HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 5, 1998

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 39 of the Standing Committee on Health. This meeting is pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), in consideration of two requests we've had from members of the committee.

The first request is regarding hepatitis C. Maybe whoever initiated the first request has something for the committee.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to make a few brief comments before we open this up to the meeting for discussion. The reason I felt it was important to bring this particular motion to the committee was not only of course that the issue is very timely across Canada, but also that on the opposition side we felt we were not getting satisfactory answers when we asked the minister in the House a number of questions about this issue.

I don't think we've had satisfactory answers given as to why the government is excluding from compensation those victims from outside the 1986 to 1990 timeframe. I think Canadians generally have been concerned, as they have in a number of issues recently, that these meetings have been behind closed doors between the provinces and the health minister. Victims of hepatitis C, when I meet with them in my constituency, are asking when they are going to sit down with us and talk to us about the real issue that pertains to their health and wellness, and a compensation package that would help them out in this regard.

I don't think we've had clear answers from the health minister on key elements, such as the number of people the government really believes have contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood. There are all kinds of numbers being thrown around and we would like to get to the bottom of where these figures come from. I know the victims themselves are very interested in that as it translates into compensation money for them.

I just think, generally speaking, that all of us, as members of Parliament, should be given the opportunity to hear from government officials and their advisers who have put together this package.

So on the basis of those reasons, Madam Chair, we have brought this motion to the committee today.

Thank you.

• 0910

The Chair: We have a motion to call the meeting.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): That's fine.

We will of course present a motion to the committee, if that's the consensus.

Mr. Reed Elley: Would you like me to make that motion so we might put it on the table?

The Chair: I think it would be easier if we had the motion on the table and then carried on from there. Do you want to read the motion?

Mr. Reed Elley: Yes, I will, Madam Chair.

I so move that the health minister and government officials appear before the Standing Committee on Health by May 15, 1998, in order to answer questions about the rationale to exclude from an offer of compensation those Canadians who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood outside of the 1986 to 1990 timeframe.

The Chair: Okay. The motion is on the table.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): What about a seconder?

Mr. Reed Elley: I don't believe we need a seconder for committee.

The Chair: Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Madam Chair, let me address myself first to the comments made by the member and then maybe to the motion itself. I'm wondering whether in fact there's a need for this motion or if the motion is in fact in order. The presumption on which these observations are based is the fact that the last five-and-a-half weeks of questioning by members of Parliament in the House of Commons and outside is not sufficient for eliciting the answers required by the questioners. That would suggest that there's very little confidence in the parliamentary process, the process that generates this committee.

Obviously I differ in that perspective, Madam Chair, and with due respect to the mover I'd suggest that there has been more than adequate response to each and every single question from every quarter. If the member finds it unsatisfactory that numbers are different from those he would suggest are definitive, you need only look at the document that he and his party have weighed as a basis for all rationale; I refer to the Krever inquiry report.

Perhaps he could address those numbers. If he has others that he would like to bring to the table, he's always welcome to do what he has been doing, and his party and other parties have been doing, rightfully so, in the House of Commons on a daily basis. I think the forum for some of these issues has already been identified as the House of Commons. It need not be this committee.

I say this because the minister, who is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in his department, has been more than willing to be available to address all those questions in the House, and as I say, outside. If all members are concerned about how they're going to get responses through a system that's designed for accountability in the House of Commons, then I think they should continue to respect the process that generates this type of confidence—that is, the House of Commons.

On that basis, Madam Chair, I don't think we need this motion, and in fact I would not support this motion. In the interests of going on to the business of the committee, I'd move that you call the question.

The Chair: Is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): I call for the motion.

The Chair: As the chair, I would think that everybody should be allowed to speak once on the issue. It's unusual that we don't let people at least speak once on a motion they have.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Without belabouring the issue at all—I would not want to do that—there have been some fairly recent changes in the whole issue, and this motion may become redundant if those changes come to a satisfactory conclusion for the victims. I think we recognize that there is a new meeting being proposed. A new meeting might well resolve this issue.

• 0915

To just simply soften the motion, perhaps we could amend it by putting in “if the victims are dissatisfied with the upcoming federal-provincial meetings”.

