Agriculture Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I should point out that the normal procedure has been as we see the motion this morning. My view was that in keeping with the fact that we were a government and it would load the dice rather in favour of the government, given that we had fewer over there, we were still going to have the majority. We did not have a majority government, so I felt it was fair, and we agreed to that. So we sort of deviated from the normal policy. This is going back to the original policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

The way the motion is written, it would actually be a member of each party. That's the way the motion reads at this point.

Is there any more discussion? Mr. Miller?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I don't have any preference, Mr. Chairman, either way.

There is one question that I would throw out to Mr. Steckle and you. You were involved on it and whoever was vice-chair. How did it work last time? If it worked well, I'm not hung up either way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

We consulted with each other. We'd have a short in camera session at the beginning or the end of a meeting and raise whatever the issue was, work it through, and everybody seemed to be okay with that.

It's either/or. I'm happy with it either way.

The greatest advantage was that we were already here. We were already sitting and we didn't have to have a separate meeting and arrange a time and a place and all of those wonderful things. So for expediency sake, probably doing it as we did before is the easiest, but certainly we can adopt this or whatever we care to do.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We've done it both ways on committees that I have had the opportunity to chair. Personally, I think a steering committee is better, especially if you're into a lot of issues. The committee as a whole makes some suggestions to the steering committee and then they can sit down and take more time. It doesn't take the time of everybody on the committee. They can sit down and take more time to prioritize the issues, especially when it comes to budgeting issues.

I like the steering committee approach better. I find it's easier to make decisions with a smaller group than with a bigger group, but both work. It's not a whole lot of difference either way. I'm just telling you my own personal point of view. As a chair, I liked the steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Fine. Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I'm just not sure of what the difference is. This is the main committee, and I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you give me clarification?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

You would be on it either way, as the representative of the fourth party.

If we do it in the way the motion is set out here, it would be myself as chair, Mr. Steckle as vice-chair, Mr. Bellavance as vice-chair, and you as the representative of the fourth party. That is in the way this is laid out.

If we did it as a committee as a whole, everyone who is sitting around the table at this point would be part of it.

I only brought it up because we had done it as a committee as a whole last time in a minority situation. We seem to have that situation again, so I'm just throwing it out for discussion so that we cover it off.

I don't have a problem with it being a subcommittee. As Mr. Easter points out, there are some benefits to either way. I'm leaving it up to the committee. I'm just putting this in front of you.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

As Wayne and I usually do, I would agree with him on this—given the new era of cooperation in which we exist—that it's good to have it in a smaller group.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

That scares me, but thank you for the point!

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I thought it might.

I just think for the sake of management, it's easier if a smaller group is making those decisions and brings them back to the bigger group, but it's up to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Bellavance, my apologies.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Fine then. There appears to be a general consensus. I've also had an opportunity to see both policies in play. While I'm not saying that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food wasn't running smoothly, I do clearly prefer a restricted committee. I'd like committee members to opt for this approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, since we are in a spirit of cooperation this morning, and as one who has led the other side, I will defer to the new way of doing business in this session and we will go to the steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

So moved by Mr. Steckle.

Is there agreement by the committee that we work with a subcommittee?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

That subcommittee will be comprised of me, Mr. Steckle, Mr. Bellavance, and Mr. Atamanenko.

Good. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The last, of course, is always the one we have the most fun discussing—the allocation of time for questioning. We certainly have a myriad of different options available to us. I will open the floor to those. We did it a certain way last time; do we want to try something different?

I'll open the floor to that discussion.

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I can tell you from a chair's perspective that the system we had last time worked well. We sometimes had some differences in terms of my judgment, but I think in terms of the time allocation—and David should of course agree with this because he was given an unusual length of time to pose his questions, or to do his commentary, I should say.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

That was just because of the quality of it!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Anderson, you're out of order, actually.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

So I would suggest that we follow the procedure we followed during the last government and continue with the ten-minute opening round and then with the seven- and five-minute rounds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Again, it's one of those issues that I'm not hung up on big time, but at the same time, if you have the same amount for everyone, it's certainly fairer, I would say. But again, it's not a big issue.

I have a deeper issue, and it's basically on the number of speakers and on who actually speaks, which I would like to bring up at the end of this discussion; I think you're aware of that. I think the fairest way you could have it is if everybody spoke for the same amount of time, and at the same time, as with the past chair, I can respect that each party gets those first seven minutes.

I think if I had a preference and if there were a vote on it, I'd probably go for five minutes each, but again, I think we have bigger fish to fry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Is there anyone else with an intervention on this?

The one decision we could make, then.... They talk about both a ten-minute opening statement or a seven-minute opening statement, with witnesses having ten minutes and then seven minutes for the questioners, and then subsequent rounds with five minutes per party. We're okay with that part of it?

If we're adopting the way we did it the last time.... We actually have that motion right on the top of our time rotation, just for reference. I'll just read it into the record:

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated 7 minutes for the first questioner of each party; that before the second round of questioning, other members who wish to speak may do so; and that thereafter, 5 minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner [alternating between Government and Opposition parties].

Mr. Steckle.