HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

• 1112

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): This meeting is called to order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

You will note that a motion is on the agenda this morning. I thought we would do that right away, because when we go to reviewing the evidence, we might want to move in camera so that we can speak frankly. But we can do the motion in public. Is that agreeable?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): We're not discussing the motion in camera, are we?

[English]

The Chair: No. I thought you would want to get your remarks on the record, Réal. I didn't want to deny you the privilege.

If I may read the motion before you, it's from Mr. Ménard. He moves that the committee invite the Bayer and Apotex companies to appear before it on the matter of the stockpiling of Cipro by Health Canada. I think we can record that Mr. Ménard has put that motion forward.

At the same time, and in the interests of efficient time use, we have an amendment to the motion from Mr. Merrifield. Mr. Merrifield moves that the words “and witnesses from Health Canada” be added as people to be invited. His motion would see “witnesses from Health Canada” inserted into the original motion, after the words “the Bayer and Apotex companies”. That amendment to the motion is also now on the table.

Mr. Merrifield, perhaps you'd like to address your amendment. We'll deal with it first.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Yes, absolutely, and I have a couple of points.

First, we were actually a little bit alarmed at the last meeting, when the minister was here. In the study of the blues, we discerned that the chair had suggested only an hour and 15 minutes was provided for the minister. When we checked the record, it was really suggested that the meeting was going to start a little bit late, at 9:10 a.m. or 9:15 a.m., but no mention was made that it wasn't going to go right to 11 a.m. We were a little blindsided by that.

• 1115

I think the intent of my amendment is to try to get to the bottom of not only the issue that we have with the drug Cipro with respect to anthrax, but also to be able to question the health department with regard to its preparedness for terrorist attacks. A considerable amount needs to be discussed to, let's say, get to the bottom of whether or not Canadians are really prepared in more ways than just for anthrax, if you look at botulism and smallpox. We never had appropriate time in that meeting to really get down to the bottom of some of that questioning as well. If the minister is not prepared, then that's my other rationale for adding Health Canada. We need to get to the bottom of whether or not we are prepared.

I respectfully submit the amendment. I have talked to Réal, and he sees it as a friendly amendment.

The Chair: Does anybody else wish to address the amendment? Réal sees it as a friendly amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'd like to speak to the amendment, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: All right, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: When the minister appeared before us—In fact, Madam Chair, we will have an opportunity to get back to clarify the rules for time allocation, because all this was done unfairly.

Since I first came to Parliament in 1993, I saw several ministers come and go, and of course some were good and some not so good. However, this was the first time a minister told us repeatedly to invite his officials to appear. I think we have to listen to the minister. That's what our Alliance colleague is proposing, that we invite the officials. Once again, Madam Chair, you must have every assurance that this is not to conduct some kind of a witch hunt. We simply want to find out the chronology of events that led to this decision. I think that's our job as parliamentarians. When we have to explain our role here, we always say three things: we vote on legislation, we vote on budgets and we have to exercise control over the public administration and the government.

I think that the presence of officials would enable us to have an update on two aspects of this issue. First of all, it would enable us to fully understand the plan against biological warfare, but also the background for the decision that was made through various mechanisms that the minister refused to explain.

Madam Chair, I'm sure you will agree that we've never seen such a poor performance from a minister, a performance that is so disrespectful to a committee, and so disrespectful to parliamentarians. For all intents and purposes, the minister resorted to infantile sulking which was quite contemptuous of parliamentarians.

So this is an amendment that I welcome and that I will not hesitate to include in the body of my proposal. I will have an opportunity to express myself on the substance of my proposal when you give me the floor to that effect.

[English]

The Chair: All right, you'll have that. It's your motion, and you'll get a really good chance to explain it.

Mr. Alcock would like to respond.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to divide this into two parts. Given the way he explained it, I actually think Mr. Merrifield's amendment is quite a good one. I think the committee does have an interest in understanding the broader issues around whether or not we're ready and whether or not we have the tools necessary to deal with these threats.

I find myself in an odd kind of situation. I would lean toward supporting his amendment, but I don't support the main motion. I think Mr. Ménard has been acting as the informal advocate for big pharmaceutical companies ever since he got to this committee, and he wants to continue the kind of nonsense that went on last week.

If one takes the information that we have, there is a suggestion here that a couple of public servants acting in haste may have made a decision that wasn't exactly right. I believe they did it for the right reasons, and I believe what they were attempting to do was toward the public good. Intention has an awful lot to do with these things, so I'm not prepared to engage in a further kind of witch hunt, like what happened with those two folks.