You see, this whole issue is driven by the victims and their satisfaction with the compensation package. Perhaps if we could amend it in that regard we would only need to have such a meeting if this came to an unsatisfactory conclusion. My sincere hope is that we have a satisfactory conclusion and that this is all just hot air today.

What I'm proposing, then, is—

The Chair: Is Mr. Elley changing his motion?

Mr. Reed Elley: If Mr. Hill would like to make an amendment to it, I would certainly be open to it.

The Chair: I would like to make a suggestion as the chair. I don't think it should say that the health minister and government officials “appear”. It should say “be invited to appear”. We don't order them to appear. So that's one change that should be made in the motion.

Mr. Grant Hill: That's fair. I agree.

The Chair: So are you...?

Mr. Grant Hill: I'm proposing this as a way of saying we don't have to talk about this for a long time. This may completely evaporate, but if the victims are satisfied with this new meeting coming up, we just stop this.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I think what Mr. Hill is suggesting is constructive, but let me just indicate a better course of action.

Now that Mr. Hill has acknowledged the fact that there are continuing meetings, and one doesn't know what will happen after those further discussions, this committee can at any time decide to put forward any motion such as the one proposed by his colleague, Mr. Elley. The amendment that Mr. Hill is suggesting is redundant. In fact, this whole motion is redundant, based on the fact of what Mr. Hill has just suggested, that there are continuing discussions.

To a certain extent the motion is also flawed from the standpoint that it only talks about the Minister of Health. As Mr. Hill knows, there are 12 parties around this table who have negotiated this compensation package and any subsequent discussions that may arise.

I think what Mr. Hill and Mr. Elley might want to do is table their motion until such time as those further discussions have ceased, at which point they could reintroduce it. But merely to put a motion today and then amend it to suggest that it could happen if in fact these discussions continue is redundant, I think. We should call the question on both the amendment and the motion and defeat them until such time as they want to reintroduce them.

The Chair: Mr. Elley, it seems fair. It sounds like the committee is willing to listen to a motion at a later point. Would you like to leave it on the table?

Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Chair, I realize the kind of difficulty we're in at the present time because there are some developments breaking. I would like to think the health minister is going to reopen this negotiation and that we'll be able to get a better package for victims.

The Chair: He already has, hasn't he?

Mr. Reed Elley: If the committee is willing to wait until we see what happens after today and tomorrow and the next day, we would be glad to table this motion.

The Chair: Okay. Is everybody in agreement?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I just wanted to respond to Joe Fontana's comments and say while events have transpired in the last 24 hours that would suggest the motion as presently worded is not appropriate today, it may very well be tomorrow or next week or a month later. If tabling a motion means we as a committee can bring this motion back at any time, and I'd like to hear the rules around—

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Wait a minute.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Excuse me, let me finish my point.

I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure. What are the rules for how and when you can bring back a motion that has been tabled? We just need a clarification.

The Chair: Can you clarify that?

• 0920

The Clerk of the Committee: This committee adopted a motion at its organization meeting where it asks for 48-hours' notice.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. That's fair.

The Chair: Is there a consent within the committee to table the motion?

Mr. Lynn Myers: I just want to be clear here. What are we doing? We're saying the amendment is out of order because it changes the actual motion, so therefore it wouldn't be a motion.

The Chair: No, we're not saying that.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Okay, so that's off the table. What are we doing with the main motion, then?

The Chair: Tabling it.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Will it come back in the form of having to give 48-hours' notice?

The Chair: They just said yes. They will give 48-hours' notice if they want to bring it back.

Is there a consent to table the motion?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Hold on just a second. I had asked for calling the question. I didn't ask for tabling the motion. I asked for a vote on the motion as it stood.

You wanted to give people an indication to speak on the motion, and then somewhere along the line we made two different changes, and then a third one. One was a minor amendment by Dr. Hill and the second was to move from a motion to tabling a motion.

Just call the question as it was initially put. If somebody wants to raise this question again down the road, they can do it.

The Chair: People who put the motion forward have said they're willing to table the motion, and they will give 48-hours' notice before it comes back.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: They're withdrawing the motion, is that it?

Mr. Reed Elley: According to the instructions of the chair, we table the motion.

Mr. Lynn Myers: All right, then, let's vote on the original motion.

The Chair: There's a call to vote on the original motion.

