HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 10, 1998

• 0905

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Bonjour, good morning. Committee members, since we have a quorum, it is my pleasure to declare this meeting open.

[English]

In conformity with Standing Order 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is the election of the chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Madam, I move that Joseph Volpe be Chairman.

[English]

The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. Paradis that Mr. Joe Volpe do take the chair of this committee as chairman. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Mr. Volpe duly elected chair of this committee.

[Translation]

Some hon. members: Bravo!

The Chairman (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Thank you very much.

[English]

After such a hard-fought campaign—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: —I feel a little exhausted, but energized nonetheless. I thank all the members of the committee—on both my left and my right—for the overwhelming support. I hope to maintain most of it over the course of the deliberations of this committee. In fact, I'm sure we'll retain all of it. The committee has always worked well and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't continue in that vein. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

I think we have at least one more item of business we want to do: the election of the vice-chairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), each standing or special committee shall elect a chairman and two vice-chairs. Two shall be members of the government party and the third a member of the opposition party.

I am prepared to entertain the election of the first vice-chair.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I propose that Mr. Paradis be elected vice-chair.

The Chair: Do I have a seconder for that?

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): I second it.

The Chair: It is moved by Mr. Myers and seconded by Ms. Minna that Monsieur Denis Paradis be the first vice-chair of the committee.

Is there support for that motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It looks unanimous to me.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Monsieur Paradis, félicitations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will now proceed with the election of the second vice-chair. Mr. Hill.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): I'd like to nominate Reed Elley for that position, please.

The Chair: Is there a seconder?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Yes.

It's moved by Mr. Hill and seconded by Ms. Wasylycia-Leis that Monsieur Reed Elley be second vice-chair of this committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Again, it looks unanimous to me. This augurs well.

(Motion agreed to)

An hon. member: It's a start.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Mr. Elley, you're doing well. Congratulations.

I think some people who have other business now. They may leave.

If you don't mind, I'd like to move on immediately to some of the routine motions.

First of all, before we do that, let me welcome back to the committee some of the staff members who were here with us in the last go-round.

Of course there is Nancy Miller Chenier, who has laboured with us through our hearings and through some of the other discussions of the committee.

Welcome back, Nancy.

Welcome to Gérald, who has worked diligently to prepare the draft report that we imposed on him and on Odette, who is no longer with us. We're going to need your services as we go through that report again.

Welcome to Roger Préfontaine who is here on an interim basis this morning just to help guide your newly minted chair. Then he will abandon me to your will and your wishes.

Roger, we're going to miss you, but thanks a lot for coming by for the transition period.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: And a very special welcome to the new clerk of the committee, Marie-Danielle.

• 0910

She comes over to us from a similar position in the other place and brings with her great experience in that area as well as—for some of us—a new approach to the issues that some of us have been dealing with for several sessions. I think I speak for everybody on the committee when I say that you're more than welcome and that we're going to enjoy working with you.

The Clerk: Thank you.

The Chair: There is a series of motions that we might normally go through. Can we go through those really quickly?

Some of these are pretty straightforward. I think we agreed on some of them when we began the last session. I'll go through them and you can make comments as we go along.

It is moved that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least six members are present, including a member of the opposition. That's just to receive evidence, not for votes.

For the benefit of those who are new, when we made this decision, the committee felt that when witnesses had come forward or travelled a great distance it was important to be courteous enough to at the very least hear their evidence, even if we didn't have a quorum, as long as there were six members, including one from the opposition.

Any comments?

Mr. Lynn Myers: I so move.

Ms. Maria Minna: I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Secondly, the issue is how much time people are going to have for questioning and how much time the witnesses are going to have for presenting their positions.

We had agreed at the time that five minutes should be more than enough on the part of the witnesses so that there would be a greater opportunity for dialogue between witnesses and committee members. Are we still in agreement? Is that the way we would like to do business this time around?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll move on to item 3, the issue of questioning back and forth. We considered various models. The one that we struck was that the official opposition and the opposition would have the first round of five minutes each, then it would be five minutes to the government side, then back again to the other two opposition parties, then back again to the government side. And from there, it would be one on either side of the table, back and forth for five minutes apiece, until time runs out.