I am prepared to see the committee move on to a broader discussion as Mr. Merrifield has suggested, but I can't support a continuation of Mr. Ménard's hopes and desires.

The Chair: Are there any other speakers for this amendment?

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): May I ask a question, Madam Chair? Can we vote on the amendment as independent of the main motion?

The Chair: We have to vote on the amendment. The thought of the amendment would have to be captured in a different motion, with the 48 hours' notice, etc., if it were to stand alone. It can never stand alone. It's put forward as an amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1120

The Chair: We'll now move to the main motion, and Mr. Ménard would like to present it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First of all I'd like to tell Mr. Alcock that I'm not acting as the informal advocate for big pharmaceutical companies. If he wants to look back to the history of politics and find people who received donations from big pharmaceutical companies, he will very easily look at a list of people in his own party. Then he will understand what it means to act as the advocate of big pharmaceutical companies. Madam Chair, it takes a lot of gull to tell members of this committee that we act as the advocates of the pharmaceutical companies whereas the Minister of Health, as you know, was employed by Apotex for several years.

Madam Chair, the purpose of my motion is very simple. No one here around this table wants to engage in a witch hunt. You don't want to see a witch hunt against officials. The opposition doesn't want this and the government doesn't want it either.

Madam Chair, if the combined testimony of the officials and the two pharmaceutical companies... All this fits together: one cannot be completed without the other. Therefore, if the officials come and tell us that they did their best to have a safe supply of Cipro, that they contacted Bayer and that Bayer said that we had not contacted them or vice versa, we will not be able to understand how events unfolded.

Why do we want to understand what happened? First because the Liberal Party is not above the rules of parliamentarism. The opposition has a role to play, which is to ensure the accountability and control of the government and its officials. The government may not like it but it's part of the democratic process. The Liberal Party may have the impression that it's just an accident of history when it does not form the government, but when it does, it is not above the rules of Parliament. That's the first point

Secondly, Madam Chair, I'm sure that a quick look at case law will show you many cases of companies who appeared here to explain themselves. I'm sure that the usual courtesy that characterizes both the opposition and the government will be shown to the witnesses and that we will try to understand what procedures were established, because there are two aspects to the issue.

If it can be demonstrated to us that officials made a mistake, we'll move on to something else. You've made mistakes, I've made mistakes, the opposition has made mistakes and so has the government. But if, as a result of the testimony given by the officials and the pharmaceutical companies, we understand that things aren't clear, the work of the opposition members will be to pursue the investigation. I think that we'll have to do so. It is our job as opposition members to do that.

Madam Chair, I can assure you under the oath I took as a Member of Parliament and on the basis of my past behaviour, that no one will lack respect towards these officials, and no one will engage in a witch hunt. But the question here is as follows. As parliamentarians it is our job to monitor the actions of the government and to make the minister accountable?

There's something quite unbelievable here. When he appeared before us, the minister behaved as if he was not accountable and he displayed his behaviour several times. With that casual tone he uses when he's angry, he suggested that we put our questions to the officials. All right, this is what we want to do. We will have that opportunity, but this is not good enough. We have to understand the chronology of events leading to this decision and understand how it was taken. That's the purpose of the motion.

Madam Chair, if ever the government defeated the amendment and the main motion, it would have to account to Canadians, Quebeckers and journalists, because the journalists would not understand how such a decision should not warrant one of two meetings of our committee.

I'm confident that we will continue to work in the usual cooperative spirit we have always displayed and that we will obtain consent for a motion like this one.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm actually very concerned about what has happened, as well.

It's not necessarily that we wouldn't understand the intent if we take the minister at his word that the health and safety of the nation comes first. We agree with that. Nonetheless, you are breaking the law of the land in this situation. Patent law was broken without the appropriate procedures in place to do so. We have an obligation to get to the bottom of that, and I think it's important to have all the players around this table to make sure that this never repeats itself.

We have the opportunity, and we had the opportunity—and the minister had it as well—to do exactly what was done by following the rules of this country. But the law was broken, and we need to have some openness in why that was done and in how that was done. I think it's very important that the players come to the committee in order that we can discern and decide where that's at. It would bring more attention to it so that it doesn't repeat itself.

