Agriculture Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I wouldn't see that as a barrier.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

All right. Thank you for that explanation.

The second point, then, is the word “exceptional”. This motion is going to be here for a while. People come and go from this committee, and what we may understand as exceptional around this table as “well, we'll take a look at each circumstance and each witness as the situation arises”, might be considered by other people to be “exceptional”, if you get my drift--like only in extremely exceptional circumstances.

I would like to see that word changed to “and that....”

Sorry, if I can have your attention...?

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

I'm sorry.

You distracted me.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I would like to see this changed to “and that, where circumstances warrant, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair”, because the words “circumstances warrant” imply a little more latitude than the word “exceptional”.

So as a friendly amendment--if you consider it friendly--I would change the words “in exceptional” to...actually, you'd have to remove the words “in exceptional circumstances” and change this to “and that, where circumstances warrant, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth, do you accept that?

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

Well, I disagree with Mr. Valeriote's interpretation, but by looking at the chair, yes, I accept that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hoback, you were on the list.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

No, I'm okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I think the committee needs to be sensitive to costs. The chair raised a good point. If we're the most expensive committee in Parliament due to the number of witnesses coming in, I think we should be sensitive to that fact.

I think the chair would probably like to see the committee.... I mean, the chair responds to the will of the committee, so I think the chair is asking the committee to say that the normal procedure, rather than having two, which was what happened in previous Parliaments, will be that we have one as the standard operating procedure.

Your amendment is a fine amendment, so I think that's been accepted all the way around.

I think Malcolm made an excellent point about that responsibility falling to the chair. I would make one other friendly amendment, then, and it is that in “be made at the discretion of” we take out “the Chair”. We could change it to “of the committee”, because the chair responds to the committee, and I think the chair has had tremendous latitude in setting up witnesses.

He has done a great job, but I think this leans more to your point, Francis, in that if the committee feels there are these circumstances, the committee is going to have a discussion on it and the chair will follow the will of the committee.

So just to touch on Malcolm's point, I think it's valid that this should just be worded to say “at the discretion of the committee”, because it's going to be the committee that gives direction to the chair in those circumstances where warranted.

So this would be another friendly amendment, then: that we remove “Chair” and replace it with “committee”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Even if it were “Chair”, I would still want to get direction from the committee, but I'm much happier with it as “committee”, as you've just suggested.

I have a couple of speakers.

You're the second one, Mr. Valeriote--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I need some clarification on what Pierre just said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Does that mean the committee is going to have to meet like this and make a decision on witnesses?

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

No.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay, so--

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

What I'm thinking of, and I think what we're all talking about is the normal operating procedure--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

When we phone in and--

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

Yes. It'll be one witness coming from an organization. I don't think anyone is saying that it's one organization per province or something like that. It's just one person per organization.

Let's say you had a strong case for a university providing two witnesses because they're from two completely different departments. I think you would end up bringing that to committee anyway. We would have a discussion on that exception...not exception, but should the circumstances warrant, we would have a discussion on that, and we would say to the chair, “Yes, in that case, it's a good point, and we should have two witnesses.”

I'm not saying that the committee is involved in setting all the witness lists all the time. I think that would use up an inordinate amount of time. I'm just saying that, by exception, you would have brought it to committee anyway, so let's just change this wording so that it's at the discretion of the committee. The chair will follow our lead.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Go ahead with the other speakers, and then I'll respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll hear from Mr. Zimmer, and then it's back to you anyway, Frank.

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

I'll be really brief.

I wasn't in the committee when it had the highest amount, but I think we need to take this step, especially in this new era of cost-cutting. I absolutely support it. I just don't want to water it down. The message should be very clear that it's one, and if you need more, there have to be exceptional circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Frank.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I agree with our need to be frugal, but I'm concerned about the process. My experience has been that from time to time we examine issues requiring us to go to another city or whatever, and we're suddenly phoning your office or the clerk's office and making recommendations about witnesses. In the perfect world, we would have the opportunity to all meet and talk about witnesses, but, Mr. Chair, you and I both know that sometimes these witnesses are put together at the last minute.

For instance, we were hoping to have a discussion on Tuesday on whatever it is that we may be discussing. That leaves us tomorrow and Monday to get witnesses. What if, under these circumstances, there's an organization from which, one of us feels, two people need to come? The committee isn't going to have the opportunity to get together and talk about it.

I'm suggesting that it be the decision of the chair in consultation with the subcommittee so that you need call only three people to talk about it instead of having it implied that the whole committee has to agree on this.