Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux can correct me, but in the amendment he just moved to his original motion, instead of allowing every member of the committee to speak before anyone had a second round, the NDP would have a second question at the end of the second round. So potentially, four members of the committee wouldn't have had a chance to ask a question yet.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth.

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

I have two points. One, you can't propose an amendment to your own amendment. Second, you can't propose an amendment that would negate any part of the actual amendment or the motion you're talking about.

To put our cards on the table and be honest, and we're talking about the principle that every member can speak before another member gets to speak, André, if you were to extrapolate beyond the Bloc, then the Conservatives, and then the Liberals, you would have Conservative, Conservative. That's how it would go because of the change in committee structure.

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

I did not understand.

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

The second round would go Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Conservative. That way everybody would get an opportunity to speak once.

Mr. Atamanenko's motion or amendment wasn't to put the NDP at the back of the line; his amendment was to guarantee that the NDP got an opportunity to speak in the second round. I don't know how you could possibly do that without putting the NDP at the beginning, in which case a Liberal member would potentially have to give up their opportunity to speak.

I propose that we stick with what we had in the past, which seems to have worked. We were guided by the principle of proportionality. Any time I've been in an election, the NDP has always talked about proportional representation. Committees are structured under proportional representation. It allows every member of this committee to have the opportunity to speak. It gives the NDP member more time than four of the other Conservative members, because we only get five minutes to your seven, so already you're getting more time.

I think it's very important that everybody gets the opportunity to speak once and ask questions once, should that opportunity arise. Sometimes we have so many witnesses, and that's what Mr. Bellavance was talking about before. Maybe we need more time; maybe that's how to handle this. But I think it's important that every member of this committee gets the opportunity to speak.

If you recall, in the last Parliament--and I don't want to beat up on somebody who's not here--the chair often took a round of questioning every once in a while as well, which set things back even more. So I think it's important we throw all our cards on the table and are honest about this. The idea of proportionality is there and we should stick to it. That's what we went with in the past, and that's what we should move forward with in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

On your point of order, Mr. Storseth, I'm going to make the ruling that it was originally Mr. Lemieux's motion and Mr. Atamanenko amended it, and then there was...I don't know whether you'd call it a friendly amendment or a subamendment that Mr. Lemieux tried to make on Mr. Atamanenko's amendment. So I'm going to rule that discussions go on.

I have two more names on the list. I actually have Mr. Atamanenko first--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I hate to be a stickler, but you know we have to get this out in the open. It does state under the Standing Orders--and I can refer to Marleau and Montpetit for you--that you cannot put an amendment on a motion that negates the original motion itself. Mr. Atamanenko's or Mr. Lemieux's amendments to the original motion would negate the principle of proportionality and everybody getting the opportunity to speak. I don't know how you could rule that it doesn't, so you must get rid of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

So what you're saying is that we need to vote on the amendment, and I'm not--

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

What I'm saying is that the amendment is not a valid amendment. It's not a movable amendment because it negates the substance of the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Alex, do you have it written down?

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

No, it's something to the effect that in the second round my party, or I, get a chance for a question. It can be third or fourth; it doesn't matter. It's not at the end of a long list, possibly getting a question when everybody has had a chance. In a sense it goes against what's in the premise that each committee member should have full opportunity, which is what Brian is saying, so we may have to look at that.

I want to make sure that in the second round of questions, as a representative of my party I have a chance to ask that five-minute question. That has not always been the case in the past. How we do it....

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

And you will, after the Conservatives.

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

Not necessarily.

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

According to the list.

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

Well, that doesn't always happen.

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

But Alex, in all honesty, the last Conservative is not going to get to speak very often either.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, are you dealing with the point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm in discussion with the clerk. We've both agreed that he's amending the speaking order to what Mr. Lemieux moved, and we're going to deem that allowable. We can discuss and vote on that amendment.

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

But it's not. Even Mr. Lemieux's own amendment doesn't go along with the principle of one member--

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

I haven't amended--

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

Yes, you amended. You said that you would put the NDP--

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

I proposed a friendly amendment.

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

Regardless, if the NDP goes in anywhere other than after the last Conservative, you have....

Mr. Lemieux stated, and I quote, “based on the principle that each committee member should have full opportunity to question the witnesses”. That is the principle of the amendment, and injecting the NDP anywhere in the speaking order other than at the end goes against the substance of the motion.

I don't know how you can--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I know where you're coming from, Mr. Storseth. Any amendment, basically, changes a motion.

I think it's a fairly clear-cut thing, and either you're in support of it or you're not.

Mr. Richards, I have a speaking order here.