Evidence of meeting #1 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
My only observation is that it's a little lean on NDP speaking opportunities in terms of questioning. I don't know if I heard you properly, but did you say that the NDP had the fourth spot and then not again?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Not again until every other member on the committee asks a question, and then we rotate back.
Mr. Miller.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I just wanted to clarify that, because that's always been an issue with me, that some members get to speak twice before some other members get to speak at all.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This is the practice of the committee. It goes back to Paul's day as chair, actually.
Any other comments?
Mr. St. Amand.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I have “rounds of questioning” in my copy, and nothing about the order of parties.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This one here is the one that was brought forward by the government. I read off the one that is the practice. This is the standard one we've used for the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Anderson.
November 14th, 2007 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
The motion that you have in front of you is what the committee used last time?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This is what the committee used last time, and it's moved by Mr. Bellavance. I believe this wasn't circulated. Do you want me to circulate this so that you guys can see it? Is there no need?
That one is slightly different, but it says the same thing.
This is the one that we're using. It wasn't circulated, but that's the standard one.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We have a couple more motions we'd like to bring forward. They can be found on our paper. The first one is the priority of legislation. The motion I'd like to make is that the consideration and examination of any bill, government or private member's bill, which falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-Iegislative examination and motions. In such circumstances the non-Iegislative study shall be deferred until such time as the bill is reported back to the House.
We've had a parliamentary convention that would put off other committee business to deal with legislation. This formalizes it so we can avoid any future points of contention over that. I think it's fair to both government and private members' bills in ensuring that the committee's focus is on what the House has sent to us.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No. In this respect, I believe the committee has to be the master of its own fate. It is up to the committee to decide where its priorities lie. It is what we have always done, and I want it to continue.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I can only echo Monsieur Bellavance's comments. This committee has to deal quickly oftentimes with crisis situations. We, as representatives of the agricultural and agribusiness communities, have to be able to move quickly on this and not stand in line for something that the government may decide is more of a priority. Consequently, I believe that this should be struck altogether and that we continue making our own priorities as a collegial working group.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I also feel that. I've just been advised that this is more or less the same language as in the Standing Orders, Marleau-Montpetit, and everything else. That is the practice, but it's not absolute. If we put this language into effect, for instance, government bills or private members' bills have to be dealt with by the committee within a certain timeframe, but it doesn't mean you have to stop everything that you're doing.
For example, if you're in the middle of a non-legislative study and there are four more meetings necessary to finish that study, currently the committee could carry on with their non-legislative study and finish it. Or, if an urgent matter like mad cow had come up, you wouldn't want to be interrupted by somebody's private member's bill. The policy now as it stands in Marleau-Montpetit or the Standing Orders is that the committee does have to deal with it, but again they're the masters of their own agenda.
I'd speak against this priority-of-legislation amendment.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I just think it's formalizing a procedure or practice that's been in place, certainly in the little bit of time that I've been here. From what I gather, some of you have been here a lot longer than I have. Has that not been the way?
I don't see anything wrong with formalizing it. Now we get criticized for taking so long to pass legislation. Shouldn't we be trying to hurry up legislation and make sure that we get legislation to committee, get it studied and back to the House so that we can get this legislation in order?
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
To counter that, Mr. Lauzon, I'd simply say that, as the chairman has already alluded to today, we are the masters of our destiny. If we completely tie ourselves to legislation and language that precludes us taking a different course from what might be the government's initiative for that day, while it may not be urgent, they may ask us to do it anyway. I think this committee should never be deprived of that right. It's something we've always prided ourselves on, and I would hope that our committees could always do that and we together, collectively, could be able to do that.