Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

There will be some scenarios, possibly, where they will not have a hard copy presented. Will it restrict them in what they can present when they attend as a witness if they don't have a hard copy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I think they have to have it to us in advance. Has that not been the way?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We've had several cases where they haven't had a hard copy, Chair. There have been some issues. You've got to consider that many of these organizations are volunteers. I think most of them make a pretty good effort to have a written submission, but there have been cases where they haven't. We've given them pretty short notice and they've come and made their points, and that's fine.

I don't think we want to be too restrictive, but they know it's to their advantage to have a written document as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, and I wasn't in any way trying to punish a witness because they didn't have one. It's just simply to explain to them the advantage of getting us a hard copy in advance. It would actually be to their benefit I think if they did that.

Mr. Lemieux, and then Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much.

If there are two or three witnesses from the same organization, we'll give them 10 minutes in total. In other words, we give a maximum of 10 minutes per organization, and not to each person from that organization.

If we wish to give witnesses more time, we will have to ensure that we do not invite too many witnesses in the single hour. We have already tried to hear from more, but we invited 10 organizations to appear in the single hour. That is too many witnesses in one hour, because there is not enough time left to ask them questions or for them to be able to really present their ideas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

If I could speak to these questions, unless directed otherwise by the committee I'm going to make it clear to the witnesses that if they have three from one organization, that gives them ten minutes, not ten minutes each. If you want me to do otherwise, I'm at your wishes, but that would be how I would read that one.

The other was when Pierre used the example of there being half a dozen to ten witnesses here and we had an hour. I would probably try and be fairly strict on holding them to five minutes--seven minutes at the most--but I would make it clear to them in advance that it's not going to be ten minutes.

Again, if the committee tells me otherwise, then I'm at your direction. I hope that answers those two questions.

Mr. Storseth, and then Mr. Bellavance.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I tend to agree with Mr. Easter. I think it's important that we don't put anything in a motion in this regard, simply because we want to allow maximum flexibility and your discretion when it comes to these things. I think it has worked well in the past. I think we should go forward with what we've had. It's worked very well. That leaves some discretion with you and the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Bellavance.

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

It is true that we have to hear from too many witnesses in a very short time. If there are several interesting witnesses who are interested in a given subject, it is up to the committee to allow them a second hour. If people tell me that they want to appear before the committee, I would not tell them that there are too many witnesses. We must decide together who will testify. I do not want to overstate the case and say that we will hear from everyone all the time. I have never presented a list of witnesses in order to filibuster and say that there are many witnesses and that we will therefore waste time. It is up to us to organize another meeting in order to give ourselves the time to hear from them.

I support your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, whereby, at a particular moment, if we have too many witnesses, we simply give them less than 10 minutes to make their statements. In any case, people understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

To go from there, André, even five or six witnesses at ten minutes each takes up the biggest part of an hour. I guess I'm going to have to put a bit of faith in it. I'm going to try to keep them moving as much as possible. It's important to hear from our witnesses, and we certainly don't want to make it look, intentional or otherwise, like we don't want to hear what they have to say. We want to be fair. It's for the sake of time and allowing as many questions as possible.

I don't think ten in an hour meeting has ever happened before, and it probably won't happen again. Having ten in two one-hour meetings would probably be an extreme.

Is there any further discussion on that issue?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I would like to put forward one final motion, Chair, regarding the speaking order so we have some idea of what order you'll follow when you are allowing people to ask questions. We're all investing time in the committee, preparing before the committee, and listening attentively when witnesses are presenting. Then we have the opportunity to ask questions. I think it's important, to the maximum extent possible, and if time allows, that each member be given an opportunity to participate in the meeting. That stimulates interest and stimulates dialogue. And it ensures that everybody has an investment in the meeting, because they have an opportunity to dialogue with the witnesses.

With that in mind, I'd like to propose my motion regarding speaking order. You have it on the English side, but I'll read it so it can be translated:

The order of questions for the first round of questioning shall be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. Questioning during the second round shall alternate between the opposition members and government members in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits further rounds shall be at the discretion of the chair.

That would end the wording of my motion. Again, it's just to highlight the fact that.... I think we've all be on committees before at times when some members didn't participate because they didn't have the time to participate. They hadn't been allocated a question. We're all MPs. We're all elected. We're all representing regions and particular interests, and that's why I think it's important that, to the maximum extent possible, we all be given an opportunity to participate directly in each committee meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I believe this is very close to exactly what we had last time for speaking order.

We'll have Mr. Atamanenko and then Mr. Bellavance.

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

This is the motion. Is it appropriate for me to make an amendment to the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Certainly.

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

I would like to make an amendment to the motion.

The amendment would be that in the second round, my party, the NDP, would have a chance to ask an additional question. In other words, the way the motion is now, in the first round we're number three. In the second round, it's possible that I or Malcolm would not have a chance to ask a question, depending on how things went. I found that in the last Parliament that happened from time to time towards the end.

When I first got here, I always seemed to have a question in the second round. I would like to have a guarantee, through my subamendment, that my party will have a chance in the second round to ask a five-minute question, whether it's number three or four. I realize that each member here needs the opportunity to ask a question. But I also realize that we represent parties, and this would give me a chance a second time to represent the point of view that my party may have that the other parties may not. I would like to have that as an amendment to this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

On that issue, whatever happens in the discussion, Alex, I think from time to time we've all had a question that maybe we didn't think of at the time. They come up. But you always have the opportunity to approach one of the other members of the committee about asking it.

Having said that, we have an amendment. Does everybody understand what the amendment is?

We'll have Mr. Lemieux.

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

Perhaps I'll present this as a friendly amendment, Alex.

To understand exactly what we're going to be voting on, we could put NDP after the last Conservative. It would go Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, for the sake of actually inserting text into the motion so that we know what we're voting on when we vote on the subamendment. That's where I would propose, as a friendly amendment, we put the NDP slot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

In essence, Mr. Atamanenko, after every member has had a chance to ask questions, it would move the NDP to the number one spot, starting off, whereas right now, I believe, it would start with the Liberals and the Bloc and then the NDP. It would actually start with the NDP again.

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

No. Mr. Atamanenko mentioned he wanted it somewhere in round two, so I'm proposing it be at the end of round two. That way every member will have had an opportunity to participate, and that member will have a second opportunity to participate. It could also be the first person at the beginning of round three, when people will get to participate a second time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I should follow my sheet here. I apologize to Mr. Bell.

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

We can discuss it a bit more, but I'm proposing a friendly amendment that at the end of the second round it be Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, based on the principle that each committee member should have a full opportunity to question the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Bellavance and Mr. Storseth are next, and then Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Mr. Chairman, we usually have two rounds.

I would like the clerk to follow along with me. I see no major difference between what Mr. Lemieux has moved and what we currently have, that is to say what we are working with. For the moment, the order in the first round is the following: the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP. In the second round, it is the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. Is that right? Normally, almost everyone has an opportunity to speak. I do not see what the big difference is, aside from adding on the NDP after the Conservative Party in the second turn.