Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

If I could clarify, one member of the opposition is what we're saying. It could be any one of the parties, but in order to have that reduced quorum, there has to be one member of the opposition there--not one member from each party, just one member of the opposition. There could be two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. What direction do you want to go in here?

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

May I ask a question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, Mr. Lemieux.

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

When it says three members, is the chair a member or is he just the chair? Are we talking about the chair, and then out of the 11 of us there are a minimum of three of us, or are we talking about the chair as one, and of the 11 of us there are two?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The chair is one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I would think the chair would be one, yes.

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

Okay. I'll add my name to the speaking list. I've asked my question. Am I the next guy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, Mr. Bellavance already spoke.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I'd like to highlight that there are 12 of us on this committee. There's a problem with the committee if we're down to three, so I think that number is a bit low. I understand that witnesses may have travelled and that witnesses have prepared, but I also think the committee itself must be represented at the meeting. If we're down to three members and one of them is the chair, that's a sad situation. I don't think that represents the committee, so I'd like to see that number go up.

Quorum would be six of us, I would imagine, a minimum of six, and we're talking about halving that. I think that's a bit much, so I would make an amendment that we raise it to four. It just gives better representation of the committee in those circumstances in which we're not able to have a quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

Mr. Eyking.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I can't see a problem with having the chair and one from each party. You have four, but you'd need four, right? If you're talking about going from four to, technically, five....

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

No, I'm talking about going from....

I'm sorry, Chair. I'll wait till you recognize whoever you want to recognize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

My understanding of what Mr. Lemieux said--and he can correct me--is he's suggesting that it be changed from three to four. If we want to discuss it, I would suggest that we should have an amendment.

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

I did put forward an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Would you read that amendment again, and then we'll go from there?

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

Yes. The amendment is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition. The amendment is changing “three” to “four”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

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

It's a better representation of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, you've heard the amendment. I have Mr. Eyking first.

Do you have anything further to add?

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would accept a friendly amendment: instead of “one member from the opposition”, “one member from each of the opposition parties”...“including one member from each recognized party of the opposition”.

If you'd accept that, I can explain, through debate on that amendment, why I think that's important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux, will you accept that?

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

I think Mr. Easter already commented on that. It might be overly restrictive in that then every party has to be represented, and if only one party isn't there, that's it. I think what we're trying to do is put together a solution where we can have reduced quorum. So I actually agree with Mr. Easter that as long as there's a member from the opposition, it doesn't have to be from each party. That can become a stumbling block for the committee, and what we're trying to do is put in place a mechanism. I just want to make sure that the committee is well represented if we are in a reduced quorum situation, and my feeling was that three was too low.

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

But if I may, Mr. Chair, in that analysis you may have the vice-chair chairing a meeting and the two other Liberal members as the only members of the committee and it is quorum. You're having the potential to eliminate the other opposition parties, and I don't think that addresses the constitution of the committee. It's not for me to defend the NDP or the Bloc here, but I think it's important that it's enshrined in there that they would have to be here; at least one representative from them would have to be here, to be a reduced quorum.

I understand the Liberal ranks have been shrinking, but there's still three of them, so they could still have a reduced quorum in this under that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

Mr. Bellevance.