HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 28, 1999

• 0938

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.

[Translation]

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and 106(2), the selection of a chairperson is the first item on the agenda. I'm ready to entertain motions on this matter.

[English]

Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Lynn Myers to be the chair of this committee.

The Clerk: Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): We support this motion.

[English]

The Clerk: It is moved by Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Ménard, that Lynn Myers do take the chair of this committee. Is it the pleasure of this committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Lynn Myers duly elected chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we will now move to the election of the two vice-chairs. According to Standing Order 106(2), it states that each standing or special committee shall elect a chair and two vice-chairs, of whom two shall be members of the government party and a third a member of the opposition to the government. I would then call for the election of the first vice-chair.

• 0940

Mr. Charbonneau, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I would like to move the name of Mr. Ovid Jackson.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jackson, then.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Elley.

The Chair: Mr. Elley.

Are there any others? Yes, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): I nominate Dr. Patry.

The Chair: We'll deal with them in order of receipt.

Dr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I cannot accept.

The Chair: Thank you. That's removed.

Having then been ready to receive the motions, we do have two before us.

First, is it agreed that Mr. Jackson be elected vice-chair?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second, then, is Mr. Elley. Is it agreed that Mr. Elley be elected vice-chair?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move on, then, to routine business. You have a series of motions before you.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to make a motion with respect to time allocation: that the time allotted to witnesses and various parties be as follows...

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Monsieur Ménard. We are going to go through them by order. We'll get to that. It's item 6. You're talking about time distribution, are you not?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, that's it.

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to take them one at a time. You can speak to it when we get to item 6.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay.

The Chair: Ms. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): It would be nice to be included in the conversation. We have no translation here.

The Chair: Okay. We'll get the translation. We have the technology.

Is is okay now?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I can hear everything now.

The Chair: The routine motions are before you, then. Item 1 is the subcommittee on procedure and agenda. You can see that the chair, two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and a representative of each of the Bloc and the New Democratic and Progressive Conservative parties do compose a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. This is fairly routine, and I'm assuming it is all agreed. Is that a fair assessment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: With respect to research staff: that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work at the discretion of the chair.

[Translation]

(The motion is carried)

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to invite the researchers to the table at this point, if I may.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: I just want to make the comment that a number of us know these people in terms of having been on the health committee before. We are of course very grateful for the calibre of the research staff that exists here at the health committee.

To my immediate right is Nancy Miller Chenier, who brings with her a long history of political and social science involvement. She is completing her doctorate at Oxford University, so she comes with a long history and many ways to help us at this committee.

Next to her is Sonya Norris. She is beginning her second year at the health committee. She is a bio-scientist and brings with her a wealth of information as well. We're very grateful for her involvement.

Finally, there is Odette Madore, who has been seconded to the Auditor General but is back now at health committee and brings with her an enormous economics background for this committee.

I am also told that from time to time we may require legal services and/or other special research staff with respect to science in other areas. At the call of the chair and this committee, we'll make those arrangements as required.

• 0945

I should also take this time to introduce Roxanne Enman. She will be our new clerk at least until January. She has coordinated the page program over the last little while, has been on the Hill for nine years, and was in Finance and at the MacKay task force report. She has a wealth of experience and will be joining us here as clerk.

We welcome you, Roxanne.

Of course, we all know Marie Danielle Vachon, who has been with us for a while. She will now be leaving until January on a special assignment but of course will be back at that time.

How about a round of applause for these great staff people?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Moving on to item 3, the 48-hour notice of motion, this is, again, routine: that 48 hours' notice be given to the members of the committee before any substantive motion be considered by the committee, unless the committee gives consent otherwise. I think this is straightforward and is one item that committees have in place. I think we should proceed accordingly. Is it agreed, then, that we have this?

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I think from time to time this restriction imposes some problems for some members in bringing forward some important issues. We could have very important issues, and 48 hours' notice may not be serving the best interests of the committee and the members. I think we should get rid of this condition.

The Chair: Thank you. That's a point of view and I respect it.

Are there any other comments? Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps we could try to find some middle ground, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, unforeseeable emergencies may arise as the committee carries out its work. However, since everyone has to read the motions, couldn't we reduce the time period to 24 hours? Accordingly, you could table the motion and expect it to be debated during the next meeting.

