Agriculture Committee on June 21st, 2011

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

What I'm saying is that we've long had the problem of not being well represented on the subcommittee. In past Parliaments, I've put forward many times the fact that the parliamentary secretary should be on the committee. It was just never approved. What I'm suggesting here is that as the parliamentary secretary, I would be part of the steering committee and have a colleague with me.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't recall a time when business that was discussed at this committee wasn't suggested by the subcommittee.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Lemieux, but I don't recall a time that any business that anyone wished to have discussed wasn't discussed, unless it failed by reason of somebody bringing a motion for a study. Typically, as I understand it, any work of the subcommittee or the steering committee was done in the genuine interests of Canadians and the genuine interests of farmers. There was no level of intolerance at the subcommittee or the steering committee, so I'm uncertain as to why you would want an extra member, Mr. Lemieux.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand why there is a need for a change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm going to stick to the list of speakers. Mr. Atamanenko is next. Then I have Mr. Hoback.

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

Thank you.

First of all, congratulations, Larry, on assuming the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Alex.

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

I thought our steering committee functioned quite well last time with the setup we had. I know, Pierre, that you weren't happy with it, but now you have two members on the committee and there are two from the opposition.

We usually get agreement. I didn't see any conflict in the subcommittee. We usually seemed to come up with the appropriate agenda, which we took to the committee, so I don't see why we should change the model or do anything other than what's proposed here in item two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hoback is next.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I was on the finance committee, and we did this exact same thing. It does a couple of things. It reflects the actual number of seats in the House of Commons. It actually reflects what that situation is now.

I'd like to remind the members that even though the steering committee might get together and set an agenda or a course of action, it still would have to be approved by all the members of the committee.

I'd also like to remind you that the chair would be sitting there, neutral, and the only time his voice would be raised would actually be in the case of a tie vote. In the steering committee, I don't think that is as big an issue as it would be in this committee as a whole.

Again, it just gets back to reflecting the relevance of what the Canadian population sent us here with a strong mandate to do. I think the steering committee should be represented that way too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe the job of the steering committee or the subcommittee is to review and set our agenda so we don't use up valuable committee time doing that. Right now, as you would have it, you would have two and two necessarily, and I don't know of any committees that do not have an odd number of people so that they at least have the ability to break a tie.

You've brought up the possibility that with only four members on the steering committee, you could have a tie. If there is ever a disagreement--I'm not saying there will be--I don't know why this committee would always have to adjudicate it. I think it should just happen within the subcommittee.

As Mr. Hoback says, this is the representation of the House of Commons, of what the people have sent back, and I think this is actually very reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The way it's done is that the recommendation that comes out of the steering committee comes back here for approval. As chair, it would probably make my job a lot easier--and I think the committee more productive--if it didn't turn into a big argument once we got back here, but I just want to point out that whatever we recommend at the subcommittee has to be approved here officially before we carry on.

Mr. Valeriote, you're going to be the last speaker.

Oh, Mr. Allen has his hand up.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It is generally agreed that the subcommittee and steering committee worked well in the past. It's also clear that the Conservatives outnumber the opposition.

Because the former model did work, perhaps a suggestion would be that we continue with the former model, with the caveat that if there is any discomfort, malfeasance, or anything else at the subcommittee, the issue can be brought back and the model can be changed at that time. For now we would continue with the model that we had, perhaps as a demonstration of the good faith among all the members of this committee that we come into this session to work as we worked in the last session, with cooperation in mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Allen is the last speaker.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand the parliamentary secretary's efforts to make sure he is there. Clearly, it outlined that it was there. In the last Parliament there were four, three from the opposition and one from the government, and it was based on the composition of that particular Parliament.

I heard Mr. Hoback say that the numbers are such, but clearly the steering committee is only an advisory body that says what it thinks the agenda should be. If the agenda is not satisfactory to the committee, on which the government side owns the majority of the votes, they will say no. I would expect that. I wouldn't expect them to agree to something they didn't want to do.

As Mr. Valeriote said, as we go forward, or at least as we start, let's see if we can work out an agenda for the first session in the fall that talks about the things we all agree we want to do. If there is that sense of cooperation, it bodes well for the committee going into the future.

I agree that the parliamentary secretary should sit on the steering committee. That should be his role. The chair should be there as well as an active participant, rather than an impartial chair as proposed by Mr. Lemieux.