Are there any views on that? Shall we stay with it? Are there views to the contrary?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, it's a good system.

The Chair: Do you like it? Shall we approve that one? Again unanimously?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Very good.

The fourth item is that the five-minute allocation for questioning be applied to all witnesses, including ministers.

Grant.

Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Chair, this is one area in which I don't think Liberal members should have the same number of minutes to question a minister. Without being unkind, I think this is a unique opportunity and I think opposition members should line up and have questions down the road before Liberals get an opportunity—and then possibly go back and forth. I know that may not be popular, but I think the questioning is sometimes less than exhaustive from a party that enjoys the daily interchange with the minister which is denied to the opposition.

The Chair: Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer it if Mr. Hill wouldn't prejudge the kind of questions we're going to ask. I think that we too have tough questions from time to time—as well all of us should—and, quite frankly, I think the system has worked well. I think we should proceed accordingly. It seems to me that we're all on this committee together and we should have equal opportunity in whatever forum we have. The rules should apply in all cases. I'm going to be arguing that we carry on as we have in the past.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): If I understood this point correctly, it is not an issue of the types of questions, although people might dispute that as well; it is more an issue of your greater access to the minister, at least in theory. And as members of the health committee, surely on a daily basis you would have more ready access to him, a more open door, than would members of the opposition.

• 0915

I think that was Mr. Hill's point. With that I would have to concur, and it's not just on a partisan basis. I agree with him.

The Chair: Madam Minna, then Madame Picard.

Ms. Maria Minna: This discussion is assuming that members on this side of the table spend a great deal of time talking to ministers about specific issues. The issues that come to the table are different, such as the report we're dealing with now. We had the minister before us. As much as one would like to think so, we don't always have half an hour a day or what have you to sit down with the Minister of Health—or with any minister, for that matter.

An hon. member: That's right.

Ms. Maria Minna: They're all over the place. You may see them once in a while, but that doesn't mean you can sit down and thrash out questions all the time. And at times, the issues come up at the table, sometimes before you've had a chance to.

If we're going to have an investigation on issues—we're going to deal with some tough issues in this committee—I think we all must have the ability to be able to do that. When we're here, we're seized with the issue and we have the materials in front of us.

It's not good enough for me to say that I have two minutes in the lobby with the minister in order to be able to pump him or her on something. I don't think that's quite what's intended by “a good discussion”, really pursuing an issue and being able to come up with some good solutions at the end of it.

The Chair: Merci. Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): I agree with Mr. Hill. It's not that I assume bad faith on the part of the party in power, but, on fairly controversial topics during certain visits by the Minister, I have seen members of the party in power ask very long questions and make very long preambles, whereas we are required to adhere to the five minutes allotted to us. We were unable to really defend our views because the members of the party in power had taken over.

So I agree with Mr. Hill.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I understand and appreciate the concern raised by Mr. Hill. However, I think at the root of the problem is the fact that we've had such short periods of time with the minister before the committee. The time we had in the past year was limited to maybe a couple of hours, I think, in total, and that was not an adequate amount of time for us, either to be able to pursue the estimates or to pursue broader policy issues with the minister.

I'm prepared to acknowledge the right of members of the government—and I accept them at their word—in terms of wanting to participate fully in the discussions and grill the minister like we want to, but I will fight like heck to make sure that we get better opportunities to talk to the minister and I think we need to consider that as we plan the agenda.

The Chair: Good point. Thank you.

Mr. Jackson, then Mr. Nault. And then we'll make a decision.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I just want to say that we're all members of Parliament around this table, all duly elected by the people of Canada. We represent our ridings and we have the right, same as every other MP.

Again, agreeing with Lynn, I think it's important that we don't prejudge. Hopefully we have a good chair who knows how to run meetings and who knows that in terms of questions nobody is going to come here and hide from this committee. So let's not prejudge the chair. I was a chair for many years, and nobody could have accused me of pandering to one set or the other when I was in the chair.

Our job is not to protect a minister when he or she comes here; it's to ask tough questions. And I want the ability to do that or I don't want to be on this committee.

