put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

There is no amendment. All we're dealing with is the motion that's on the floor.

The motion is on the floor, so it's a yea or nay on the motion on the floor.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

All I'm saying is that if I were to move an amendment, the amendment would be that I support the concept of each member having equal opportunity to speak at committee, which I think is contrary to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. Fair enough.

Discussion?