Mr. Reed Elley: How can you table a motion and vote on it at the same time, Madam Chair?

The Chair: There's been a request to vote on the initial motion.

There's not unanimous consent to table the motion—after Mr. Volpe thought about it for a moment—so could we have a motion to withdraw it?

Mr. Reed Elley: I move to table the motion.

The Chair: There's not unanimous consent. Can we have a vote, then?

Mr. Volpe, are you okay? We're going to vote on the motion now.

Mr. Volpe: We're voting on the motion?

Mr. Lynn Myers: No, that's not what she's saying. Let's be really clear here.

What are we calling on, Madam Chair?

The Chair: The clerk says we have to vote on the motion, so we'll vote on the motion then, with a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)

The Chair: We'll move on to the second motion, that pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), a meeting shall be convened to examine the successes and failures of the various organ and tissue procurement systems across Canada and the measures Health Canada is taking to improve upon these systems.

• 0925

Yes, Mr. Volpe—or Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I know we look alike, but that's okay. Twins.

The Chair: Can we go ahead with the meeting?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I just wanted to talk to the motion when it's presented.

The Chair: Fine. Let him present it first.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): In October 1997 I put forth a motion, M-222, which passed in the House of Commons unanimously. It essentially was made up of four points, and dealt with the organ donor system in our country.

It said that we would create a real-time database that would merge together available organs and donors; it would have a mandated choice strategy, for example attached to our income tax forms, where everybody would be able to have a choice as to whether or not to be organ donors; it would remove all financial disincentives, because right now there's a financial cost to hospitals that are engaged in donor procurement; and lastly, the rights of those who consent were going to be protected.

I wish I didn't have to come to the committee to ask for this, because a motion was passed unanimously in the House. Unfortunately, I have not received any kind of correspondence or movement or notion whatsoever from the health minister as to what he is doing on this issue.

This issue is serious. In our country in 1994, 130 people died waiting for organ transplants. In 1996, 122 people died. The situation, rather than getting better, is in fact getting worse.

Although we have an absolute increase in organ donors—for example, a 16% increase in organ donors from 1991 to 1995—the number of people who are waiting for organs has actually increased 40%.

If we look into the future, with an aging population and increasing demands, particularly on kidney transplants, liver transplants, and on heart and lung transplants, we see that this situation is going to get worse.

You can argue this from a humanitarian point of view, which I think is fairly obvious, but from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, there's a significant financial reason to be involved, too.

For example, for a person who is going to get a kidney transplant, if they are on dialysis it costs the taxpayer $50,000 a year or $250,000 over a five-year period of time. If we do a transplant, the cost of transplant and medicines over that five-year period of time is $50,000. So for every single patient who has a kidney transplant, it saves the taxpayer $200,000 a year.

We're the only country in the western hemisphere that doesn't have a national real-time database. America has it. All of western Europe has it. So there's no reason that we as a country can't have this.

Really, the issue is one of looking for leadership. The vast majority of the Canadian public, over 75%, would like to see this happen. It just requires some leadership.

We have an opportunity here to actually act on this for the benefit of all Canadians. We can argue from a humanitarian or a fiscal point of view; we can argue from what the public wants. Essentially everybody is in favour of this type of issue.

We've put forth over 500 packages to leaders in the organ donor systems in this country, and an overwhelming number of them are very much in support of it. It was quite poignant to read some of the letters that describe the great difficulty medical personnel have working in the field—nurses, doctors, technicians, as well as families—who have had to suffer and endure a situation that can be improved.

It could be improved if we're able have an organ donor system, and if the government is able to take the leadership role and work with the provinces to be able to develop this national database.

I'd like to ask, Madame la présidente, that the following motion be passed—unanimously, I hope—within this committee. The motion is as follows:

That the health minister and the government officials appear before the standing committee in order to report on progress made in the area of organ transplantation since the adoption of motion M-222 by the House of Commons.

The Chair: All right. We have a motion on the table.

Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Could I see the French version of the motion? I don't have it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, do you have a copy in French?

Mr. Keith Martin: No.

• 0930

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard: I can't accept that. I want to see a copy of the motion in French before we adopt it. Frankly, this is supposed to be a country with two official languages and we have to fight to have things in French.