The Chair: Good point. Thank you very much.

Mr. Nault.

The one person who's supposed to protect the minister hasn't spoken yet, but that's okay.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Well, we'll let the minister look after himself when he gets here.

Mr. Chairman, in a democracy everybody has a right to ask questions. I don't think we should base it on what party you belong to and I think everyone agrees with that. But it's an interesting strategy by Reform.

As a new member, there's a question I wanted to ask you. I don't understand the five-minute deadline for witnesses' statements. I represent 51 first nations and I've never have a first nation representative make a statement in five minutes. I assume that we will be very flexible about this and that we can make a motion, depending on the witness.

If I have a witness coming from my riding, it costs him or her $1500 to get here. You give them five minutes to make a statement. In a lot of cases, they don't bring a written text. It's an oral culture that we're dealing with.

• 0920

We have fiduciary responsibility for first nations health. I'm a little surprised to hear that we're proposing to limit someone to five minutes. As a new member, I'm just curious as to where this came from. I've never seen it in any committee I've been on in the last 10 years and I just wonder why there is a need to do this. Usually we let the chair have some flexibility, depending on the importance of the witness we're hearing. If it's a very important subject matter and a witness with a lot of credibility, it may be necessary to let them go on for 10 or 15 minutes and give them an hour and a half in the committee.

I get the sense that you want a five-minute presentation and that you want to get them out of here in 20 minutes and get on to somebody else. But what if someone comes a long way as an expert witness of some kind? I'm just trying to get some rationale for this because I find it somewhat restrictive in regard to the work of the committee.

The Chair: It's a good point and it's a point that's been raised in the past. I think you've kind of answered it yourself.

In my recollection, what the committee has done is leave the chair and the committee itself a lot of discretion. As a basic guiding principle, we try to focus the presentation of any witnesses for five minutes, and if for any reason he or she cannot do it, that's fine. We'll make that decision or the chair will make it for us.

The idea was to engage in dialogue and questions and answers. That's why we've reduced the traditional 10-minute period to five minutes: it was for questioning, so that we could engage more members around the table in dialogue with the presenters. Now, this might be more appropriate for situations such as when a minister comes before us, because members, both government and opposition members, are all anxious to speak with the minister and to get on to a specific point.

In the past, it was also felt that by going to five minutes, especially when a minister comes forward, we would avoid, as Madame Picard says, many of these long preambles, from the opposition or from the government side, which are designed for strictly partisan purposes—although that's allowed, obviously. But going to five minutes would allow us all to get to the issue much more quickly.

In the past, we've recognized that there are other circumstances and I'm hoping that we'll have confidence in the chair to recognize those circumstances in the future as well.

I thought we were going to make a decision right after Mr. Nault spoke, but since we have a new member, Mr. Bernard Bigras—

Mr. Lynn Myers: But Mr. Chair, on point of order, are we on the point of Mr. Hill or—

The Chair: Mr. Nault introduced a question that went back to a motion that we'd already passed and I took a moment to explain it for him because he is a new member. He's come back to another point. I think we've exhausted the point about questioning ministers. I'd like to get on to that decision even though it wasn't a question that was on the table. It was a question that was introduced by Grant, and I'm willing to call for that decision right now.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, could we deal with that now and then perhaps go on to the other points?

Mr. Grant Hill: I can make it into a motion.

The Chair: Grant, I don't know whether you need to make it into a motion, but if that's what you want to do, you're quite free to do so.

Just for the purposes of getting everybody around the table to understand where we're all coming from, this is probably a dialogue worth having, but if we can avoid having to make a very specific motion about it and then locking you into that decision without giving the chair the discretion that he or she may have exercised in the past— I think you'd probably want to avoid that. If you don't mind—

Mr. Grant Hill: Well, if I understand it, we're now locked into the allocation of time.

The Chair: No, we're not. We weren't even discussing it. I just opened up the floor to it, but, Grant, if we want to continue that and you want me to go on from Bob Nault's point, then I'm going to hear Bernard Bigras first, then Maurice, and then I'll let you have a statement.