I think the intent of the motion isn't necessarily coming down on the side of Apotex or Bayer. The names are insignificant. The issue is that the law was broken, and good faith is not an excuse for breaking law when the opportunity exists under the law to have proceeded in the appropriate way.

I would speak in favour of this, and I think the rationale is very good for bringing it forward and clearing this up before the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.

• 1125

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

I'm a little bit concerned by the drift of the motion and the kind of conversation taking place here. It reminds me of what is so common and so typical in a democratic society in which you have elected officials representing their community in some capacity, such as on school boards, city councils, and so forth. The model has administrators to carry out the policies developed by these policy-developing entities. I see the chief role of this committee as being policy development, but what we have heard so far this morning chiefly pertains to administrative practices, processes, and so forth.

I am not here as an administrator. I am here as a policy developer. We have before this committee a very demanding task, and that is to help to develop policy in the very complicated, complex, demanding areas of human reproductive technology and so forth. I think we can't lose sight of the fact that we are never going to accomplish our task at the rate at which we are going. To try to have a report prepared for presentation to the House of Commons in February is highly unlikely. Therefore, Madam Chairperson, I'm asking people to seriously consider their role in policy development, and not as administrators.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

Let me walk through this, because Mr. Merrifield's response in a sense identified the very problem that concerns me.

When it comes to the issue of accountability, it's very clear who is accountable. The minister is accountable. He said that when he was here, he said that publicly, and he produced documents that indicated what had gone on.

But if you look at the events that took place, and if you look at the chronology of events that was produced, the phone call to Apotex—which, within your terms, Mr. Merrifield, breaks the law; “the law was broken”, to use your words—took place on October 15. That same day, October 15—I forget the exact date of the first anthrax scare in the U.S., but it was only a few days before that—was the day we had gentlemen in HAZMAT suits here.

My office is on the sixth floor of the House of Commons. I literally went to get on the elevator and was confronted by two guys dressed in head-to-toe plastic suits bursting off the elevator. The Senate was closed down. It was a Senate staffer who was afraid she had ingested anthrax. So the fears we were facing on that day were not arbitrary, although it turned out that it wasn't the case that she had contracted anthrax.

I believe the record thus far is that we have not had a single confirmed case of anthrax in Canada. But on October 15, we didn't know that, so if a couple of public servants acted in a way that may technically have been in contravention of a patent law, well, personally, a big piece of me says that's fine. I'm sorry, I don't approve of lawbreaking as a rule of thumb, but in matters of urgency, emergency, or major national need, sometimes you do things that fall outside what is usually acceptable. I can attest to that, given the big experience I was through in the flood of 1997. You do things that just don't fit rules meant for a quiet and peaceful era.

Another thing about breaking the law is that when the law is broken, you need a complainant. I haven't heard anybody complaining. After this, the minister acted to resolve the issue with both Bayer and Apotex, so there does not seem to be the complaint before the community.

You then say this committee is now going to set it up. The first motion was for us to get on with the bigger question of whether or not we're prepared for bioterrorism. Do we have the drugs involved? Do we have the means to respond? I think that's a very legitimate line of inquiry.

If the real intent of that motion was to sort out who did what to whom because we need to get to the bottom of this broken law, as Mr. Merrifield's second statement in response to Mr. Ménard indicated, I think that's a discussion we had with the minister, frankly. I don't think the officials should be brought into that. I don't think it's fair to them, and I won't support it.

• 1130

[Translation]

The Chair: Madame Picard.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): I have a brief statement to make, Madam Chair. I simply want to respond to Mr. Dromisky whom I like very much and whose great integrity I do appreciate.

I want to remind him that what concerns us about procreation and this entire study on reproductive technology is that the matter has been under study since 1989, or even since 1986 or 1987. One more meeting will not make much difference in the progress of this work. I do acknowledge all his good intentions but here, in this motion, as my colleague pointed out, we do have a role to play.

There's also been a violation of the rules for a vote here in the House, and I think that that justifies consideration by the committee of this motion so that we can shed light on this whole story.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Picard.

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

We spent about two and half weeks talking about the events surrounding the fact that at some point, the minister wanted to ensure that we had the medication necessary in the event of a bioterrorist attack. At that point, we were specifically discussing anthrax.

Right now, everyone is aware that there has been a faux pas. At some point, an error was committed in our haste to make sure that we had these drugs. This was debated in the House on many occasions and many questions were asked.

In the final analysis, I think everyone's aware of this. The media is aware of what happened exactly, and today a motion is being tabled to call as witnesses the two companies who will give us their version of events of course, which is perfectly normal. But I'm not at all convinced that this will help move the debate forward.