We have, on the one hand, a 48-hour time period which means, in practical terms, two meetings and, on the other hand, immediate debate, which is perhaps a bit excessive. It seems to me that the 24 hours' notice is an appropriate compromise.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Again, a point of view.

Monsieur Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As it is written right now, it is “unless the Committee gives consent”. I think when the committee gives its consent it needs to be unanimous. You could go with 24 hours, 12 hours...it doesn't matter. If the committee agrees that they should look at it right away, they're going to look at it right away. Forty-eight hours is sometimes not enough. You need to get it in both languages, and I think 48 hours is fair. But for anything that is going to come out in front of the committee, as far as it is unanimous within the committee, I think it should just go ahead.

The Chair: You certainly made the point I was going to make, that is, if there is an urgent item, the flexibility exists within the committee structure to deal with it by way of unanimous consent. But having said that, I think it is fairly straightforward to have the 48-hour notice, and I wondered if there were further thoughts.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, we can modify that by saying “a majority”. If the majority of the members on this committee feel that a motion has to be dealt with at a certain time, I think that motion ought to be dealt with at that time. It shouldn't have to be unanimous.

The Chair: I'm going to ask for agreement and will call the question relative to the 48-hour notice of motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: With respect to unanimous consent, is it agreed that we have unanimous consent to waive it if we require?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, there may be a risk as far as the rules of procedure are concerned. If we vote on motions dealing with questions that are as fundamental as these ones, the government will always win the motion because it is in the majority.

I respectfully submit that we should make an effort, during the first sitting, to come to an agreement on the rules of procedure.

Dr. Patry is correct in saying that the committee may have to deal with all kinds of questions as they arise, but we know full well that, in practice, the government does not like to deal with a motion without pre-notification. I can understand that, because you have to translate the motion and then debate it. Parties have to have an opportunity to discuss the motion within their own respective caucuses. Could we try to reach some middle ground? This would be a good way to get off on the right foot. We could require 24 hours notice, and then the issue will be examined. Things don't bode very well for the future if members from the government start using their majority for routine motions.

• 0950

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: It doesn't matter which rules you use, whether it's Robert's Rules of Order—and Robert was a general—or Beauchesne's or what have you. The rules are to try to make the committee function properly.

For instance, a motion to adjourn is something that occurs when there is a lot of controversy, almost fisticuffs and what not. You can adjourn and come back another day when you're quiet. We don't have to make any extra rules that will tie the hands of this committee and mean political wrangling.

The name of the game is that there are other options, including bringing things before the House and matters before the Speaker. If there's a really dire disaster, it would behove this committee to have unanimous understanding that this thing needs to be dealt with.

So rules are not made for wrangling things out. I mean, we won't like this committee if we make all these rules. Rules are supposed to make the thing function properly.

The Chair: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I might have missed something here, but didn't we just vote on this? Aren't we debating something after the fact?

The Chair: Good point. I was just going to make that observation.

I appreciate your point of view, but it's already been dealt with. We decided it by a majority vote.

We'll move on to motion 4, the distribution of paper: That the clerk of the committee be authorized to circulate the documents received only when they exist in both official languages. I think this is also routine.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: As a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, you know and we know—everybody has seen on this committee—that there are sometimes circumstances where people have come to this committee on very short order and have done their best to put their information in both official languages, but sometimes it's impossible to do that. I think we should have the flexibility to allow a person to submit their document in one official language and get it translated at some time in the near future.

The Chair: Discussion, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I think, Keith, we're doing this all the time. You're talking about the clerk circulating documents. When the clerk circulates documents, it needs to be in both official languages. But when a witness comes in front of us, very frequently it's just in English because they're coming from out west and they don't have the money and the time to translate it. At that time, it's up to the chair if we circulate the document right away or the witness keeps his file.

Most of the time we circulate it, because the Bloc and I and other MPs say that's fine, but we're going to get it afterwards in French.

So I think it's already done. There is flexibility. I think this motion is for the clerk, that when the clerks need to get something to this committee, it needs to be in both official languages.

