Prior to calling to the orders of the day, I would like to provide a chair's ruling. At this time I will give my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Iqaluit, Mr. Picco. On Friday, February 21, in committee of the whole, Mr. Picco raised his point of order with respect to
events that transpired in committee of the whole on the preceding Thursday, February 20. The Member, Mr. Picco, did raise his point at the earliest opportunity after having received the unedited Hansard on February 20, 1997. In essence, Mr. Picco claims a point of order with respect to the number of questions he was permitted by the chair during a detail review of the main estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services. The committee has previously consented to the process whereby each Member would be allowed five questions during the review of each line item. If there were no further questions from other Members, then the chair would continue to recognize a Member with the concurrence of the committee, subject as well to a discretion of the chair. I quote from page 1325 of the unedited Hansard of February 21, 1997, Mr. Picco's point of order "my point of order, Mr. Chairman, was if you count the questions you will see I was only at question number three when that was said." On the occasion, Mr. Picco was referring to comments of the chair, Mrs. Groenewegen, on the preceding date, and I quote from page 1271 of the unedited Hansard of February 20, "I am deeply offended that a Member questions whether or not I have the ability to count to five, but having said that I do not know whether that was four or five, so I will give you one more question." Mr. Picco's point of order also included a request for an apology from Mrs. Groenewegen. I quote again from 1325 of the unedited Hansard from February 21, and I quote, "I would ask that Madam Groenewegen at the chair's direction that an apology be forthcoming."
On the issue of the number of questions the chair permitted Mr. Picco, I have reviewed an unedited Hansard from February 20 and I note the Member from Iqaluit did in fact ask three questions prior to the chair's announcing he was on his final question. Subsequently Mr. Picco asked his fourth question. It was at this point the chair, recognizing the count may have been in error, offered Mr. Picco the opportunity for another question, which Mr. Picco accepted and the fifth question was asked. Therefore, I find Mr. Picco does not have a point of order. On the issue of the honourable Member for Iqaluit seeking an apology from the chair, I have reviewed a number of parliamentary authorities on the matter to find no reference to any precedents for such a request. Regardless of whether or not there is a point of order, it has not been an accepted practice for Members to seek apologies from the chair nor for the chair to comply with such a request.
The only recourse open to a Member who is not satisfied with a chair's ruling is to challenge that ruling to the Speaker. I trust the Members can appreciate the inherent difficulties in fulfilling the duties of the chair on behalf of the committee and Members recognize that your chairpersons are subject to human probability. In all cases the chair will make every effort to direct the business of the committee in a fair and impartial manner, in accordance with the rules, practices, and procedures adopted by this committee and this House. Thank you.
We have a number of items to consider under item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Ootes.