Bernard.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I side with Mr. Myers, who says we are all equals around this table. However, one must not disregard the fact that certain members are less equal than others. There are those who have formal mechanisms and others who have informal mechanisms. As Mr. Paradis knows perfectly well, there are mechanisms, particularly that of the caucus, through which members can receive ministers and obtain information not available to certain opposition members.

• 0925

So I think there should be a difference in the time that is allotted. I agree on Mr. Hill's motion. Yes, we are all equals, but government members have access to mechanisms not available to opposition members. Among others, I'm thinking of the Parliamentary Secretary, who talks to the Minister every day. It's considered that the people around this table are all equals, but I have my doubts on that. That's my view.

The Chairman: Thank you. Maurice.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are we discussing points 3 and 4 here or are we moving back up or—

The Chair: No. It's just a question of how much time we have to question witnesses. After we made the decision, Grant wanted to have a clarification on whether we ought to apply a different formula for the minister or a minister coming forward, the basic premise being, I suppose, that the opposition members ought to have more time to question a minister than government members do, because government members are perceived to have more time with ministers than opposition members do.

I can tell you from a personal point of view that's not the case, but go ahead.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was just going to say with respect to Robert's point earlier that the fact is, with written submissions in the past—and I suppose if it's aboriginal people it's more of an oral tradition—there certainly has been, by way of the questioning that goes back and forth, a lot of opportunity to bring out those other things.

We're just talking about five-minute opening statements, are we not? In the course of the questioning, they will probably have 30 minutes or whatever in response to questions and so on.

The Chair: It's a point that Bob raised and we've addressed it. I think we've mixed two points. The one that I think we need to address right now, that I'd like to have a decision on, is just the issue of whether opposition members ought to have more time than government members when a minister comes forward.

I think we've heard the views. It's probably best for us to make a decision. I can tell you that in the past the chairs who have preceded me have been very balanced, I think, in regard to making sure that government members and opposition members in particular have had an opportunity to question ministers. And in my experience, the ministers before this committee have taken additional time to ensure that all questions would be exhausted.

We don't have a motion. It's Grant's view. If he wants to have a motion, that's fine, but since the views have been pretty well exhausted, except for Reed—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): And me.

Mr. Reed Elley: I'm not exhausted yet.

The Chair: —and the person who allegedly has more time with the minister than everybody else combined, my preference is to accept this as the final word.

You each have 30 seconds.

Mr. Reed Elley: Perhaps by way of some compromise here, to give us more access to the minister when he does come, we could increase the amount of time that each party has in the first round, so that the Reform Party would get, say, seven minutes instead of five, everybody else gets seven minutes in that first round, and then when we go back to the second round we decrease it to five, just to give us more opportunity than we usually have. That's a compromise.

The Chair: Madam Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: My recollection of last year's committee is that there was never enough time for anyone to exhaust all of their questions, whether they were members of the opposition or members of the government. Overall, I think, the committee worked well.

Unfortunately, this discussion is reminding me of a book called Animal Farm I once read. It distresses me somewhat that we would try to suggest that some people around here should have greater privilege, whether it comes to questioning or anything else. I would not support any change in the procedure of the committee from what it was last year.

The Chair: Just before you give me your final view, one of the ways to resolve this, as you said, Reed, is to just simply ask the minister if we can make more time available. Then we don't need to go to seven minutes or ten minutes or fifteen minutes or whatever. In the past, with one exception that I can recall, ministers have extended the time available so that the dialogue could continue.

Secondly, we've tried to constrain the minister's statements to five minutes so that there wouldn't be a consumption of the time available by declarations. Instead, we would go directly to questions.

So while it's fair for you to raise the issue, Grant, on behalf of all members around the table, now I'd also like to respond on behalf of all members around the table. You must have a little confidence that the chair will try to make sure that things go back and forth and that we will have respect for each other around the table. And the five minutes, as a minimum for everybody, ought to be there.