The Chair: Any other point of view on this?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We agree that, under normal circumstances, we hope to have documents in both languages at the same time, but in keeping with our usual spirit of co-operation, if a witness tables a document that is in English only, we will allow it to be distributed so that no one would be deprived of the information during the committee meeting. This is what this motion means. We are hoping that witnesses will come here with a document in both languages, but we will never oppose a document being distributed if it is in one language only if it is to be translated later on. We are therefore in agreement with the meaning of the motion.

[English]

The Chair: I think the points are well made. We make every effort, when it comes to bringing in witnesses, to ensure that they understand that we need both official languages, and we try to make those efforts.

The clerk, in contacting these folks, tries to make that point very clearly. However, there may be circumstances where we have to make judgment calls, and I think that flexibility is inherent. So I'm going to call this discussion to a close and move on accordingly.

Motion 5, with regard to meeting in the absence of quorum, reads: That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.

I think this is straightforward. Agreed?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, in the previous committee, I believe we had six. If we can get only three members of this committee to a meeting, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves and we shouldn't be holding the meeting. Three is just not enough. It doesn't do justice to our witnesses. We should have far more than three.

• 0955

The Chair: Actually, Mr. Elley, it was reduced to four in the last meeting. But that's another issue. So we had four last time.

Is it agreed, then, on three?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. Next is the opening statements and questioning of witnesses. Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the following motion with respect to time allocation. We have two motions. I am moving motion 6: that witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven minutes for the first questioner of each party in the following order: Reform, Bloc Québécois, Liberal, New Democratic, Progressive Conservative; and that thereafter three minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner alternating between Government and Opposition parties.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, that's as written and printed in front of us, isn't it?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): This is why we are moving it.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Is it agreed, then, that we proceed as outlined?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Mr. Martin and then Monsieur Patry.

Mr. Keith Martin: I propose, Mr. Chairman, that in the third section of item number 6 it be changed to say that three minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner alternating between government and opposition parties but that the opposition parties go in order from Reform down through to the Conservative Party.

The reason is that somebody sitting in your position, Mr. Chairman, can give a question to one particular party, or if there are, for instance, a limited number of people, there will be an unfair distribution of questions within the opposition party.

The Chair: Okay. I would have understood that to be the case in any event, but if you want to tighten it—

Mr. Keith Martin: I would like this to be explicitly put down.

The Chair: All right.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's right.

[English]

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think that if that issue were raised, it would be an issue of confidence in the chair and should be addressed that way. I would recommend against trying to spell everything out in detail. If you don't operate fairly, you don't deserve the confidence of the group. So if the problem arose, it would seem to be a matter of raising the issue of the impartiality of the chair and should be raised directly. We've always followed in committees, though, the dispensable ordinance.

The Chair: Very good. Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, I've seen it actually not be the case. There have been situations where there has been unfair distribution of people within opposition parties where some people were not represented or some were represented over and beyond their true numbers. So by explicitly putting it down on paper, it adds an element of fairness. I think that will be beneficial to all opposition parties.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you for your observations.

Mr. Keith Martin: It is not meant to be disparaging to the chair.

The Chair: I won't take it in such a light, not yet. We have two points of view here. I'm going to go with—

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Monsieur Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

The Chair: Sorry.

An hon. member: It's Dr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, it's Monsieur.

I think we forgot something in that resolution. The idea of the resolution is one I understand. In some other committees, because the members on the government side were not asking too many questions, and because you went to the four opposition parties and then to the Liberals, we did not have any chance. But right now it is the same thing, because you have the Reform, Bloc, Liberal, and then the NDP and PC. But we should have another Liberal at that time at the end. That was the idea, to get at least two Liberals to talk on the first round and to get to go back as it is written now. Right now the only change we are making is the fact that instead of asking questions by Reform, Bloc, NDP, PC, and Liberal at the end, we are in the number three slot instead of being in the number five slot. So it doesn't change anything.