My preference would be to leave it at four and to continue on, hopefully with a sense that we intend to go forward working on things on which all of us are in agreement.

I think we can do that. Certainly on our side that's our intention. I can't speak for anyone other than us, but the intention we have is to go forward in that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux, you're that last speaker.

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

Chair, I have been listening to the discussion. In the past Parliament, Chair, I thought you were always in a very awkward position, being chair of the steering committee while being the government representative as well.

Here in the committee you're expected to be neutral. You're expected to listen to all sides of the debate. You're expected to make neutral rulings. The scenario was very different when it came to the steering committee. You were expected to represent the government side. You were expected to vote in favour of the government side and chair the meeting at the same time. I always found that to be a conflict.

My proposal at the time was not that the parliamentary secretary be on the steering committee, but that a government member be on the steering committee. My point was that we were clearly outvoted on the steering committee.

In the past, if a government member had been present on the steering committee, that would have freed you up to act in a neutral capacity, to be the chair of both the steering committee and of the main committee. There would have been no conflict at all. Clearly we would have been outvoted 3:1 on the steering committee. It was rejected every single time.

We have an opportunity now, Chair, to make you independent, so that as chair you can preside over both our agriculture meetings and the steering committee. We should take this opportunity to do so. That better represents the makeup of the House today, and that is the aim of committee. That's why the committee member numbers are the way they are today. The numbers reflect the makeup of the House. The steering committee should do the same thing.

Also, if there is a tie, the chair must break the tie. That is the way it works here, and it's the way it should work in steering committee as well. I don't think it's good policy to have four people sitting in a committee on which the chair is expected to also act on the government side, to vote on the government side. Then what would we have? We would have a tie that nobody could break. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I understand what my colleagues are saying, but that's my line of reasoning. It is a reasonable approach. I imagine we're going to end up voting on it, although my colleague wants to raise a point as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

If it's a point, go ahead, and then I'm going to call the vote on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, it's not a point of debate. I'd just like to add a friendly amendment, if it's the will of the committee. I haven't heard you read my colleague's amendment, but I think it would best be phrased as, “That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, and two government members”.

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

Actually, to be friendly to your friendly amendment, there is a disadvantage to being specific by saying “vice-chairs” and “parliamentary secretary”. If Malcolm, as a vice-chair, is away and can't be there because he has a duty somewhere else, no one can replace him on the steering committee. It might be better to say “an NDP member” and it might be better to say “a Liberal member”. That allows for flexibility. If the vice-chair is available, the vice-chair is there. If the vice-chair is not available, one of your colleagues can replace you, and the same for Francis, and actually the same for me.

I think it's better not to say “two vice-chairs”, but “a member of the NDP, a member of the Liberals, and two government members”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux, if it's okay with you, I think we could word it that the committee would consist of a member from each sitting party--the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives--plus the parliamentary secretary and the chair.

Would that satisfy—

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

The problem is that if I'm away on other duties because I'm expected to replace the minister in debate or at an announcement, then I should have the freedom to say that Mr. Hoback can replace me at a meeting. I'd brief him, and he could replace me at the meeting. I think by going to simply the number of MPs—one from the NDP, one from the Liberals, and two from the government—and making it a little more generic, we're actually offering ourselves a bit more flexibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, that's your amendment. I think everybody is clear on it.

(Amendment agreed to)

Just to make sure there's no lack of clarity, the motion as amended will read, “That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and composed of the Chair, one member of the NDP, one member of the Liberal Party, and two members of the Conservative Party".

(Motion as amended agreed to)

We'll move on to the third item, which deals with reduced quorum. Do I have a mover? It's moved by Mr. Zimmer.

Is there discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The fourth routine motion is on distribution of documents. It is moved by Mr. Valeriote.

Is there discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The fifth motion is on working meals. It is moved by Mr. Payne.

Is there discussion? I just want to make it clear that because our meetings are from 3:30 to 5:30, there won't be any meals. I'm happy with water, but I believe we'll probably have coffee and juice. That's just so everybody's clear.

(Motion agreed to)

Next is the motion on travel accommodation and living expenses of witnesses, moved by Mr. Hoback.

Is there discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I think there should be a caveat that when we're traveling to the riding of a member of this committee, the member has an obligation to entertain the entire committee in his or her home.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You know, I think I could support that amendment.