• 0930

I think government members in the past have shown a willingness to cede the second round to an opposition member when a minister was here, simply because everybody recognizes the importance to committee members of having a minister present and having an opportunity to engage him or her in a dialogue, which sometimes may not be appropriate from a government side but might be more appropriate from an opposition side. I think those flexibilities have been demonstrated by members and I'd like to think that everybody is still in that same kind of mode, Grant.

Thank you.

A voice: You didn't call the—

The Chair: No, I think the decision's been more or less made, so we don't have to worry about that clear agreement, but it's very nice of you to think about it.

Number five, ladies and gentlemen, is an item of issue on this committee, and yesterday, I believe, it was raised as an item of issue on other committees as well. Some difficulties have emerged on other committees.

At any rate, the motion is: that as established by the Board of Internal Economy, and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives for any one organization—and I stress the word “maximum”—and that payment for more than two representatives in exceptional circumstances be at the discretion of the chair.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It's unanimous.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, how many more of these motions do we have?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Really quickly—

Mr. Lynn Myers: If you would, please.

The Chair: —number six: that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament as needed—and here she is—to assist the committee in its work and at the discretion of the chair.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Oh, thanks. I was thinking of fattening up my staff!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Number seven: that the committee authorize the chair from time to time as the need arises to take in conjunction with the clerk of the committee the appropriate measure to provide lunches for the committees and its subcommittees for working purposes and that the cost of these lunches be charged to the budget of the committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Grant, are you okay with that?

Mr. Grant Hill: You've beaten me down, so I won't disagree—

The Chair: Good man. Thanks a lot.

The next motion is that 48 hours' notice be given to the members of the committee before any substantive motion is considered by the committee and that the motion be circulated in both official languages.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I draw everybody's attention to that one because we had a few discussions around that issue.

[Translation]

We want to prevent problems, Mr. Paradis. Lastly,

[English]

that the study of the main estimates be the first priority of the committee pending the minister's availability and in the event he's not available for a meeting very early in November—November 6—that the Auditor General be invited to appear.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Unanimous again. This is fantastic.

The clerk will extend the invitation to the minister immediately and we can get on with that. I think that's our business with routine proceedings.

Mr. Reed Elley: There's one other matter that caused us a bit of trouble last year on the committee in terms of the presentation of private members' bills and getting a particular person to the committee to explain his or her bill.

I'd like to move a motion that the committee agrees that when a private member's bill is referred to put the bill on its agenda at the earliest possible time in order to invite the member to explain the bill to the committee and to decide on its work plan.

An hon. member: Notice of motion?

An hon. member: There's no notice of motion on this.

An hon. member: It's not substantive.

Mr. Reed Elley: This is not a substantive motion; it's a routine motion, actually, that a lot of committees do make.

The Chair: I think you're both right. In some committees, this has been ruled a substantive motion. Because we've opened up all the routine proceedings, I think we can deal with it as a routine proceeding. Some committees have taken it as routine, some as substantive.

Again, Reed, just from a historical perspective, I think the only reason this one caused us a little difficulty is that we were engaged in those hearings and we found very little time in our timetable to deal with it.

• 0935

We had one occasion where we had one bill and one motion, Madame Picard's bill and Keith Martin's motion. I think we dealt with Keith Martin's motion very quickly and I think that's still on the timetable for the committee as part of an action plan.

For Madame Picard's bill, I think the committee said it would deal with it at the very earliest opportunity. Procedurally, in the House there is a timeline associated with that and I think Madame Picard's bill is one of the things that our steering committee can deal with very quickly. Even if we didn't want to deal with it very quickly in steering committee, we would have to do it anyway as a matter of procedure.

So I take your point. We can deal with it as a motion and if people want to debate it that's fine, but I think it's something that has been addressed. Your issue is an important one: this committee has an obligation to deal very quickly with matters that come from the House. In the past, I haven't seen any reluctance on its part to do that. If it gives you a comfort level to vote on it, that would be fine, but with all due respect, it would probably be unnecessary.

Mr. Reed Elley: Maybe there is some discussion about it from other people.

The Chair: Well, if you want to have the discussion for the sake of having it, it's fine. If you would feel more comfortable having a vote on it—

Mr. Reed Elley: Well, I did make the motion, and if someone wants to second it then we can have a discussion on it.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Grant Hill: I second it.