We should have a chance to have two of our side's members to ask a question during one round, the first round, because what is going to happen is very easy. You give ten minutes to the first witness and seven minutes after that. You count this, and after the first round it's going to be five times seven minutes, which is 35 minutes, plus the opening statement. It's 35 minutes, and sometimes it is going to end up being 45 minutes. You have an hour per witness, and that means one member on our side is going to ask questions, and that's not sufficient for us. We are going to lose members, I'm telling you. We should have two Liberals. That was the idea, to get two on the opposition side, one Liberal, two on the opposition side, one Liberal, and after that back and forth.

• 1000

The Chair: So how would it change, Mr. Patry?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Just add the Liberal Party after the Progressive Conservative Party. That was the idea.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Accordingly, the order will be as follows: Reform, Bloc Québécois, Liberal, New Democratic, Conservative and Liberal.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chairman, I'm confused here. I thought that in our last round on this in the spring that the first round, as we asked questions of witnesses, went as we're suggesting here. Then in the second round it was just that the Liberal Party got every other question. We're just talking about the first round in the first paragraph, as I understand it. In the second round the Liberals then get every other question. That worked out very fairly, and every member received a chance. I don't see what's different.

The Chair: We have an amendment proposed by Mr. Patry. I'm wondering if everyone has noted that and written it in according to what he's suggesting—that is, in the second paragraph after Progressive Conservative, he also wants to add Liberal. Is there more discussion?

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chair, you also have a motion from me.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Keith Martin: I put forth the first motion.

The Chair: I'm just trying to sort them out, and we'll take them in order, not to worry.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I will gladly support, and I believe my colleague shares my point of view, what we can refer to as the Patry amendment. It is important that opposition parties be able to ask questions, but we can also understand that it is not very motivating when 40 minutes go by without the government side having any opportunity to speak. This is, therefore, a balanced motion, and I have always felt that you have strived to achieve balance.

[English]

The Chair: Let's deal with Mr. Martin's amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's not the same everywhere, sir.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin has suggested that at the end of the third paragraph the following words be added “but that the opposition parties go in order from Reform to PC”.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. The volume of the French was too low, and we could not hear what was being said. Perhaps the microphone is too far away or something like that. I didn't hear what was said before. It's not clear. The volume was so low we could not hear it.

The Chair: Do you want to repeat what you said, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I said that we could support the motion tabled by our colleague, Mr. Patry. We would like the opposition parties to be given the first opportunity to speak, but we do appreciate that if 40 or 45 minutes go by without any participation in the debate from government members, this could cause people to lose their motivation. In our opinion, the motion presented by Bernard Party is balanced and we would be happy to support it.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We are now going to deal with Mr. Martin's motion; that is, the additional words “but that the opposition go in order from Reform to PC”. Is it agreed that be added?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Do you want to read it?

The Chair: It's the third paragraph. It is agreed that thereafter three minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between government and opposition parties, but that the opposition parties go in order from Reform to PC. You heard Mr. McWhinney speak against that.

Mr. Bernard Patry: If I understand it properly, it means Reform, Liberal, Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Liberal, and then PC, Liberal. That's fine. If it's this, that's fine.

An hon. member: Did we vote on the other?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I just want to make it clear. We are just voting—

The Chair: Hang on, people, hang on. Order.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, I just want to be sure that we are voting on an amendment just for the third paragraph and that by voting on this amendment we didn't touch the first and second paragraphs.

The Chair: No, we're just dealing with the third.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Okay, that's fine.

The Chair: We're going to come to yours in a minute, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's fine. I just want to make it clear. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): If we assume there's just one round and we are proposing to add Liberal at the end, that would make six interveners in the first round. That is 42 minutes plus 10 minutes, which is 52 minutes. I think there should be some understanding about what happens when you start bringing in a series of witnesses and you are only going to have 20-minute or half-hour witness segments. This seems to be establishing something for maybe the visit of the minister or possibly the deputy minister, possibly for the review of the estimates, or something like that. It does not seem to work very well in the event that we have a piece of legislation.

• 1005

Maybe we should seek some consensus that whatever we're doing here really relates to special meetings where in fact you are dealing with a witness for a duration in excess of at least an hour.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I agree with what Paul said, but you need to understand we just passed a motion also that for witnesses sometimes, there are just four or five members, so could happen that there are no questions at all. This is why I think this is for when we get a full house, for a minister or somebody special. That's the way, I agree. But it's fairly good.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I would then ask, in the event that you do have a situation where maybe it's a half-hour, is it the intent of the chair to operate on a pro rata basis for the time available for a witness?