[English]

The Chair: If he reads it—

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard: No, I want a copy so that I can study the motion and get a clear understanding of it. Only then will I be ready to vote.

[English]

The Chair: Madame, if Mr. Martin reads it again and the clerk writes it down, would that be satisfactory for you?

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard: No, I want to see the French version.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: If I can get this to Madame Picard in French before the end of this meeting, would that be acceptable to her?

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard: I see that the motion has the support of the other three parties, that is the NDP, the Conservative Party and the Reform Party. As for me, I don't have a copy of the motion. No one bothered to send me one and I'm expected to vote on it this morning. I want a copy of the motion in French.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): First of all, I would like to express my support for Mrs. Picard's comments. I don't see how we can be expected to vote on a motion if it has not been tabled simultaneously in both official languages.

I have a second point of order. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there appears to be a difference between the motion tabled here, which basically calls for a meeting of the committee within ten days and the explanation provided by my colleague. I understood that he wished to invite the minister and government officials to appear before us. These two proposals are not necessarily compatible. Therefore, could someone tell me if indeed the written text is the motion or whether the verbal interpretation holds. As far as I'm concerned, there is a fundamental difference between the two.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: There are two motions. The first motion I put forward was under Standing Order 106. It was to ask this committee to come together to look at this issue, because it was not dealt with.

The second motion I put forward, Mr. Saada, was to ask that the committee recommend that the minister and his officials appear before it, so that we all have the benefit of asking the minister where he is on this issue, what he's going to do, or what he's failed to do with respect to organ transplantation in this country.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm sorry, but correct me again if I'm wrong. I have a single motion here. Isn't the second motion out of order because 48 hours' notice wasn't given?

A voice: You're right.

[English]

The Chair: That's a good point.

Mr. Clerk, can you explain that to us?

The Clerk: This meeting is called under 106(3), which is a particular provision of the standing orders. A meeting has to be called within 10 sitting days of my office receiving the notice. We consider that the 48-hours' notice does not apply because of the specific provisions in the standing orders for the convocation of this particular meeting.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I appreciate your information, but in my view, it still doesn't address my concern, which is the following.

We have two different motions. One is not just a complement of the first one. One is to have a meeting called for this committee, and I would tend to be in full agreement with this initiative. The other one has to do with an appearance of witnesses in this regard. This is a motion that is not the same, and that should follow the same route as any other motion, which is to have 48-hours' notice put before this committee and a vote on it.

So my understanding is that there is one motion that is in order, and on which I'm prepared to vote, and another one that is not in order,

[Translation]

and in that case, I prefer to point out that the motion seems out of order.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, and then Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Keith Martin: We are fulfilling the first motion completely. The first motion was put forward. The fact that we're here means that the first motion has already been fulfilled.

The second motion is complementary to the first motion, and now gives us, as a committee, the power to bring the health minister forward to answer questions on the particular issue in question.

If we were merely to have this meeting without having any action, there would be no point in convening this meeting in the first place.

• 0935

So the second motion clearly complements the first one. It will give us the power to act on this particular issue that is very important to Canadians.

The Chair: Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: On a point of order, I do not think the motion is in order given the fact that it's not translated into French.

Mr. Keith Martin: It's my understanding that as individual MPs we can submit a motion at the committee in our language of choice, and it doesn't have to be translated because we have translators doing that for us. And it doesn't have to be written down.

The Chair: According to the clerk, that is the way it stands: you can present the motion in your language as long as there are translators. And that is that.

Mr. Lavigne is next.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Madame, we have been elected in Canada, and Canada is bilingual. This MP has been elected in Canada. Canada is supposed to be bilingual. If the Bloc Québécois presents a motion, it has to present it in both English and French. The MP over there has to present his motion in both languages because we are elected in a Canada that is bilingual.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Volpe has been on the list for a while.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I hope this point of order will be helpful, Madam Chair. The intent of the motion is something that the steering committee would deal with. If the initial motion were to pass—the one that everybody has in front of them—then the steering committee decides on the list of speakers, and makes suggestions that we would go through. Without speaking to the merit of the motion itself, if we are to deal with the item that is before us, rather than trying to steer the steering committee on the basis of the points that have been made, allow the steering committee, when it meets, to set the schedule and the slate of witnesses. We would then avoid the problems associated with the procedures that are currently taking up some of our time.

