Evidence of meeting #2 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Mr. Storseth.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Well, I think it's pretty straightforward. It's just a technical motion for the committee and entertaining discussion anybody has on it, but I don't think we need to waste a lot of time with it.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

This is just a bit of history on it.

I sent a letter out to all the committee members a little while ago, because as chair I can't table a motion. I asked Mr. Storseth if he would be interested.

Our committee had the highest witness expenses of any committee in the House of Commons last year, and I take that as an embarrassment. It wasn't always abused, but I can think of examples where it was.

Brian's motion—and I'm not trying to take over your discussion on it, Brian—gives us discretion so if we feel strongly that we need more than one witness to come from an organization, we can do that.

Many of the groups or organizations we have come before this committee have representatives in Ottawa who they can send here. They don't always have to send somebody from across the country. I'm not trying in any way to stop somebody from coming from the east or west coast or halfway in between. That's not the objective. Quite often we've paid expenses for two or more witnesses when, in my opinion, it has been unnecessary.

Mr. Storseth, that's where this comes from.

Malcolm.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

I understand. I sat here and saw five folks from a similar group.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

And one talks.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

And one talks, to be honest.

We've gone in public, and that's okay. I actually voted to do that. Arguing against it feels like arguing against the chair, which, of course, isn't the case. The actual motion is surrounded by the chair saying he'll have the discretion, so to argue against it says you really don't have confidence in the chair, or perhaps you don't, which is not the case, from my own personal perspective.

I'm not sure why we needed this immediate change, when, I think only a couple of months ago, just before we adjourned, we actually talked to this particular issue. It seems, at least on the face of it, that we're being more restrictive than we wanted to be earlier. I would hope that's not the intent. Otherwise, it seems as though we're starting in the wrong direction.

A couple of my friends on the other side said this is a four-year journey that we're undertaking. Perhaps it will be, or it might be longer, or shorter. Who knows? We'll know when we get there.

As much as I absolutely agree that having five folks come to have one person speak to us just doesn't make any sense from the perspective of time management and money when it comes to the committee's expenditure, I can remember times when I, as the deputy critic, sat on the wall because there were so many folks who came that I simply gave them my seat so they could have a mike, which they actually didn't use.

That's my only piece with this. The spirit, the intent, is for sure to keep the cost down. We'll use the Cattlemen's Association as a prime example, because I happen to know John Masswohl's late father, Rudi, very well. When I first came to this committee in late 2008, he walked through the door, and I saw his name, and he said, “Yeah, yeah, Rudi's my dad.” He knew I was from the Welland area and I actually sat on a board with his dad.

John's already in town, so it makes perfect sense for John to come and represent the Cattlemen's Association, unless he wants to send someone else. And I know over time the Cattlemen's Association have had some very fine ranchers here who also come to support John, basically saying, “Yeah, we agree with what he's saying.”

It seems to me if we take the spirit and the intent of trying to keep it that way, but keep it open, so that if one side or the other says, you know what, maybe we need to hear from not only the association--and I've heard in the past not everyone agrees with the association. Take the trade union movement, for instance. The union doesn't necessarily have unanimity of opinion. If you asked Buzz Hargrove, the past president of my union, to come before you, he might give you one statement. I'll leave the name of a local union's president out because this is on the public record, but he'd disagree with Buzz. Maybe we should have Buzz and that local union president come, because we're actually going to get two different opinions about the same organization.

I thought we narrowed it before in the spirit of trying to keep the costs down. It just seems to me now that we're really trying to squeeze tight, and then, unfortunately, placing the burden of making the decision on the chair, which makes the chair—

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

There are two points. We haven't narrowed it down.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Well, from my view, I see it being narrower than before.

So that's my only fear, the sense that this is what it would become. You're in the unenviable position--regardless of who comes to you, whether it be the parliamentary secretary Mr. Lemieux, or me, or Mr. Valeriote--of having to say yes or no when we say we'd really like you to ask one, or we'd really like you to ask two.