The Chair: Grant seconds the motion.

I don't know whether there's any need for discussion, but if you want to have it, obviously this is here on the table.

Madam Caplan, Mr. Nault and then Mr. Vellacott.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The point I would make is that those issues are really subcommittee issues and that if we have an effective working subcommittee— If there is any problem with subcommittee reports, the committee as a whole gets an opportunity to review it and discuss it. I don't think we've really had a problem and, frankly, I just don't think the motion is necessary. I think the subcommittee should be dealing with it.

The Chair: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chair, I wouldn't mind if Reed read the motion again. I got the impression that the motion suggested that somehow private members' business takes precedence in some fashion. That's why I wanted him to read it again. I don't have a copy of it in front of me.

And in this place, at least on the government side, we all know that the government's business will be done. They are elected by the people to govern. And certainly, the opposition and private members have a right to put forward these motions and/or bills, but the first order of business will be government business, dealing with government legislation. If this is suggesting that we do it in a different fashion, I don't know— I don't have a copy of it.

Could you just read it one more time, Reed?

Mr. Reed Elley: In some sense it's a housekeeping measure, but it does give us a direction that we could fall back on if we do run into problems: that the committee agrees when a private member's bill is referred to put the bill on its agenda at the earliest possible time in order to invite the member to explain the bill to the committee and to decide on its work plan—at the earliest possible time.

The Chair: Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was just going to say that at the human resources development committee passing this was a breeze—with unanimous consent—the other day. It was not seen as a problematic thing. I would also want to see it read “private member's bill or motion” with the word motion inserted there. And it applies whether it's the government side or our side.

The Chair: Are you making an amendment, Maurice?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, I think it is an amendment. In the matter of Keith Martin, it was a motion, not a bill, that was referred to the committee.

The Chair: So you're proposing an amendment?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't know whether it requires an amendment or just an insertion.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Maybe it's a friendly amendment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Reed?

Mr. Reed Elley: I would agree to the amendment just to clear this up.

The Chair: Lynn.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to have a little confusion in terms of what's being proposed now, with amendments, friendly or otherwise, being proposed. It seems to me that what you said in terms of how this committee operated was in fact the way we would proceed, and I think Ms. Caplan reinforced that by way of the steering committee process, etc.

In the absence of that being acceptable, I really want 48 hours' notice. We have that in place. I see this as a substantive issue and I want 48 hours' notice. And I want to then review exactly what's being proposed with the amendment—or otherwise—and I would hope that we could deal with it accordingly.

The Chair: Well, we can do a couple of things here.

Mr. Reed Elley: There's a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman.

• 0940

The Chair: Yes, there is a motion on the floor, and let me intervene just before we go on to that.

Let me go ahead and lay it out for you as I see it, Reed. If we defeat the motion, you're going to be counting on the discretion of the chair and the steering committee to get all those issues on the table.

If we don't deal with the motion or we accede to a request that I see on the table to deal with this as a substantive motion with 48 hours' notice, then we're going to be dealing with this at the next sitting of the committee and we're going to have a discussion that will eventually result in exactly what I just said now, and that is, that we're going to be dealing with this in a steering committee.

Mr. Reed Elley: Let's get it over with.

The Chair: If we're going to get it over with, then my ruling is going to be that it is a substantive motion, that I've accepted it for a 48-hour notice and that we'll deal with it at the next meeting.

Let's go on to the next one.

Are there any other considerations? No?

There's one that I do want to consider and that is the question of steering committees. Some of the members, in private discussions, have suggested that perhaps we didn't have enough steering committee meetings.

I'm not sure I would agree with that, because the committee seemed to be seized with one main issue in the last part of the session. However, I think it's important for all of us to think in terms of making sure that together we develop the plan for this committee's work. I guess the best way to do that is to reflect on what the composition of that steering committee was.

I'll mention the names just because they're part of the motion. In the original motion for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure—that's our steering committee—it was agreed that it would be formed by: the chair; the vice-chair, Reed Elley; the the parliamentary secretary at the time—who was yourself but is now Madam Caplan; a member of the government party; another member of the government party; Madame Picard; Greg Thompson; and Judy Wasylycia-Leis—or the replacements for any of those people.

