Evidence of meeting #1 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I don't see in our motion where it says it will be sent to “all” members. It says only that the clerk “be authorized to distribute documents, including motions, to the members of the Committee”.
But I guess that could be to all members, so I think we're covered.
Yes, Mr. Davies.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, I think a practice could develop, but technically that's not what it says.
The sentence reads, “That only the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents, including motions, to the members of the Committee”. What it says at its narrowest is that only the clerk may distribute documents. It does not go on to say what gets distributed or under what circumstances.
I would actually insert a second clause right after that, obligating that all documents referred to the committee be distributed to all members, as a companion piece. I understand Colin's point. It sort of seems like it's understood, but when you read that first sentence, it's only an authorization clause, not really a directional clause.
The second one, of course, refers to the requirement that it be bilingual, that it be in both official languages.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I think we can add the word “all”. It just says “to the members of committee”. If we change it, and say “to all members of the committee”, would that satisfy that part of it? I think that's what it should say.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think that clarifies it.
As I read “to the members of the committee”, yes, that would mean all members, but I still don't think it does quite what my motion does, which puts a positive obligation that all documents referred to this committee that are in both languages be distributed to all members.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I was wondering if I could ask Don whether, as a friendly amendment, under distribution of documents, we could just put that “only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute all documents”. If we added the word “all” there, would that...?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
It would be “all documents to all members”. It said “including motions to the members of the committee”.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
In my experience, the best way for documents to be dispersed is by the clerk. That way everybody gets exactly the same thing in both official languages.
I think we're covered there, “That only the clerk be authorized to distribute all documents, including motions, to all members of the committee”.
Are we good?
All right, so we've amended our previous motion.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Davies.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
The next one is similar:
That all requests to appear before the Committee be distributed to the Committee members.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have two more.
Mr. Chairman, this is often adopted by committees:
That whenever the Minister appears before the Committee, every effort be made to ensure that the meeting is televised.
This requirement is not mandated, but it is an expression by this committee of respect for the minister, which I think is commensurate with the importance of the minister's appearance.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
That's if it's possible with all reasonable efforts. I don't have a problem with that. Does anybody have a problem with that motion?
(Motion agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have one more.
This one, Mr. Chairman, would be more familiar to previous members of Parliament, but I'll read the motion first: That all proceedings of the committee shall be public except, one, when discussing a draft report, or two, when at least two-thirds of the committee members so determine.
I'll speak to it briefly, Mr. Chairman.
You may have had the experience, as I did with previous Parliaments, that the previous government and committees went in camera a lot, and any time committee business was discussed, there was automatically a motion to go in camera, and all committee business went in camera. Many of us, as parliamentarians, felt that was an inappropriate use of the power of in camera. It shielded important committee deliberations from the public. For instance, if we were discussing committee business about what we might want to study, then none of that was made public and we couldn't talk about it. However, I do recognize that the one very important part of the in camera business is when we are discussing a report, and that's when we want to be in camera, so that we can have a frank discussion among ourselves about the witness testimony and evidence, and I think that's appropriate.
The second part I've just drafted. I couldn't think of another appropriate time to go in camera, but I think one could arise, so that's why I thought that when this committee itself so determines, it could go in camera. I picked two-thirds because that would mean seven. That would require that all of the government members and at least one member of the opposition would support that.
I would move that this motion be adopted by this committee in the spirit of transparency and the public conduct of this committee.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Chair, I think that would be a more substantive motion. Perhaps Don could put that in writing so that we could actually take a look and discuss the implications among ourselves, and that probably you would like to do the same thing.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
It's the chair's intent to have a very open and transparent committee. I want this to be the best committee that it can be in the interest of Canadians, but also I don't want to restrict us from making our own decisions either.
I do accept the idea or your motion, Don. If you could put that into writing, we'll have a look at it, and then we'll decide, but that's excellent.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I really am hopeful that this committee will just work in the interests of the people.
Mr. Oliver.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I'm just wondering for your consideration if we also could think about whether a simple majority would be sufficient for the decision. I think that would be a more carefully thought through.... We'll talk about it, and maybe we can come back.