My colleague mentioned that ever since we started examining a bill, we were told repeatedly that there was a deadline. It was hoped that we would meet the deadlines and that by the end of December, we could present this so that early in the new year, our report on the draft bill would be ready. However today, we're being told that one meeting more or less will not change much.

For my part, I believe that this will change things. If we only delay things ad nauseam, we will not achieve the objectives we had set out for this work. Once again, at that point, they will turn around and tell us that this bill has been overdue for years and that we're not dealing with it.

That's why personally I can support this motion. I don't believe that this will bring anything new to the discussion. Quite simply, once again, let me say that we've been discussing this for two and a half weeks. We will probably continue to discuss it in the media and in the House, but I don't see how we can garner anymore information in the final analysis. We will have simply lost yet another session considering an issue that to my mind is even more important than the bill on assisted reproduction technology.

Madam Chair, with all due respect to my colleague, that's my opinion on the proposal.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

Mr. Ménard would like to make one last foray.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me remind you, Madam Chair, that there's no rule forbidding members to express themselves more than once on a motion, but I do understand your desire to be efficient. That's what endears you to us such much.

The fact remains that what Mr. Alcock has just said is very serious, with all due respect, it's very, very serious because things are not as simple as the government would like them to be. It's not a matter of finding out whether officials made a mistake or not. The question is whether a minister of the Crown who sits in Cabinet was aware that the Patents Act was being violated. And if he was aware of it, what was his motivation? As members of the opposition, we cannot exclude the assumption under which a minister as likable as he may be, despite the fact that a bill to protect innovative drugs has been voted on, wanted to give some advantage to a generic drug company in his riding.

• 1135

We have to consider that possibility seriously, because it's too easy to say that it was an emergency, that people made mistakes, that everyone was acting in good faith, that there's nothing to this. Things don't happen that way. I'm sorry, but things don't just happen that way. When you're a minister, you have responsibilities. If when the minister appeared before us he had made every effort to shed light on this whole matter, everyone would have been satisfied and we would have gone on to something else. A minister can't simply set aside the rules of ministerial accountability when it doesn't suit him.

Madam Chair, let me finish by asking you to consider that if Sheila Copps had been in opposition with us today, she would have climbed on the table demanding that the minister appear here with both pharmaceutical companies.

We're doing our jobs. If the Liberal members push the envelope of partisanship—because there's no other word for it—as far as defeating this motion, as opposition members, we will pursue this debate.

But things can't be dealt with in one single meeting. If the version of the facts given by Minister of Health corresponds exactly with what Bayer or Apotex have said, we'll go on to something else, and the minister will become one of our favourite ministers again, Madam Chair. But if it's not the case... The minister was not very convincing in explaining how come Apotex had given up $1.5 million. Madam Chair, you're not a greedy person, but if you were offered $1.5 million... Somebody has to explain to us how they gave up that money.

I want to warn the government against any attempt to dismiss an issue that is extremely important to Canadians, extremely important for ministerial accountability and extremely important for the control of the public administration. I cannot fathom why a motion in the public interest like this one could be defeated. If it was, the government would pay very dearly.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Seeing no further questions or speakers, I will call the question.

Would you like a recorded vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I thought you might.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)

The Chair: We'll move in camera now. Apparently, the people—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could we have consent so that the amendment tabled by our colleague could become a separate motion subject to a separate vote? Would there be unanimous consent for that, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Chair: No, not without it being a motion in its own right, with 48 hours' notice.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: If there is consent, yes. I'm asking you to see whether there is consent.

[English]

The Chair: No.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Merrifield and I could work on an appropriate motion, for future presentation.

The Chair: It has now taken us now almost half an hour to debate this motion. Every motion that seems to come forward eats into the time we're supposed to be using to address this study, and that concerns me.

The other thing is that I wanted to announce to the committee that if ever... The only winners in this whole meeting today are Mr. Manning and Madam Picard, who were lucky enough to miss the meeting the other day. In my view, that meeting was a disgrace to everyone involved. I will say that if that kind of behaviour ever happens again, when someone is screaming at a witness, no matter who that witness is—whether it's a minister or some person from the general public—I will simply adjourn the meeting.

• 1140

As for Mr. Merrifield's complaint, the usual thing is for a minister to come for an hour. Maybe I didn't make that clear the day before. I thought I had, but I'm sorry if I didn't.

