Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 15
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
No. If I may, I think the order would be that the committee establishes when it's going to do clause-by-clause review, so we're going to know the date when it's going to start clause-by-clause review. The chair then writes each of the independents to advise them that the agriculture committee is going to do clause-by-clause review on bill such-and-such. They then have to submit any amendments to the bill 48 hours in advance of the clause-by-clause consideration.
They can then come to the committee, sit at the table only to present why it is they are submitting it and why it is they want the committee to vote in favour of their amendment. Then the committee votes on all the amendments proposed by us, by them, and by the independents, as we normally do as a committee. That's how it would work.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, an independent can come to any meeting. I don't think I would be comfortable with our having done a study over a length of time and then having someone pop up at the end of a study, when they might not have been here throughout the rest of the study, to make amendments to the report.
We're talking about legislation here, where this motion would apply. I'm comfortable with its applying to legislation, but not to reports. They can come and listen to any meetings we have, to any testimony, listen to the witnesses, and they can have input through committee members, which is really the normal way that it's done. Any of our colleagues from any other committees can come and interact the same way.
I think the problem for legislation is that if we don't pass this, then independents won't have an opportunity to propose amendments during the clause-by-clause phase except in the House, and they won't really get a chance to talk to it, whereas when they come to committee, they then do have an opportunity to sell their point, which is kind of nice.
I'm in favour, Mr. Chair, of just leaving it for legislative purposes, which would be clause-by-clause review of bills.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, I guess I'll just comment on a few points.
With respect to the regulations that you read, I don't think we're contravening the standard operating procedures of the House because I think we all understand that the members are not members of the committee, they're not able to vote, and they will not be counted. So I think this respects what you read out from the operating procedures for the House.
The other thing is, when it comes down to the right to vote, I guess I'd remind everybody that all of our colleagues don't have a right to vote in committee on clause-by-clause. The committee members or their substitutes have a right to vote on the clause-by-clause portions of a bill and on any amendments. But people who are not members of the committee or are replacing a member of the committee don't have that right either. They have a chance to vote in the House, as would be afforded independents. I think if Malcolm feels really strongly that an independent should have a vote on an amendment put forward, I would encourage Malcolm to step back from the table, let the independent take his spot formally as a member of the committee, and then he or she can vote. Then, Malcolm, you'd be a hero for doing so in the eyes of the independent you would allow to do so.
I guess the last point I'll bring up is that none of us has the opportunity to table amendments to bills in the House. We do it at committee. That's the reason we have committees, so that there can be discussion about the amendments, and then the amendments can be voted on at committee, so that the House is not having to deal with amendments from everybody once the legislation makes it back into the House. All we're really saying is that the independents should be part of this process.
I like what Mr. Eyking said. It's opening the door to them to be part of the process of which we are part, in terms of proposing amendments to legislation during the clause-by-clause portion.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I'd like to raise a point on this one.
For the subcommittee, I've been a long-term proponent, Chair, that you should be there in a neutral capacity. You should be acting as chair both on committee and on subcommittee.
Here we have only four people involved on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I think we should add one. We should have five. We should have two government members, two vice-chairs, and a parliamentary secretary--I'm sorry, I've got that wrong: it should be two government members, one of which is the parliamentary secretary, and the two vice-chairs. That allows you to act in the capacity of chair without having to take sides.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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”.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (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.
Results: 1 - 15 of 15

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data