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.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I know it has, but I wondered if it was carried because it was written here. I'm wondering if this is the way it should have been. Is this the way it should have been, or is this something else like the three and five? Who changed that? That's what I'm having trouble with. Who has made the changes? Who has presented something--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The one that we carried on the subcommittee was the one that was standard for the committee.
I don't think you have a point of order, because we're already there.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
We have a very important point. Who is doing the damned changes? That's what I'd like to know.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This one here is coming from the minutes of the last meeting, with one typo. It should have been “five” rather than “three”.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
You're assuring us today that there's only one typo on this whole thing in terms of last time--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I believe so.
This is the standard one that we bring to committee every time, and the committee can adopt or change it. We are masters of our own destiny, and as a committee we can decide whatever we want to be the standing orders of the committee, Mr. Hubbard.
I have Mr. Bellavance on a point of order.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Actually, you just answered my question. You assure me that the double-sided sheet that was given to us lists our committee's actual routine motions except for one mistake where there is reference made to three committee members which, in our case, according to you, is actually five. That is what I want to be sure about, because if it is a general document, as opposed to the actual procedures followed by this committee, there is going to be a problem. But if not, that is fine, and we can continue to work in the same way.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This is the basic one that every committee works off of. The routine motions are the basics that the clerks bring forward to all committees to work off of.
For our committtee I have the minutes of the last meeting in front of me as well. We made minor changes. If there are any from motion to motion, I will point them out if they're different from the minutes.
Agreed?
Mr. Lauzon.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I think that's just a typo. Maybe the clerk can clarify this. There's a typo in this document, that the three should have read five.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That was the decision of this committee last time, to increase it to five rather than three, and that's something that the agriculture committee has always done.
You still have the floor.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I was scheduled to speak.
I can't understand why there's so much controversy over this. Don't we want this committee...? Let's say, for example, if we want to get started at 3:30 and a couple of members are not here but the witnesses are here.... If we have three to four witnesses sometimes, I think it's advantageous to be able to get started. It just makes our life a lot simpler. I don't think it hurts anything. I think there's more upside than there is downside, and I can't understand why we're not embracing this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have a list going here. We have Anderson, Hubbard, Bellavance, Storseth, and Miller.
David, you're up.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I want to make a point. In the second paragraph of the reduced quorum motion it is talking about previously scheduled meetings outside the parliamentary precinct. We're talking about travelling meetings, not about what might happen here. The only thing that they would be allowed to do is proceed to hear witnesses and receive evidence, so there isn't a possibility for the committee members who are present to do anything other than open up the meeting and begin to hear testimony and witnesses. The point of it is to avoid a situation where members are standing around and you don't have enough to proceed. I don't see that it would be a threat to anybody. I think it would be reasonable to support it. That's my view.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That's the thing. The motion that's on the table is talking about three, but if we want to amend that to five, then it's equal to what we did before. This is just designating that if we are travelling and for whatever reasons people are called back--emergencies, whatever--and we fall below quorum, then instead of cancelling that committee meeting and not having those witnesses who are lined up to present, we allow them the chance to still present their evidence.
Next is Mr. Hubbard.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had some of it clarified with who produced each one of these, but in the past--for example, one we already covered--usually the parliamentary secretary was the one on the standing committee. I don't know where he or she got lost out, but somewhere over the last few years you lost out that position in terms of being the government.
In terms of this one, I'm concerned with this particular aspect....
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as parliamentary secretary, I was not on the subcommittee.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
No, but some years past it was automatic that we're part of the...but not now apparently.
November 14th, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I wasn't here at the time. I wasn't here at this point last year. I came into the committee later.
I am concerned, Mr. Chair, with the first paragraph:
...when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government.
That would be quite easy to have, but having one member of the government would be somewhat restrictive. In other words, three parties could be here, but the government members might be late, and nothing would happen. That gives me some concern.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The second paragraph addresses that, saying if there's not quorum....
Liberal