Agriculture Committee on June 21st, 2011

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

One thing I want to bring up is something that's bothered me at times. I think that sometimes groups are represented here at committee by more people than are necessary. I suggest we limit the number of witnesses that we pay for from any one organization if they come here. I throw out that suggestion to you.

I don't know if it's an issue with anybody else, but I think that in a time of restraint.... It's not that I want in any way to limit an organization from bringing its points before the committee, but I believe that from time to time it is abused.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, what they did in the finance committee was leave the second witness up to the discretion of the chair. It would be one witness from each organization; then, based on the discretion of the chair, they could add a second witness. If they could make a justified argument for bringing two people, that option would still sit there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

One place where I thought it was maybe abused.... A lot of these organizations--maybe not all of them, but most of them--have representatives in Ottawa. They are based in Ottawa. I'm just wondering if basically all these groups could be made aware that should they have somebody in Ottawa, we would expect one of those witnesses to attend. If they can show us that they need somebody else here for a reason, I'm open to that.

Go ahead, Alex.

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

We may have a situation in which there is one organization, but let's say there are two farmers, and they come from different parts of the country. I wouldn't want to limit that. I think it may be a good idea to look at it and have some guidelines, but not have rules like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

What I'm suggesting would in no way affect individuals like that, Alex. That's not what I'm trying to accomplish.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemieux.

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

I don't think the committee should be involved in deciding where witnesses come from or saying that they should be coming from your Ottawa office or your Alberta office or your P.E.I. office. That's for the witnesses to decide.

I do understand that maybe we should limit it to one person, and if they have a strong case for two, such as Alex's case, and they have representation from across the country and they see value, they just have to talk to you, Chair, and convince you of that.

Normally only one person talks. They only have 10 minutes for an organization, and normally we have multiple organizations at the table. It's rare that two people from one organization split their time evenly. One person is usually there in support.

Maybe it's not a bad idea to say that we should only fund one person, unless there's a good case for two, in which case we're open to that. That would mean making an amendment here to go to one representative.

Before a motion is moved, I'd like to hear a bit more debate on it to see what people think about it.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I'd like to see the default position as one visitor or guest, with the exception being additional people if the chair sees it necessary. The default would be one rather than two.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm getting a little concerned, because a lot of these procedures were in place before. We worked reasonably effectively with them before. I know that on a number of occasions--for instance, when we had the biotech study--Mr. Hoback and I would disclose the kinds of witnesses we were bringing up and have conversations about the reasons.

There are some issues for which two representatives may necessarily be required, and I'd hate to think that they have to state their case to you. With all due respect, I trust your judgment, but I hate to see the rules of this committee become so strict that all of a sudden somebody has to state their case to you to convince you that they should be allowed to be a witness.

I think we should continue to accommodate each other with the normal respect we've given in the past. We would present the list of witnesses, and the clerk and everyone will look them over. If it appears that there's going to be a problem or that it's too onerous a task to get them all heard or that kind of thing, then people will accommodate each other.

I think we're making rules now that imply that we will not accommodate each other. They will foreclose the opportunity we otherwise might have to have a good discussion about who should and shouldn't be witnesses. We're creating all these rules, when until now it was a convention that we just followed.

I would urge us not to make the suggested amendment to this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

First of all—I was going to say this before Mr. Zimmer was done, but I thought I'd let you speak—I would not want the responsibility of making that decision. If it was going to be cut to one witness, I think I should be able to consult with everybody else on the steering committee for a consensus.

I didn't bring it up necessarily to say that we should cut it to one, although I think we could work in those boundaries. I've seen more than once that we've paid to have two members of an organization come here, and their representative in Ottawa comes and sits right behind them. That's not in every case, but it has been abused. I just brought it up for discussion.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I agree that we should be cognizant of it and discourage people from doing it, but I think it is a bit of a mistake to start setting rules to deal with it at the opening of this session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Is there any further discussion on the issue?

Without an amendment, I'm going to call a vote on the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

We're going to move on to staff at in camera meetings.

I need a mover.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'll move that.

Has that been the normal course of things?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes.

There was an issue that came up with me personally, although I don't think it needs to be in the motion. I had an intern, and a member of the committee questioned who the person was. The intern was allowed to stay with the consent of the committee. That kind of thing happens from time to time when we have interns participating in programs. Some are international and some are party-related. I think it's important for them to be able to sit in, if possible.

I don't think it's ever really been a problem, but under this wording, technically they're not allowed to sit in without the approval of everybody.

(Motion agreed to)

Routine motion number 8 deals with transcripts of in camera meetings. It is moved by Mr. Hoback.

(Motion agreed to)

Number 9 deals with notices of motion. It is moved by Mr. Lemieux.

(Motion agreed to)

Number 10 is with regard to times for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. It is moved by Mr. Lemieux.

Is there discussion on the motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Lemieux.

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

There is some discussion, Chair. I have noticed at previous meetings that often we run out of time. It might have been the number of witnesses present at the table, so it added up to a lot of 10-minute presentations. Sometimes they go over, and you're kind enough not to cut them off, or sometimes a member goes over the allotted time during questioning.

Every member of the committee wants to participate in that committee meeting, but I remember many a time that it didn't transpire that way, because time ran out and one or two committee members never got to ask questions.

I'd like to move an amendment, as follows: “That during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated five minutes for the first round of questioning, and that thereafter five minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the second and subsequent rounds of questioning at the discretion of the chair”.

Basically, it's five minutes across the board. It's not seven minutes in the first round and five minutes elsewhere; it's five minutes for the first round and five minutes for all other rounds.

I think that would help to ensure that all members at the table will have the opportunity to participate in the discussion and the debate. It is difficult to be at a meeting for two hours. You might have a particular question that's pertinent to you, pertinent to the industry, pertinent to your riding, and you don't get to ask it because we're out of time.

Chair, my other experience has been that splitting five minutes is nearly impossible. People take two minutes to ask their question and then two minutes to answer it, and there goes four out of the five minutes. There's no way you can split--not effectively, not properly. You can't split a five-minute slot, and even seven minutes is very hard.

I think it's just fair. Every MP and every party would have the same. It would be five minutes around the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

So your amendment says that every member will--

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

It's changing seven to five.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're saying there will be no seven-minute rounds.

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

Actually, it says that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated five minutes--so change the “seven minutes” to “five minutes”--for the first round of questioning, and the rest stays the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There would be 10 minutes for opening statements. Does that stay?

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

Yes. Witnesses have 10 minutes. There's no change there.

It's just for the first round. My amendment is to change it to five minutes from seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

I have Mr. Valeriote first and then Mr. Hoback.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

While Mr. Lemieux may be correct in saying that every MP would have the same amount of time, certainly not every party would have the same amount of time. This would mean that the Conservatives would have 30 minutes, the NDP would have 20 minutes, and the Liberals would have only five minutes.

I consider myself a strong contributing member of the committee. I always have. I think I've always been fair in my approach to the questioning. I've not tried to use a witness to—how should I say it?—serve partisan reasons. I know that used to happen sometimes in this committee, but I've tried not to do that and I think I've succeeded.

I come from a university town. We have the University of Guelph, the agricultural college. I inform myself of issues through access to the people at that university so that I can help this committee in my questioning, as opposed to hindering it.

Only because I know that I'll likely be given only one opportunity at committee to question, I would prefer that it be kept at seven minutes as in the past. The convention was a first round of seven minutes. The Conservatives will have seven minutes as well, and so will the NDP.

I would just ask the chair to make sure that people honour the time constraints, both with their presentations and their questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Members from all sides have been quite guilty of going over the time--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes.