But on the Hill....
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.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Anderson.
This had better be a point of order. Otherwise I have to go to Mr. Bellavance.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I was going to ask a question. The chair has to be here. So do we have to have a member of the government here?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The vice-chair could take over a meeting if the chair is late.
Mr. Bellavance.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I just wanted to quickly answer Mr. Lauzon, who was asking, where the controversy lies and what the problem is with these motions.
Mr. Lauzon, my colleagues from other committees have told us that the government is trying to impose new rules on us from day one in the committee, without even giving us a head's up. You can see where the discussion has gone. Fortunately, I already had a similar document which was tabled in another committee; so, I am somewhat prepared. Now this is happening, and they are trying to shove it down our throats, that is what is controversial, and that is what the problem is.
Everyone agrees that this committee works very well. Some of my colleagues sit on other committees and sometimes I hear about them. Occasionally, I replace colleagues from other committees where things do not at all work in the same way.
So all theses changes are pointless right now because our committee works well. In English, I think you say: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll pass. Mr. Anderson addressed my concerns.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I want to go back to the comments Mr. Roy made about there being two separate meetings going on. That can't happen, because the way this reads, the government can't go ahead and have one without a member of the opposition present; the opposition can't go ahead and have one without.... So what's the problem?
The advantage I see here is this. I have sat in a lot of meetings in the last three and a half years, guys—some of you have been here and some haven't—in which half the presentations are through before everybody straggles in. Why the hell should we bring people here and waste our time sitting if we can't go ahead, get started, and let people present their evidence? That has happened.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order.
If you read it properly, Mr. Miller, you would see what it says. I will read it to you in English:
“whether opposition or government members are present”.
That means that even if the government members are absent, the committee can still sit. It is written in the motion.
Conservative
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Chair, I take great umbrance at the suggestion that any members of this committee have been unnecessarily tardy, or consistently so, or that we can't get meetings.... It's really up to the chair, once the quorum is here, to start the meeting.
If, out of thoughtfulness, you've delayed meetings until more members have come, it's only because you've been considerate. There certainly has never been any suggestion that we've taken our time getting here. I believe this committee has worked very well and has been extremely punctual. So you'd better strike from the record any mention of that, because I'm very proud of my attendance in all these kinds of things.
When I look at these, I can only assume that because they're not based in fact, they're based in conjecture. I don't know if this is that 200-page document on obstruction, subverting, or obfuscation, or neutralizing committees, but really—
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Boshcoff, you've lost me here. Could I get somebody to explain what “umbrance” means?
Conservative
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
No, but that is not a.... One's own command of the English language is not a point of order.
November 14th, 2007 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I don't want to prolong the discussion. We're going on a long time and doing semantics here. Basically, if we hadn't had the second document, we'd be through the complete document by now.
What we had previously was working. I've travelled this country three times, with this committee and once with the fisheries and oceans committee. I've never seen a meeting at which we didn't have enough people to conduct a meeting. If it's just for receiving evidence and information, it can go on regardless of whether you have the five people or not. We're not limiting ourselves by doing this.
I think we should turn back and deal with the motion that's on the table, get rid of it, and then go back to the original one. I would hope we would go back to what we had here before, because it has served us well, it will continue to serve us well, and I dare say that probably most of the committees on the Hill are working from this premise.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Just to go back to Mr. Boshcoff's comments, I was in no way insinuating that anybody deliberately showed up late. I was simply pointing out that it has happened that more than one member wasn't here, for various reasons. We have busy schedules down here, and it does happen. I was in no way insinuating that it happened deliberately, because I have no reason to believe that, and I don't. It has happened--people straggle in--and it doesn't need to be struck from the record, as you say. You know it's there.
That's all I'm going to say on it. Let's vote on it.
Conservative
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you.
I respect that Mr. Miller, as a former municipal colleague, knows that once an insinuation has been made in Hansard it stands as a record. I had to clarify that.
Thank you very much.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was simply going to point out that I'm a little taken aback too, that the government side wants to rewrite every single one of these rules. This is very unusual in my experience. I've been through four Parliaments where it's been the standard at every session to reconstitute the routine motions. I recognize this sheet as being the standard routine motions, but normally, one party or another will have one suggestion to make for one of the motions. Rarely do we have this whole agenda circulated because they literally want to rewrite every single clause. So maybe that explains some of the push-back you're getting from the opposition side.
I would also like to say that we're going about this in the reverse order. As a point of order, if you will, or as a point of procedure, we should be dealing with the routine motions that are circulated before every committee. If anybody has an amendment they want to make to those routine motions, one by one they can do that.
You have us going through the Conservative Party wish list, one by one, and we're put in the uncomfortable position of having to argue against your priorities, whereas, really, this committee should be dealing--