Evidence of meeting #1 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was steckle.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
So in order to make that official, Mr. Chairman, would that information have to be accepted by motion at the next meeting after that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
No, this would accept the evidence. It could become part of a report, but there would be no motions placed or anything like that.
Mr. Easter.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, the reason that was put in, Larry, in previous times, is that there are times when there are not enough people here and witnesses come to town. I think it's unfair to witnesses who come here that if there are only a few members, the witnesses aren't heard. It's in fairness to witnesses, and it protects the government in that motions can't be made, but you can still hear the evidence.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Now, we still need a mover for that motion, if you're okay with that, Larry.
Mr. Bezan moves.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
We'll move on to the fifth motion on your list, 48 hours' notice for acceptance of a motion. That was standard from the last committee.
Is there any discussion on that, ladies and gentlemen?
Seeing none, Mr. Steckle moves.
Is the committee adopting that motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
On the next page, we have in camera meetings. It's fairly straightforward again. This was carried over from last time as well, that a copy of the minutes would be kept by the clerk for reference by committee members only.
Is there any discussion on that particular motion?
Seeing none, I need a mover. Mr. Easter.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
The next is payment of witnesses' travel and living expenses. There is one little correction to that. At the end of the third line, it should say “two representatives”. That was standard last time. Somehow we have “one” there. We will pay reasonable travel requirements for up to two representatives.
Does anyone have any concerns with that particular motion? Any discussion?
Mr. Miller.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I question the need for us to cover two. It's not a big deal, but at the same time most witnesses who come here have, in a roundabout way, something to gain for the organization they're representing, especially if it's a...I'll use the term “commodity group” or something else.
I guess it isn't a big deal, but I think a lot of times the witnesses who come here also have something to gain, and it probably wouldn't hurt their organizations to cover that second individual. I'm not going to cry over spilt milk if it doesn't get covered, but--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Now is the time to discuss it, Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Are you prepared to put that in the form of a motion to be voted on before the committee?
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I think I'd like to hear comments from some of the other members on the issue.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes. I would hope Mr. Miller isn't suggesting that we impose the greater costs on farm organizations when they're in a time of great need.
Like you, I do strongly support the two members. If it's the president of a commodity group, they often have an executive secretary, and they tend to work together. The president is often out in the fields or in the barns doing the farm business, and the farm policy end is assisted by an executive secretary or a paid staffer of the organization. So I think it's important to have the two witnesses: the farm side and the policy and technical side.
Really, I don't believe farm organizations have the funds. If the farm communities are in trouble, they're in trouble too. They just don't have the money to fund it themselves, but we need to hear from them.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Wayne and I both come from the farm politics side of the business, and he was a lucky person to have one of those staffers. I don't think they need their technical staff to fly here with them for a 10-minute presentation. I think one representative to carry the message for the farm organization is plenty. For fiscal prudence, I think what Larry suggested is a good idea--just paying one person. If they want to bring a staffer or an extra person, they should do it out of their own pocket. We will give them the opportunity to appear and carry the message for their organization.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
As far as I'm concerned, we're nickel and diming it. We've always reimbursed the expenses of two representatives. The arguments put forward thus far have failed to convince me. I don't think the committee is in such dire financial straits that it has to refuse to reimburse witness expenses. Regardless, persons will not travel here alone to testify. We won't force them into that position. I think it's reasonable of us to reimburse the expenses of two representatives, if they so request. If, after a while, it becomes clear the committee can no longer pay these expenses, then we can revise the routine motion.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I support the view of two representatives. Perhaps we can understand this part, because as chair, I know I didn't understand everything that came to this table. I was always pleased to be able to look to my right and refer to either my researcher or my clerk for guidance.
Many times, the president of an organization has not prepared the document that he's presenting, and if there are questions, rather than wait for further explanation by correspondence, it can be done then. I think it's important that when the organizations feel they should have two, that they be allowed to have two.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you very much.
I notice in our standing committee reports on expenditures that considerably less than half of our expenditures were used last year. Perhaps the clerk can explain. We have a large budget, compared to many other committees, yet we didn't seem to use it all. Was there a reason for that, notwithstanding the season?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
We didn't do any travelling. The big difference would have been, Mr. Boshcoff, that we never left Ottawa. There was no travel done in that particular timeframe. We had the option, but it just didn't work out. That would be the biggest factor.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Okay. I'm looking at some of the other committees, and we seem to be in the lower end for calling witnesses. If the committee wasn't doing a lot of travelling, then theoretically they should have been entertaining more witnesses. But they only seem to have used $13,500, as opposed to, say, $79,000 for Justice. You can see there are some differences there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Is that the briefing book document that we all received that you're quoting from?
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Yes. I'm sure everybody memorized it before they got here.
Conservative