The Chair: The motion to call a meeting today does not exist right now. It's not a motion on the floor right now. That motion—106(3)—is to bring us here. We are here. The member has presented a motion, but the problem may be—and I'm just assuming here—that it's a little different from what we thought it might be. We had thought, as Mr. Volpe said, that it might go to the steering committee.

Mr. Joe Fontana: On a point of order, Madam Chair, please explain one thing procedurally. Are you suggesting that this motion is in order? We need to have an answer as to whether this motion can be put.

Then I'd like to ask the question, because I think my colleagues have questioned what Mr. Martin said. The motion reads differently from what he has said. Perhaps you can rule on whether or not this motion is in order in the first place.

We're here, as you suggested, under 106(3). Are you going to allow this motion to be introduced? If you don't, then there's nothing to talk about.

If you are allowing it to be introduced, then I have a question; technically, that's wrong. Mr. Martin wants to call in the Minister of Health to discuss what is right and what is wrong with the transplant.

First of all, I think this motion is good. It has merit. I hope we can discuss the merits of thie motion.

But the motion as read, Keith, says “and the measures Health Canada is taking to improve upon these systems”. It has absolutely no mention of a minister or anything else, and that's why some of us are confused as to what the motion actually says.

The Chair: That's the motion to call the meeting. That's not the motion he's talking about. The motion you have in front of you, Mr. Fontana, is the motion to call the meeting.

Mr. Joe Fontana: But it also has the motion included.

The Chair: That's what he wanted to do but it sounds like he changed it in mid-stream.

Mr. Keith Martin: The issue that I think we are trying to discuss is whether the motion I just made in English, but not in French, is allowable. We have to determine whether it is allowable or not, and according to my understanding of the House rules, under these circumstances you can put forth a motion in the official language of your choice, en anglais ou en français. In this particular circumstance it does not have to be translated because we have translators here who are doing the job for us.

• 0940

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard: I'm very sorry, but I've raised my hand three times and I've not been recognized. I'm sorry, but do I have to lodge another complaint? This is ridiculous.

[English]

The Chair: Order. The chair would like to speak.

The clerk says the motion is in order, that we can receive it in the language of our choice as long as there are translators. So we could vote.

Mr. Jacques Saada: In terms of voting on this, Madam Chair, with all due respect, there is something that, to me, is hurting.

[Translation]

As a francophone seeking total compliance with the Official Languages Act, I don't see why I would have to accept not getting 48 hours' notice of the motion in French. I can understand that the author of the motion can table it in any language he wants to, but I have the same rights to 48 hours' notice of the French version.

Mrs. Pauline Picard: There is a difference between translation and mere words. If you want me to do my job in a conscientious manner... we've been asking for the same thing ever since we got here.

[English]

Mr. Joseph Volpe: On a point of order—

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard: I want a copy of it in French.

[English]

The Chair: Order. We have a motion, and according to the clerk, it is acceptable. Could we have consensus on whether you accept the motion? If you don't accept it one language, then—

Mr. Lynn Myers: No way.

The Chair: Ms. Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Madam Chair, in the interests of how this committee works together, I would ask Mr. Martin to withdraw his motion and present it in a form that is acceptable to Madam Picard, and the committee will deal with it at that time. There's no reason we have to deal with it today. There's no urgency.

While technically it is in order, we're dealing with a request from a member of this committee for a notice in her language. Out of respect, I would ask him to do that so that we don't have a fight over this.

An hon. member: I think he may find support for it.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: He may.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Merci beaucoup, madame la présidente.

I would not in any way, shape, or form wish to offend Madam Picard.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard: I already am offended.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: There is urgency in this. People are dying. I'm not prepared to let this motion go into a huge swamp, to be swallowed up in a situation where it will not come to committee in a timely fashion. We've had to go through incredible loopholes to get this motion here. It has been going on for years and years where no one has acted on this motion.

Let me finish.

I would be very happy—pleased, in fact—to translate this and get it into Madam Picard's hands before the end of the day so that she will have it with her. But the fact of the matter is, this motion is acceptable and is legal under the rules of the House, and this motion stands.

