Agriculture Committee on June 21st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

--but I've been fair right across the board. The clerk keeps the exact time, right to the second, of how long each person speaks, so I can back that up.

I mean, I can be as strict as you want. I can go as far as having the mikes shut off at whatever the time limit is, but I don't think that's fair. If there's a good line of questioning--not rhetoric--I try to be fair on that and, again, equal, irrespective of the amount of time.

Mr. Hoback is next.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Chair, I look at it as the five minutes each time giving everybody the same chance to access the witness. This has nothing to do with Mr. Valeriote. It's just the way the parties are working it out. Mr. Valeriote might be here this week and Mr. Easter might be here next week. There's not a personality aspect in this case.

It's just reality that the parties would line up in a fashion such that each party would have five minutes for each member who asks a question. I think it will make sure that we get all the questions asked. Everybody will have a chance to have the same time with the witnesses who come forward. It's a reasonable proposal. I think this is where we should go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Next is Mr. Payne, followed by Mr. Allen.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I agree with this interpretation of the five minutes. I believe it's a much better process. I've been on the aboriginal affairs committee, and many times there was not an opportunity for me or some of my colleagues to get a question in. If the time were changed to five minutes, it would give everybody a much better opportunity to ask the questions that they really want answered by the witnesses.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I understand my colleague's egalitarian approach to life, whereby we are all equal except when we vote, and we will usually lose most of the votes. I suppose egalitarianism went out the window on that one.

To be honest with you, when we were here in the last Parliament, the first round was seven minutes times four. It's now times three, so we actually pick up time and go to the second round seven minutes sooner than we did in the previous Parliament. You are actually picking up time by not having a fourth party, which was us at that time.

The initial round of questioning in most committees--to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected by those who are on other committees--still usually stands at a couple minutes longer than the second round. That's why we have a first round and a second round and differentiate between them. The sense is that it not only allows the individual MP's questions but also questions around policy that the MP wants to extract in that round. As Mr. Valeriote said, quite often you're representing the party as a whole as the lead questioner, and not necessarily just yourself as an individual. Then we go back and forth.

It seems the issue will be one, two, three, and right to the second round immediately. My guess, based on the fact that we no longer have that fourth person in the first round, is that more than likely Mr. Zimmer--no offence; I am simply using you because you are at that end of the table--would be the last questioner. I'm not suggesting he would be--it's for his side to determine the order of questions--but if I simply go down the line and say Mr. Hoback, one, two, three, all the way down, I believe we'll get to Mr. Zimmer, based on the fact that we no longer have four parties and only have three. That really was where we made up the additional time.

I understand the concern that all members want an opportunity, and it's fair to want to have the opportunity. I understand what Mr. Payne is saying. I too have been on a committee at which, by the time they got to me, the lights were flashing and it was time to go. That is frustrating, without a doubt, but based on what we have now, I think we'll all get the opportunity to ask a question.

I would prefer to see it stay the same. It seems to me to be the appropriate way to do things, and committees are doing that. That's why we have first and second rounds. The additional couple of minutes differentiate them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Atamanenko.

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

It seems to me that when I first started on this committee and sat in that position, a second round was allotted to me when I was one person. Then I think we changed that arrangement around 2000, so I only got the one round. I found that when you're the sole representative of a party, it's not just one MP and another MP. You have nobody else to consult with. You have some issues that your party wants to bring forward.

I think we owe it to Frank and his party to give them the chance to have seven minutes. Their ideas may be different from ours here, and limiting it to five minutes would obviously take away some time for their ideas. In respect to Frank and his party, in this case I would strongly suggest that we leave it as is. It has worked. As Malcolm said, we can go to the second round earlier.

I suggest we leave it as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Atamanenko, when you pointed out that you sometimes got a second chance, I remember I was probably the guy at the time--because I was sitting over there--who was quite dismayed when I saw that. It was nothing against you; it was the fact that quite often you had a chance to speak twice. When I sat on the international trade committee on which Mr. Julian also sat, almost always Mr. Julian would speak three times, because of the way they had their process set up, before at least two members of our side spoke. I thought that wasn't right.

I'm not arguing or debating the time. It's up to you people to do that. From that aspect, that's the reason I think every member of the committee should get a chance to speak before anybody else gets a second chance, unless somebody passes their spot to that individual. That's a different scenario.

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

We changed it last time to make sure that didn't happen. Most times most people did have a chance to speak. Now that we're going into it sooner, everybody should probably have a chance to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Storseth.

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

Imagine my devastation on discovering the NDP doesn't believe in egalitarian principles any longer.

I firmly believe, and I argued this in the last Parliament as well, that the committee is not here to be the master of political parties, but to be the master of members of Parliament. That is why we are all members of standing committees and associate members of all the other standing committees. It's so that we have the ability to sit in on any committee that we want to. That is what a member of Parliament has.

The rights and privileges of a committee member should be that we are all treated the same. I believe we should all get five minutes and we should all get an opportunity to speak once before anybody else has been given an opportunity to speak for a second time.

It has nothing to do with political parties. It has everything to do with members of Parliament and the rights and responsibilities they should have. I believe firmly in that. I believe everybody should get five minutes. I believe the amendment that is proposed is fair and represents the principles we should go with. I know the finance committee went that way. I know the veterans affair committee has gone that way. Several committees are going that way. I think it's the right way to do things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

I'm going to call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we vote on the main motion, as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Now comes routine motion number 11, which deals with the speaking order. It is moved by Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Am I reading Conservative, NDP, Liberal, in the first round? Is that what that means? Is it five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes. The second round.... Everybody has a copy of this.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Would the order just repeat itself if there was time to start again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Storseth.

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

Being a bit of a parliamentary geek for most of my life, I have seen committees under the majority Liberal government, under minority governments, obviously, and under our majority, and I've never seen the government side ask a question first. It's always been the official opposition that has asked a question first, whether it was a majority government or not. I believe that should be the right of the opposition, but I leave that to the will of the committee.

I would make an amendment that we switch the Conservatives and the NDP in the first round so that it goes NDP, Conservative, Liberal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, and everything else would stay the same as written here.

Is everybody clear on Mr. Storseth's amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Since there's nothing else, the meeting stands adjourned.