Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. I find it rather unfortunate that I continue to interrupt this debate, Madam Chair, but I have taken a look at the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, dated June 2001, of which the Deputy Speaker was the chair. Item number 36 states:
We propose that the Leader of the Opposition consult with the leaders of other opposition parties, and that he or she could select two items from the Main Estimates per year, which would each be considered in Committee of the Whole--
Which we are considered to be. It continues:
...for up to five hours. We would expect that this examination would take place in the evening, after the conclusion of the regular sittings of the House, and would be completed by the recess in May of each year. The regular rules regarding Committee of the Whole would apply.
But it also goes on to state:
Such a procedure would permit a meaningful examination of certain Estimates; it would facilitate the participation of Members who are interested in the department or agency whose Estimates were being considered; and by being conducted in the Chamber and televised--
The procedure “would permit the meaningful examination of certain Estimates”.
Madam Chair, it is the intention that we have a meaningful examination of the estimates of the Department of Health tonight and we have the minister here for five hours to answer on behalf of her department. That is the intent of this debate. It is not for speeches by backbenchers of either side of the House. It is for a meaningful examination of the estimates and I say that we should have questions on the estimates and the minister should be responding, or else the member who is speaking should be ruled out of order, because that is the intent of the rule.