The Chair: To all members, you'll notice in the second paragraph that it is at the discretion of the chair.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's why I asked, what's your intent? I want to know how you're going to operate this committee.

The Chair: I would try to scope it in a way that's meaningful and gets the witnesses to respond and makes sure the questions are asked, so that we hear the evidence in an appropriate fashion. But Dr. Patry's point is that there will be times when there are only three or four people here, and the opportunities will exist for us to have more questioning. So really you have to play it by ear, based on who's here and what testimony is coming forward.

A voice: Why are we making rules then?

The Chair: Well, we need guidelines in this sense.

I'm going to call the question on Mr. Martin's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Second, then, is Mr. Patry's insertion of “Liberal” as well in the second paragraph. So it would read:

That, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first questioner of each party in the following order: Reform, Bloc Québécois, Liberal, New Democratic, Progressive Conservative, and Liberal parties.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Witness expenses, item 7, is straightforward. The Board of Internal Economy will do what's necessary to bring in witnesses.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Item 8 is for working meals as required.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Are there any other items to come before this committee? Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have two motions. Do we have any flexibility, in the way that we operate, that would enable us to change the time slot for a committee meeting in the schedule, namely, a Tuesday morning meeting? I don't know if you wish to continue meeting from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m., but instead of meeting on Thursday morning, could we meet on Wednesday afternoon or at any other time?

I have another motion which I wish to make later on.

[English]

The Chair: What's the pleasure of the committee? Traditionally we've met Tuesday and Thursday mornings.

Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Mr. Chair, we all will have conflicts. Mr. Ménard will have to get a deputy to replace him, the same as all of us have to do. If we end up trying to arrange it to any particular MP's schedule, we're going to end up with maybe nobody coming.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: The reality is there are so many committees, and there is the House, which we're unfairly neglecting. Once we have three members at a subcommittee and then a committee, the House sometimes has four or five members for important debates. We need self-restraint.

I'm worried about the amount of time many committees take. Can we have from you the assurance, Mr. Chairman, that you will exercise these time limits and not allow witnesses to drone on for 25 minutes reading texts that have already been distributed? And as for questioners, there are some very bad offenders on both sides of the House. They say, “Oh, I have another question; just a moment.” Please be a tough chair.

• 1010

The Chair: I'll certainly try. I think the rules are there and we should exercise them with great care.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me. With all due respect, Mr. Jackson, I find that this comment was a bit stupid. I'm fully aware of the fact that everybody has schedules, but we are here to try to see if we can...

I asked whether or not it would be possible to consider the fact that some members of the committee would like to meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays instead of Tuesdays and Thursdays. I think that this question is completely admissible. I know that you all have busy schedules and I think that such a comment is not particularly pertinent.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other comments? I repeat, we've traditionally met Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: My first comment is that any day is a bad day. The other problem we're facing is getting a room. We tried at times to have subcommittees end up in a room. I don't know if it will be physically possible, even if the member wishes, to do so. I don't know if we are going to get the allocation of the room itself.

You could look at it, but to me it's difficult to vote on this right now. I'm not against it, because I'm here on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The other place...I must say I'm working. But we need to be sure, and we cannot be sure right now. If we vote in favour of this right now it means that it will be Wednesday afternoon, and we might end up having no room available on Wednesday afternoon. What's going to happen at that time? I have no clue.

The Chair: As committee members are I am sure aware, the procedure and House affairs committee has established Thursday and Tuesday mornings as a time for this committee to meet. I would be a little reluctant to change that, and unless I hear compelling arguments to the contrary, I think we'll carry on as we have been. So I think we'll just move on and proceed accordingly.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, from time to time the committees hold meetings in camera. We've experienced some difficulties, and to make it easier for all of us, I propose that no in camera meetings occur without a vote by the committee in an open meeting.

The Chair: Well, again that's something that's usually at the discretion of the chair, and it is in fact something we've done in the past. I think it allows for flexibility to have an in camera meeting when required. Certainly the steering committee deals in camera, and it seems to me that's flexibility that's required and necessary.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, there is a precedent to this in the transport committee of October 14 of this year, which passed such a motion. So there is a precedent within the House to go and do this. Apparently industry committee has done the same thing. So we're in good company if we do pass this.