Quite frankly, I think what will happen down the road is that if you say yes to one and no to the other, you're going to get into a war of justifying it to whomever--i.e., “But you said no to me and yes to them.” That's an unenviable position to have the chair sit in, quite frankly.

I understand, as my friend Mr. Lemieux has quite ably said, that there's a new dynamic. I'm okay with that. That's what democracy is about, dynamics and changes, and things change. But I would offer this up: why don't we send it back to the steering committee to review if there's an additional request for more than one rather than placing the chair in the unenviable position of always having to make that final decision and end up as the person who's saying yes and no?

If he says yes to me all the time when I make the request, I'm a happy camper. If he says no to me all the time, I'm an unhappy camper. But if he says yes to just one other person one time, then I'm really an unhappy camper. In my view, it's not fair to put the chair in....

I'll leave it at that.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Malcolm, just for the record, that part of the motion was not anything that I had in there. Frankly, I would be much happier, even delighted, if either the committee or the subcommittee did it. That was my intention. It wasn't for it to be solely my decision, and that is a fact.

If that's changed, with agreement, I certainly have no issue. It would make my job easier, in fact.

Mr. Zimmer.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

That new question kind of affects what I'm going to say. If the chair is wanting to have a slight change in the motion, maybe we should--

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I'm certainly comfortable with that. As I said, that part of the motion, Bob, was not part of my letter, if you go back and see it. I spoke on this issue when we first talked about it in June, long before I knew what the expenses were. That wasn't my reason for speaking. I was in favour of this thing then for other reasons, and I'm even in favour more now, since I found out what this was.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

I think there is, though, a positive in this. It does streamline the process a little bit. If we do have a guest.... As you say, if a representative of the Cattlemen's Association shows up, you can make that quick decision to either allow or disallow on the spot, versus going to another group.

So I think it's more expeditious that way, to have it with the chair.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

If there's a bunch of them in town, Bob, like they were the other day, and we happen to have a meeting and they show up--as they have, lots of times--there's no problem with them being here. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, if they want to bring one of them up and sit with them, that's fine; it's just that they wouldn't qualify for the expenses.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Right.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I don't think they've ever abused it that way. Anytime they've ever been in town and attended, I'm not aware of any abuse of it. That's not one of the examples that I had in mind.

Mr. Valeriote.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Chair, I absolutely understand where you're coming from. I think for the record, though, it needs to be understood that this is a very unusual committee. Its obligations are enormous. I mean, this is one of the few committees that has to hear from people in an industry that crosses Canada. I'm not saying it's any less or more serious work than other committees; I'm just saying the work is voluminous. We don't have the luxury of having some accountants come in here to talk to us about the state of the books, or spending all our time on two or three witnesses.

I think the public needs to know why our expenses may have been larger. The public needs to know that we've had to travel across the country to go to the industry, to farms, to processing plants.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I want to point out that it has--

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Nothing to do with travel.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

--nothing to do with travel.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

I do understand.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

The costs I talked about concerned only witness expenses.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

I perfectly understand.

I'm content for the chair to decide. I really am. I trust the chair's discretion. You've been fair in the past, and I expect you'll be fair in the future. We may want to change that once you're no longer the chair, but who knows?

My point is this: what does “organization” mean? For instance, sometimes we will ask a number of witnesses from the University of Saskatchewan to come here. I would hate to think that the University of Saskatchewan is considered an organization from which we really want to hear from only one witness. They come from different backgrounds at the university.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Can I respond to that, Frank?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Yes.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

In that case, I think I could say that there are ways around it: you can invite them as individuals. Because while some professors--I'll use that term--or specialists in a certain field might be employees of the University of Saskatchewan, for example, or the University of Guelph or whatever, they're also individuals in a certain field. I don't think we'd be hog-tied by having more than one or maybe even three who all happen to teach at the University of Saskatchewan.