That was the steering committee. It's fairly large, but that's what we decided we were going to have, with the understanding as well that all future business of the House or of this committee would be in camera and that of course all of the final decisions would be made by the whole committee.

That's what we were operating under in the past. As I look around the table, I think I see a consensus that we continue in that vein.

Obviously the names that I had have to be replaced. For example, in the case of Lynn Myers, who's not going to be a member of the committee, there would be another government member. And just so we can have definitive names I would ask the parliamentary secretary to give me the name of a person who could replace Mr. Myers and the name of the individual who'll replace Monsieur Drouin, because he was the other person on the committee. The others, I think, are all the same.

Of course, the parliamentary secretary is the parliamentary secretary so we're not going to have any problem in that regard.

So if we could have those names, then, the clerk will be able to send out a notice to each one of those individuals for the steering committee, the committee on agenda and procedure, and it will then be the responsibility of those members to have replacements.

Fair enough?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Do you want the names now?

The Chair: Sure. Or you can give them to me later. It doesn't matter.

And it's the same on the other side. Okay?

Now, you can see that we're getting good help here, because immediately we have a very good piece of advice from the clerk: that we have a motion to formalize things for ourselves so that we can get busy right away, and that is, that the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and one representative from each of the Bloc, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

• 0945

However, that's a great motion except that it doesn't include the other two individuals we are going to replace.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The vice-chair as well?

The Chair: The vice-chair is included because the vice-chair was part of it last time. And there's one member, so it's a question of one, two, three, four and then one, two, three. That's it.

We'll do that formal motion as soon as we get the names. Then we'll put the names down and everything will be read properly.

An hon. member: And that will be at the next meeting, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes. That completes all of our motions and considerations. I have some business that I think we'd like to get on to right away.

A voice: Do you want to go in camera?

The Chair: It doesn't matter on this one. Normally, I suppose, we could make a decision to stay in camera, but it's not a big secret. We're dealing with something that we wanted to deal with immediately.

I think the very first order of business might be that all of us agree to receive a copy of the standing committee's first draft report on herbal products and alternative therapies and that we have that in our possession over the course of this week. If you have an opportunity, members, read it over and make some observations. Then, when we come back, at the very first instance we can begin dealing with it by addressing the issues of the report and what we will deal with.

I spoke very briefly—and not presumptuously—with the researcher responsible for drafting this. I wanted to recall for myself that the committee in its last meeting had given staff a set of principles it had agreed to which ought to guide the drafting of the report. She assured me that those principles were foremost in the minds of the drafters and that the report ought to reflect those things.

Secondly, there is a question of the style of the report. Once you've read it, you can make some of those observations about substance and style as well.

Third, with respect to that report, I think the committee had agreed in a consensus fashion that we might consider bringing back some of the members to be a part of the discussions if there were changes—that is, some of the members who were part of that committee. I'm assuming—and maybe I shouldn't—that committee members are still very open to that. And if that is the case, we'll invite some of them back in order to have the benefit of their insight as we finalize the report. Do I have that agreement?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: This is no reflection on the new members around the table. They're part of the committee.

Madam, do you have copies to distribute to everyone?

The Clerk: Yes, it's being distributed.

The Chair: I think it's ready in both official languages.

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: I don't think I can stress this enough, and this is one the reasons why we were thinking of perhaps going in camera for this: this report is absolutely and totally confidential until it goes before the House. This report belongs to us. It's only the first draft, so if it gets out there somewhere and people start discussing something that's only a first draft, I think we will all be embarrassed. Colleagues, I ask you to keep this as close to the vest as you possibly can, so that we don't find ourselves disrupting each other by discussing some things that are, at the very best, hypothetical. This thing may change completely at our very next meeting.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, that we shouldn't give a copy to the Solicitor General?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Well, I don't think you want to read this while you're on a plane.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I have to leave. It's nice to see you in the chair. You have a lot of experience there.