Also, in the rule book, it says:

Committees... adjourn to the call of the Chair, that is, the decision as to the exact time of the next meeting is left to the discretion of the Chair. ...In this way, the Chair is given the flexibility to respond effectively to changing events...

I can adjourn a meeting at 11:05 a.m. if I want. What I'm saying to this committee is that the next time that happens, whether we're five minutes into the meeting or an hour and 55 minutes into the meeting, I will adjourn the meeting if people are shouting. I'm also hoping that Mr. Merrifield, as the vice-chair, will relay that to other members on the opposition side who aren't here.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Point of order, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Is it really a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes. With all due respect, I find the statement you've just made extremely worrisome and I would like to remind you that we also have the privilege of taking the matter to the House of Commons. There is a convention that you will have to follow, like all other committee chairs. When ministers appear, opposition MPs are the ones who get the floor first. The way you chaired our last meeting was outrageously partisan.

[English]

The Chair: I have never denied that, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Your attitude was outrageously partisan and I want to tell you that you cannot threaten to adjourn the committee when it suits you, because there are rules and everyone here must follow them. When the minister appears here, he has to answer questions. He was disrespectful to my colleague Mr. Bachand. Moreover, you cannot adjourn the meeting when the minister is in hot water. This is not how you respect the right of parliamentarians to put questions.

[English]

The Chair: No, it would have nothing to do with the minister being in hot water. It would have to do with—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: If that's how you want to manage the committee—

[English]

The Chair: —the fact that—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There are rules, and you must follow them. You should have given the floor to opposition members. You gave it first to government members and as soon as the minister was in hot water, you adjourned the meeting. That is not how things are supposed to happen when ministers appear, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: You can express your opinion all you like, Mr. Ménard. I am telling you that the chair has unfettered discretion to adjourn a meeting for whatever reason, and I'm telling you that the only reason I can think of is that people are screaming at one another and are behaving so badly that the blues are totally mixed up. For example, they have attributed to me things that were said by Mrs. Diane Ablonczy.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Wow, now that's odd. There's a major—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I can't think of a worse fate, actually, particularly from that meeting.

People couldn't hear. I could not hear the minister's answers, so I don't even know if he did answer or he didn't answer—and I don't want you to help me clarify that now, after the fact.

I'm saying that during the meeting, I could not hear what the minister was saying despite the fact his mike was on and I had this in my ear. It's pretty disgraceful when the chair can't hear what's going on. All I'm saying is that should something like that ever erupt again, I will adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Réal Ménard: If you do that, we're going to the House, because we have a rule—

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You should have given the floor to opposition members first. The minister should have had the courtesy to remain during the entire period. He left before he was supposed to. The minister almost never appears before the committee. One cannot be a government member and refuse to answer questions.

[English]

The Chair: This minister has been very generous in coming whenever we've invited him—

Mr. Réal Ménard: He has never come.

The Chair: He hasn't always come on the very day that we wanted him, but he has been here within a week.

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: In any case, we're moving in camera.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC/RD): Madam Chair, may I have the floor?

[English]

It's on the same point of order, if you consider that a point of order.

The Chair: No, that wasn't a point of order, it was Mr. Ménard—

Mr. André Bachand: Well, Madam Chair, you did open it up, and I just have a comment. It's quite short.

[Translation]

You made a comment at the end of the public meeting which triggered a debate. You said things that should be discussed. You opened a can of worms with your comments about the way you intend to operate in the future. We too would like to share our ideas and say how we would like the chair to act in the future. The meeting was over and you made a comment, not in camera, but in front of everyone. You said that in future, things were going to be done in a certain way. You prompted a debate and I'd like to continue it.

[English]

The Chair: It was not my intention to launch a debate. It was my intention to tell the committee something I had decided after experiencing a meeting that I thought brought ill repute on Parliament, on committees, and most particularly on the members of this committee, some of whom were not even here for that meeting.

• 1145

Seeing no further speakers, this portion of the meeting is—

Mr. André Bachand: With all due respect, Madam Chair, what I'm saying is that you have open that Pandora's box before we are to go in camera—

The Chair: I heard you, but I don't see any speakers.

Mr. André Bachand: —so I think we should have a debate on exactly what happened last time around.

The Chair: No, there's no need to have a debate.

Mr. André Bachand: If you want to change the way you're going to chair the meeting, that's fine with me and I don't have any problem with it. But I think we should go a step further and look at how that meeting went, and we should discuss it.