I hope members will look beyond the semantics of whether or not we have it in both languages, given that we have two translators with us, and accept the fact that we can discuss this issue for what it is. I'd be happy to get this into Madam Picard's hands before the end of the day.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Wait a minute—before Madam Picard leaves—this is unacceptable that we don't have French and English. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Keith Martin: We do. Look behind you.

Mr. Lynn Myers: No, this is unacceptable—

Mr. Joseph Volpe: On a point of order—

Mr. Lynn Myers: —and you should withdraw.

The Chair: Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I asked some time ago to get on the list. Now it's too late, as Madam Picard has left.

[Translation]

I agree. She is right.

[English]

I think it was also explained by my colleague, Mr. Saada, that this is the culture, the language, of this country. It's a matter of respect. The member across the table could have had exactly what he wanted with a little bit of generosity, which appears to be lacking on a number of fronts.

I think all of this was for nought, and I regret Madam Picard's need to leave this meeting. I'd like to be on record for that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Madam Chair, we've spent some time here talking about the procedural validity of the motion.

I sense around the room a great desire to be supportive of the intent of the motion. I think the member who presented the motion would probably lose support on the basis of procedures alone, but he could garner and maintain support for the motion if he addressed the procedural concerns of some of the members around the table.

He has asked that people vote on the matter before the members who have procedural concerns have those concerns satisfied.

• 0945

I appeal to him to think in terms of what he has seen around the table, to accept the fact that there would be some support for his motion, and that this support would grow if he just came back with that motion tomorrow or whenever. He can do it in 48 hours. This committee is sitting over the course of the week.

On the question of urgency, Madam Chair, nobody has presented this topic for discussion to this committee prior to today.

So committee members, as I read them around the table, partisanship aside, appear to be predisposed to cooperate with the intent of the motion. I would ask the member to just keep that intention in mind and allow the committee to bring consensus, in fact, unanimity, to it. If he would take the step back—I think it's staring everybody in the face—and produce the motion that would be to everybody's satisfaction, then I'm pretty confident he would find unanimity.

If the urgency is as serious as he would like to believe and have us believe—I think he has us convinced—then the 48 hours will probably accelerate things rather than retard them. I implore him to reconsider what he's doing so that we won't spend our time talking about procedures and can get immediately to the substance.

Mr. Keith Martin: If I put this motion into both official languages and present this to the committee, do I have the agreement of the committee that they will meet within ten sitting days to discuss this motion?

The Chair: Mr. Martin, if you give the motion to the clerk with a notice of 48 hours before the next meeting, it will be brought up at the next meeting. Those are the rules of our committee. Is that okay?

Will you withdraw your motion, then?

Mr. Keith Martin: I withdraw the motion.

The Chair: Is it acceptable to everybody that the motion be withdrawn?

(Motion withdrawn)

Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Chair, on a broader point of order, I'm not sure of the nuances of being able to present a motion in one official language, and I'm not sure of what's written or not written, but I do know that at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, very early on we said that all motions accepted by our committee would have to be in both official languages.

The Chair: It's agreed now, so....

Mr. Lynn Myers: No, we're beyond that now. We're talking about when it takes place the next time. It seems to me that this committee should say that any time a motion comes forward, it must be in both official languages. I think that is straightforward and clear.

The Chair: Fine. Everybody's agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Thompson, did you still want to speak?

Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): I just wanted to support Mr. Volpe. For once in my life, I think he was right on the money.

I hope that's not recorded, Madam Chair.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Greg, have some regard for my health.

The Chair: All right. We will have a five-minute adjournment. No, just a minute. We're going to just take a break for a coffee, then we'll continue with the second part of the meeting.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just on this point, Madam Chair, I'll seek your clarification. The chair and the committee will know that at a previous meeting, pursuant to our discussion about the Health Protection Branch, I had tabled a motion in both official languages with the committee.

I am in the hands of this committee in terms of when you would like to deal with it. If, given the business of the committee for today, you would like to put this off to a future meeting, I'm not opposed to that.

The Chair: Do we put it off to another date? We'll put it off for another day. Okay. Thank you.

• 0950

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just for clarification, I would assume that when you table a motion in both official languages and give the proper period of time, then it comes forward at the most convenient time for the committee automatically. But if your instruction is that I should actually signal when I want to discuss it, then I'll be happy to do that.

The Chair: Okay. We can do that another time.

The meeting is adjourned.