• 0950

The Chair: Yes, I was happy to receive your vote, Greg. Thank you very much.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I'm sorry I didn't make it for the vote, but I knew you didn't need it.

The Chair: You're too good.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chair, are you going on to another item? Have we dealt with this?

The Chair: Did you want to say something there? Please go ahead.

Mr. Reed Elley: Backing up just a bit—and I should have said this earlier—are we intending, then, to have a steering committee meeting before the next meeting of this committee?

The Chair: No, I don't think there's a need for it right away, but I think we'll try to meet as quickly as possible in order to draw up the plan for the committee because we have something on the table right now. I perhaps too precipitously decided that for all of us this might be the first order of business.

Mr. Reed Elley: The reason I say that is that I know we ran into some problems last year about agenda—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Reed Elley: —about determining our priorities. We know this is a priority, but somewhere in the deliberations of this committee I think we should spend some time giving all members the opportunity to give input in regard to some long-range planning, to the things we would like to see discussed at this committee. I'm just wondering when we would do that.

The Chair: Reed, I'm hoping that we can do that immediately following the very first meeting.

Mr. Reed Elley: All right. That's fair.

The Chair: Okay? In fairness—

Mr. Robert Nault: What did you say, Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry, but I missed it.

The Chair: I'm hoping that we'll have that first steering committee meeting immediately following the first meeting.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on Reed's point? I've always found it to be much more efficient if the committee as a whole has a discussion about a work plan—

An hon. member: Exactly.

Mr. Robert Nault: —before you have your first steering committee meeting, simply because it puts on the table people's views of what we should do in the next year or so. It puts the views of all the members on the table, instead of having the steering committee come back and say what it'd like to do while the other members say that's not their priority, that the steering committee didn't bother to talk to them. I think it's always good to spend an hour and have a real far-ranging conversation—

An hon. member: Agreed.

Mr. Robert Nault: —about what the priorities are as they relate to health. That's my suggestion.

The Chair: Mr. Nault, thank you for the observation. That's the reason I want to do it right after the first meeting; we'll have everybody there and we'll have an opportunity to have everybody's input. We may simply add an extra half hour or an hour to the meeting. At that point, we'll have the entire committee make its decision and subsequently that small committee on agenda and procedure will meet in order to make the logistics and the business of the business run more smoothly. Okay?

An hon. member: Great. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other observations?

Seeing none, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will enjoy this week's rest.

Mr. Grant Hill: Is there anything in regard to the motion?

The Chair: No. We're going to do it next time. I just read it formally, and when we come back we can deal with this immediately. The only reason I can't tell you exactly when we'll do it—-whether it will be Tuesday morning or afternoon, etc.—is that the clerk is in the process of finalizing meeting dates for us. In the course of getting a location, we're going to try to get a permanent location. My personal preference is West Block or Centre Block. In fact, I'd prefer one right beside my office.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: I'd like it to be here. I hope I'm speaking for everybody else.

An hon. member: It's an excellent room.

The Chair: The clerk is in the process of working all that out. As soon as she does that, we're away. Hopefully we'll have room availabilities for our consideration when we meet again.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very mu—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: One question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Ms. Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Sorry. I would just like to take a moment to clarify something the chair said. There is a perception that when we go back to our ridings for constituency week we “rest”. That is a misperception and—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —I just wanted to clear that up, because we never have enough time in our ridings to do all the things that we want to do. I know we're all going to be very busy trying to cram into four days in our riding all the things that we'd like to do.

If anyone here is going to rest, let me know about it.

The Chair: It's going to be Grant.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd just like two clarifications. One is the intention that as soon as possible after we're back from our week of work in the constituency—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —we will be dealing with this report and research staff will be there to help us go through it.

The Chair: Absolutely.

• 0955

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Number two, we've all received this copy of reports and returns on Order-in-Council appointments referred to the health committee. Are we under any obligation to deal with that expeditiously? What's the timetable?

The Chair: We have some time, but right after our first meeting we're going to have the this whole committee determine what we want to do, and we can discuss that then.

But, yes, you'll get a notice, and at the very first meeting we're going to sit down and deal with this matter right here, the draft report. Okay?

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.