Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't believe so.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Then I think we have a problem.

In any event, things happen around here in this town. They're not always for the better. I think we need some answers from some of these managers who make decisions, wherever they hide in these buildings. They need to answer to us as parliamentarians.

In terms of the analysts from the Library of Parliament, what I need to know is, what is the new plan? Where are our senior analysts going? What I want to see at the end of the day is the best services available to members of Parliament in terms of research, and I'm not happy if others up the line are making decisions without talking to members of Parliament who use those services first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Before I bring Mr. Lemieux on next, my only comment to that is that nothing is forever. There's no doubt about it, J-D did a great job here. But nobody stays on the Hill here forever; there's that advancement.

Anyway, Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I was just going to say, Chair, that Mr. Easter raises a good point. This is just a routine motion, though; I think we can vote on the motion.

The analyst can take a seat at the table, and one of the things we can ask the analyst to do is just to put together a little presentation for the committee on what the Library of Parliament's plan is for the committee.

But we have to pass the routine motion first for him to take a seat at the table, and then we can task him at the end of this meeting to simply propose to us what the Library of Parliament is thinking in terms of analyst support for this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, would that satisfy you?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

I'd entertain a motion then if there's no further discussion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Now we move to the motion on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

André, this is one that was not translated.

There would be a slight change in this one, and, Wayne, I believe you and I discussed this in the House briefly.

What this one would do is to allow a member on the subcommittee from all parties—and I, as chair, would be there to chair these subcommittee meetings—and that's it. The opposition parties would still have the majority, obviously, in any votes.

This would be the slight change. It would just include me, the two vice-chairs, and a member of the other opposition party, which would be Alex. The proposed change would be to have somebody from every party.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

How is that worded?

Are you saying—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Well, it would read that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be established and be composed of the chair, a member from the government, and a member from each of the opposition parties.

André.

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

We have already had this type of discussion. Ever since I have been a member of the Agriculture committee, we have always operated with a chair, who represents the party in power, two vice-chairs, and another member of the committee. Bear in mind that the steering committee has always picked up ideas that were discussed in the main committee. So all members had already had a chance to discuss what was decided at the steering committee.

So unless you can confirm or prove the opposite, I would say that this option has always worked very well. I don't know if, as chairman, you want to limit yourself to chairing, without speaking on behalf of the government. In the case of both Gerry and James, we fully understood that they were both chairmen of the committee and Conservatives and they discussed issues with us in that capacity. It has always worked very well. So I don't see the pertinence of changing the makeup of the steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

To your point as to whether I would basically be acting as just the chair, that's exactly what it would be. That's what I think my role would be, to concentrate on being chair, and not on bringing forth the government's position.

If that helps clarify it for you....

Alex.

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

Before I start, I'd like to introduce my colleague, Malcolm Allen, who will sometimes be here with me. He has taken the CFIA file and he may be here when I'm not here, so I'd just like to welcome Malcolm here.

I've only had experience with the way we've done it since I've been here, which is having one person from each party. I've found that our committees, the subcommittees, worked really well. They are fairly informal: four people sit around and we get an agenda together. It gives the chair a chance to talk. In the new format, the chair would be limited. I don't think you have to chair a meeting of three or four people.

We seem to have worked really well. I would suggest that we continue that way until we see if there's something that doesn't work. It's worked in the past, and I think we've done a good job. We can continue to do that without getting too involved in changing the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is there any further discussion?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, we have a new chair and he has made his preference known. He would prefer to be non-partisan, even though I don't always like that, but if he is going to be non-partisan, I think he has to be consistent all the way through. I think it does benefit the opposition somewhat having the one member of this committee who actually represents the executive branch and the government at these meetings. I think it enhances our position. I believe a member of the executive branch should be there, and I do believe there are times when you guys would like to know the minister's position or the overall direction. Maybe Larry as chair either shouldn't or doesn't have the same insight as the parliamentary secretary would.

At the justice committee, we just had these discussions and the opposition actually encouraged having the parliamentary secretary there rather than some of the other government members. So while it is a change from what we've done in the past, I think this could enhance the way this committee runs. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to share with the committee that during the last Parliament, I was the chair of the special committee on the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. As a committee, we struck a subcommittee, and we did have a government member on the subcommittee. It made a tremendous difference for me as chair because I was able to remain non-partisan both at the committee meetings and at the subcommittee meetings. My role was simply to manage the meetings, not to table any kinds of suggestions from the government, not to give favour to the government side. I was neutral in all settings, in all manners, in my capacity as chair, and I had the liberty to be so because there was another government representative at the subcommittee meetings.

My concern is that if the chair has to take the government position at the subcommittee meetings, then he is acting in two different capacities for the committee, and I don't see a need to put the chair in that position. If we have a government member--now, it could be me, but it doesn't have to be me. If that's a stumbling block--“oh, we don't want the parliamentary secretary”--I'm fine with that, as long as there is a government member from the Conservative side. It should be no threat to you because you easily outvote the one single member we have there. It will be three votes to one if there is a disagreement on how to move forward.

So it's simply allowing the chair to act in a neutral capacity in all of his faculties, in all types of meetings, and it allows the government, or the Conservative side, to have its own voice without compromising the neutrality of the chair. So I actually think it's a very reasonable proposal. I don't think anybody should feel threatened by it. It's simply protecting the integrity of the chair and allowing us to have a voice in the subcommittee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Any further discussion? We need a motion to deal with this.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I assume we're dealing with the translated copy. The best way to proceed, Mr. Chair, is if there's an amendment to that and we can go from there, just state our position that we think the previous system worked well.

I don't know about other committees, Pierre, but we found that on this committee, at the subcommittee, it really worked well. It's just a chat among four members to set the agenda. That agenda is brought back to this committee in any event and adopted here or changed here. We didn't see a problem with it, but the best way to proceed is by way of an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

So I'll put forward an amendment to the motion. My amendment would say that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair, a member from the government, and a member from each of the opposition parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is there discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think it's always when you move ahead for some change. When I look at it, I've been on committees where they've had a proposed amendment go forward. If you have the chair as neutral so that the chair is not put in a position at some time of having to be partisan at one subcommittee and then coming back to the committee and sitting as a neutral person.... I think it's always better to have that person as a chair, to be the chair, and then have the parties, including the government, represented by a member of the committee.

So I think it's actually good for the committee in terms of not only how it will work, but for the perception of how it should work to the general public and to those who listen, of how a committee should be struck.

I would be supporting the amendment. I think it gives the chair the opportunity to be neutral as chair at both the subcommittee and the legislative committees.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks.

Mr. Storseth.