The Chair: I don't think there's any need to discuss how the meeting went.

Mr. Merrifield would like to comment.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would, because I'm a little confused by what you just said. You have the full right to adjourn the meeting at your will, regardless of what it is?

The Chair: Apparently, but I don't intend to use it. I have never used it before.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: In reflecting on the last meeting, you're suggesting it was the noise level that caused you the greatest concern, and you would therefore close a meeting based on that.

The Chair: I would adjourn one based upon the confusion being created for the people who are trying to translate, the people who are trying to run the mikes, and the people who are trying to put the blues together. The whole system seemed to break down during that meeting.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But you could easily—

The Chair: But there was also a general lack of courtesy when anybody was speaking. People were shouting over each other, and that simply is not acceptable.

In any case, I didn't say I'm going to change the way I chair the meetings. I think I've tried to make sure that anybody who wants to speak on any topic is heard. I think it has been fairly easy and fairly relaxed in here. That was the first meeting at which it was very embarrassing to be in the chair based upon the behaviour I was seeing and hearing, and also based on the other side of it, that being that I couldn't hear—and therefore I knew the translators couldn't hear.

But I don't see any need to dissect the previous meeting. I asked the clerk afterwards if I could anything do to regain control of a meeting that, to me, had gone out of control. He looked in the rules and said there actually is not, because a few years ago they tried to make committees more relaxed so that there would be more of a free flow of dialogue. He said the only thing I could do is adjourn the meeting or suspend it in order to give everybody a ten-minute break to cool down.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would be more comfortable with that approach, rather than what you said earlier. When a meeting becomes disorderly, for whatever reason, I think the chair has the full right to bring it to order. That's a fair statement. But I find it a little bit alarming that you would suggest you are going to, at your will, arbitrarily disband a meeting perhaps within five minutes of the start of that meeting.

The Chair: I was just trying to be really clear. Maybe I overdid it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I understand what you're trying to be.

The Chair: Now that I think of it, would I would more than likely do is probably suspend or recess it, give people a chance to cool off, and have them come back. Then, if that kind of screaming continued...

What I'm saying is that kind of screaming and yelling over a witness who is trying to answer is the kind of thing with which I don't think we want to continue. I think most of the members of the committee would be uncomfortable with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair—

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you really have had more than your fair share of time at this meeting.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I still want to debate on that.

When the minister was here, I was a little confused that all our questions to him had to go through you. We have never followed that procedure with other witnesses, which is why I was a little struck by the comments of the chair during that meeting. When we have witnesses here, we have a free flow of dialogue with the witnesses. I don't know if you want a change in that procedure. What is your intent?

The Chair: My intent is to follow the usual pattern with witnesses, and that's the more relaxed pattern. If you'll recall, though, that meeting became rather unruly within five minutes after the questioning began, in my view. That's when I asked people to speak through the chair, in order that it wasn't “you this” and “you that” to the witness. I can try to move it into the more formal routines if I in fact discern that it's becoming unruly.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I apologize if you think my questions were unruly—

The Chair: No.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: —but I didn't think they were.

The Chair: No, I would say you were the soul of courtesy, Mr. Merrifield. None of this—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Like me.

The Chair: —is directed at you.

• 1150

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But you addressed the problem at me when I was discussing with the minister, so I was a little confused.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I've one last statement to make. Basically, you're perfectly right to want this committee to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, but I believe that the fact that we don't have a steering committee causes some problems.

At the next meeting, I will be tabling a motion requesting the creation of a steering committee. If you had given the floor to the opposition first rather than to the government, we would have had far fewer problems. Your predecessors behave like this. When a minister appears before the committee, you cannot act as if he is an ordinary witness. It makes no sense. Our role is different from that at the government.

You wanted to exercise a bit of discretionary power. That is to your credit, but you have to accept the consequences. You have to acknowledge that the minister also lost his temper and showed disrespect to parliamentarians. I hope that you were indignant when he refused to answer and passed the buck to his officials. There is a difference between a minister and an official. Let's set up a steering committee, Madam Chair. I think that everyone must show courtesy and I don't think I failed to do that.

[English]

The Chair: Let us hope that, in future, we'll return to the friendly relations we've had since this committee was formed after the last election. I think we've done rather well, and I don't want to make new rules based upon one meeting that, in my view, was an aberration.

Could we now move to part two of the meeting? We have now used almost an hour.

We're now moving in camera.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]