The Chair: Of course, we are not bound by any of those precedents. Committees are masters of their own destinies and we would presumably think about it ourselves and do what we think is best.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: It's not just precedent in other committees, but Beauchesne is also very clear about this. Citation 850 says that the final decision rests with the members themselves. I think if we're going to follow Beauchesne, we should be adopting such a motion so we don't run into problems down the road.

The Chair: I'm looking at Beauchesne as well, and certainly the purpose of an in camera sitting is “to allow members to feel free to negotiate, discuss, deliberate and, sometimes, compromise without the glare of publicity”—and I could go on. So it would be my intent that we continue with that kind of flexibility, and I hope the committee agrees with that.

Perhaps I could put the question: Is it agreed that we have in camera from time to time?

Mr. Reed Elley: I have a point of order. I believe my honourable colleague here was making a motion that I would second. We would put it to the meeting.

The Chair: I was getting to that by way of the motion asked, yes. We have a motion on the floor to not have in camera meetings. Is that the—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: We can have in camera meetings. My motion is that no in camera meetings shall occur without a vote by the committee in a general open meeting. We should have a vote there to go in camera or not.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'll amend that to say that the decision to go in camera must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the committee.

The Chair: We'll take the amendment first.

Mr. Ménard.

• 1015

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to understand the meaning behind the Reform Party motion. There are, of course, times when the committee has to proceed in camera. For instance, it is obvious that committee reports must be reviewed in camera; we do not think that this should be done in a session open to the public.

What is the purpose of the motion? You're saying that there must never be any in camera committee meetings, under no circumstances whatsoever?

Some Hon. Members: No, no.

A Member: Without a vote.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Without a vote.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Grewal, you made the original.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The intent is not to prevent any in camera meetings. The intent is simply that when we go for in camera meetings, it should be with the consent of the committee by way of vote. My colleague amended it to be a two-thirds majority of the committee who would decide that we should go in camera. It will make it simple and easy for us.

The Chair: Okay.

This is your last point, Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Well, I just want to point out that we did have a problem in the last session, where an in camera meeting was held. Some of us were not in on that decision and we were quite upset about it. That's why we want to propose this.

The Chair: All right. Let's deal with the amendment from Mr. Martin.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: On the main motion as presented by Mr. Grewal.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Is there any other motion, Monsieur Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to organize, for the benefit of new committee members, including myself, an information session with the Department of Health so that we understand how the department operates?

[English]

The Chair: I think we'll give that over to the steering committee for review. I suspect there is consensus for that to happen. Perhaps that could be the first item of business for the steering committee. Thank you very much.

Are there any other items?

Mr. Ovid Jackson: What about the matter of in camera meetings?

The Chair: As we understand it, it will be at the call of the chair.

Are there any other items? Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think I can speak for most of the members on this side at least, and I suspect it is the same on the other side, in saying that everyone has other committee responsibilities, or other formal responsibilities, that take a fair bit of time. There is a risk that members may not be able to give the support to this committee that it probably deserves. I know it is the tradition to meet Tuesdays and Thursdays regularly, but I wonder whether or not the committee would—although I understand the room allocation issue—see if there is a consensus to pick a time, a day, one day a week, that would be the absolute day we would meet, and other meetings would be called as necessary. I would, just in surveying members here—

An hon. member: Quit complicating the schedule.

Mr. Paul Szabo: No, I'm just surveying about preferences of day, because members already have other committees that have been struck and have set meetings. I suspect that if it is Tuesday and Thursday mornings, more than half the members of this committee will be in trouble. So I wonder if there is any preference about whether we try to seek two days a week, or whether the committee is prepared to deal with one fixed day for this committee, plus any other—

The Chair: Carry on, Mr. Szabo. Mr. Szabo has the floor.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I raised it, Mr. Chairman, because I would like to be able to block into my calendar my commitment to this committee. But I won't be able to do that if it's Tuesday and Thursday mornings. I can only speak for myself.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): If I understand the spirit of the proposal before us, it's to ensure we find a time when the maximum number of members can be present. Where I have some problems with the wording of the proposal is in limiting the set meeting for the committee to once a week. I think if we can agree to set two meetings a week and then look at flexibility, I'd be okay with that. But I think with a committee as important as this one, we have to ensure that we meet at least twice a week.

The Chair: Perhaps what I can suggest is that the steering committee take a look at this issue. It's been raised. And certainly Mr. Szabo and Mr. Ménard indicated some interest in other time slots. I'm happy to raise it at the steering committee and see if there is another accommodation.

• 1020

Traditionally—I have to press the point one more time—this committee has met Tuesday and Thursday mornings. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has carved out that time for us to meet. I think we would have to weigh all these factors into the equation. But I'm happy to take it to the steering committee, and I'll certainly do that.

Are there any other items? Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: When we came here in the second session, I came with a strong commitment to try to achieve something, and I'm sure all members who are sitting at the table came with the feeling that we want to achieve something here in the committee. We came with a team spirit whereby compromise and cooperation would be the factors that would help us to stick together and achieve the significant amount of work that we will do. But I'm a little bit disappointed that most of the things the opposition was concerned about the chair tried to keep at the chair's discretion rather than at the members' discretion to solve the motions that were put forward in good spirit so that the environment would be very conducive for us to achieve something. They were ignored.

I want to point out that I'm not very pleased with the way in which the motions were voted, by the majority members who happen to be in one party, sitting on one side of the table, rather than keeping the consideration of good team spirit and achieving some of the things in a fair and equitable manner.

The Chair: Mr. Grewal, I think it's fair to say that when you don't win in terms of motions, as we've seen this morning, for example, perhaps that does create a degree of frustration on your part. However, I don't think you should read that as us working in any kind of fashion that takes away from good team spirit and cooperation and partiality. I think we'll try to carry on.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but often if you don't get your own way, you tend to feel that way. So all I can say is that this committee met, we went through the routine business, and it seems to me that we voted democratically and you see the results of that.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: I wish to get some further direction from the chair and perhaps from our committee as to when we will be discussing further business of the committee. When will we be looking at what we'll be doing as a health committee? Sometimes we have frustration in that area because we don't seem to have a plan. I had this sort of gut feeling last year that we didn't have a very good plan and that we sometimes ran into a lot of confusion and wasted a lot of time trying to figure out what the plan was. So I wonder, what is your plan to devise the plan?

The Chair: That really is the job of the steering committee, of which you're a member.

Mr. Reed Elley: Will we be meeting to do that?

The Chair: Yes, absolutely, we'll be meeting to do that.

Mr. Reed Elley: Do we have a time yet?

The Chair: No, but I'll get that time to you as soon as possible.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I want to make a comment following the one of Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Grewal, you just need to remember that the government side is in a minority in a steering committee. I think that's a big cooperation. The opposition has the majority in a steering committee, with one of the V-Ps. You have one of the V-Ps and another Reform member and a fourth. You have five on this side on a steering committee, and you can choose. I think it's cooperation.

Talking about cooperation, your request to have a two-thirds vote to pass a motion is a little bit too much. I think requesting a two-thirds vote on one committee isn't cooperation. That's too much for us to accept.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Patry and Mr. Grewal. I appreciate it.

I would like to set next Tuesday as a steering committee meeting. Actually, Mr. Elley, you make a good point. If we could agree to meet as a steering committee and if you could identify those members who want to be on that, we'll meet at 9:30—the room will be determined—and we'll talk about future business. If we can proceed along that line, I think that would be appropriate.

The other thing I think you should do is that all members should send in to the clerk of the committee their requests for future business, based on what they think is appropriate.

Monsieur Ménard, I know you have some ideas about what you think we should be doing, and that would be the time to have that discussed.

Mr. Charbonneau, did you have a question?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: No.

The Chair: Is it agreed, then, that we'll meet next Tuesday as a steering committee only, and then we'll start to flesh out the future business?

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: We'll determine that after we meet on Tuesday.

Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any other items to come before this committee?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Did we do motions 7 and 8?

• 1025

The Chair: Yes, we did.

On the motion to adjourn, all those in favour...?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.