AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 27, 2001

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning. Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. I think we'll start our meeting.

This will be the first organizational meeting of the committee, and we have some routine business to do. You'll find some draft motions, I think, on your desk, which are pretty well standard for most openings of different parliamentary committees.

Rick, with that, I would recognize you.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, first of all—and this isn't meant to be any particular kind of kiss-up to the chair—I do congratulate you on your appointment to the chair of the agricultural committee.

A voice: What do you want?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm looking forward to a wonderful time on the agriculture committee. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you're going to recognize you've got a lot of talent around this table—not necessarily on that side of the table, but certainly you have a lot of talent around here.

However, Mr. Chairman, I would make a request, if I could beg the indulgence of the committee. I have with me a delegation that has come from southwestern Manitoba, and I wonder if this committee would allow them to make a very short presentation. I would certainly look to the chair for some guidance here. We could complete the order of business before us right now, and then do it afterwards.

The Chair: I'd look for some direction from the committee on this. Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know this would be highly unusual, and I certainly wouldn't consider it just because of my good colleague Rick. But given what's happening in rural Canada and that the dignified people are here from Manitoba, I think we should give them a very few minutes. I would suggest we do it now. They have other places to go and things to do. I think we should receive them as soon as possible, right now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Howard?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): I also believe they should be given a few minutes here. We've got two elected MLA's there, plus other elected people from Manitoba. So since that's the situation and they're not just average people coming down as presenters, they're actually speaking for people, I think they could be allowed a few minutes before we actually start our parliamentary business. These motions may take some considerable time. I think it would be important to have them speak.

The Chair: It's rather unusual, but I think, as chair, I would indulge the committee, if there are no objections. If any single member were to object, I think we would have to....

Suzanne?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): What do the people making this motion mean by “a few minutes”? I don't mind hearing from these people, but it seems to me that they didn't step out of the plane five minutes ago. The member receiving them could have easily met with the chairman yesterday to talk about possibly extending the meeting, and the committee members could have been informed of the matter. We know the agenda for this meeting and we organize our schedule accordingly. I hope that, if there are any unforeseen events in the future, we will at least be given advance warning, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I did file a letter with the clerk, and I did have a chance to talk to the chairman. The time would be very short. I would suggest five minutes, Madame Tremblay, to make the presentation.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No problem. I have no problem with 10 minutes.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik did call me yesterday, and it was my feeling that, after looking at the draft and routine motions, we might have some time to hear from the delegation, subject to the committee's wishes. It would appear now that, under a time constraint, we would have maybe thirty minutes. Would that be sufficient to hear the group from Manitoba?

• 0915

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes. I think that's probably too much, Mr. Chairman. And for Madame Tremblay's purpose, perhaps we could make it a ten-minute presentation; I think the group would be prepared to do that.

Only ten minutes, Madam Tremblay?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: About 10 or 15 minutes, that is fine. I think that it would be good to hear them first because it is true that there are problems. I do not want to rush their presentation by limiting their time.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perfect. Thank you.

The Chair: Shall the chair then take the direction of a maximum of 20 minutes for this presentation? Okay. Thank you.

We welcome to the table—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think, Mr. Chairman, you possibly recognize this individual now approaching.

The Chair: I think it might be best, Rick, if the other members came to the table too, if they wanted.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, of the individuals here right now, I think you probably know the one in the centre. His name is Dr. Jon Gerrard. He is the Liberal leader in Manitoba. No, no, don't get excited—he's the only one in Manitoba.

I can very quickly do introductions. Mr. Walter Finlay is a member of KAP, which is the Keystone Agricultural Producers. He's their direction in Souris, which is in southwestern Manitoba. Mr. Ray Redfern is an agribusiness person in southwestern Manitoba with a fertilizer distribution centre. Dr. Gerrard you know. Manson Moir has been an elected politician all his life. When he was out of diapers he got elected, and I don't think he's changed since then. He is the reeve of a rural municipality. Jack Denbow is the mayor of Souris, Manitoba, and Mr. Larry Maguire is the MLA for Arthur—Virden. He is a Conservative MLA in the province of Manitoba. There are more of those than there are Liberals.

Dr. Gerrard and Manson Moir will be giving the presentation. Dr. Gerrard.

The Chair: Welcome.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sorry, I have one more silent farmer back here. Scott Rose, who is not usually this quiet, is a farmer in southwestern Manitoba. Scott, I don't know why you're way back there.

That's the delegation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, and welcome. We would like to meet under better circumstances, but it's always good to have farm groups come to our meeting.

Jon, are you...?

Mr. Jon Gerrard (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to start off with a few words. I have to leave in a few minutes, but you will have farmers and the mayors and the business people to ask any questions to.

I think we are all aware of what happened in 1999, that in southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan there was a major flood and wet weather event. This covered a very considerable area. Just by way of example, in the Red River flood of 1997 the area of the lake south of Winnipeg was about 2,000 square kilometres. In the 1999 flood and wet weather disaster in southwestern Manitoba the area of lake and mud combined that couldn't be seeded amounted to some 4,000 square kilometres. So it was a very large area. It has had substantial impact.

It is now, I think, almost two years after the fact, time to review and have a look at what went well, what didn't go well, in terms of the response to the situation. Perhaps I can table for people here a letter from the mayor of Minnedosa, who indicates his community as one that was significantly affected and is in very dire economic difficulties at the moment. They are, week by week, losing businesses that are closing down. This is a result of the flow through, in essence, of the lack of agricultural production and lack of income to the agricultural community in the area.

There are similar stories. Jack Denbow, who is here, the mayor of Souris, provides a similar story from his community.

• 0920

There was a Rose report produced in August of 1999. That report was not brought forward by the then Conservative government in Manitoba, and was belatedly brought forward by the NDP government in July of last year, but there has never been an initiative to respond to that. It would be nice to have federal partnership in that response, although clearly for the total amount that's being asked, which is $8.5 million, it could have even been done as a provincial initiative, without necessarily going to the federal government.

I think it is also clear that when one looks at the agricultural support programs and the capability to respond to the kind of disaster we had in southwestern Manitoba with the existing programs, there are some real gaps and holes. The bottom line is that there is not the capability with NISA, crop insurance, AIDA, etc., to adequately recognize the magnitude of what happened. So as I think you will hear from other members, this is an area people are still quite concerned about and would like some consideration for.

I think the third and fourth points I would make are, firstly, that when one is planning the future for disaster response, it is not just a matter of immediate response, but we need a program for mitigation of the disaster. The response in this area of southwestern Manitoba would be quite different from that in the Red River Valley, where you're building dikes. Here one needs a mixture of drainage, water impoundments to hold back water—in fact, in producing the water impoundments you provide the opportunity for improved irrigation. So over the long run you can lower the risk for agriculture in the area and improve the value. There are in southwestern Manitoba, I'm told, something like a million irrigable acres with increased production of potatoes and various other commodities.

The other thing is that in the wake of this—and we had a meeting yesterday with the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Art Eggleton—a review of how the DFAA conditions work is something that is needed at the moment. We made some suggestions trying to acknowledge that when you've got a disaster of this order, there should be agreements incorporated that will address the business, the non-farm business, and part of that should clarify how the overall response to the agricultural disaster occurs.

So with those comments, I'll introduce things. As I say, I have to leave, but I'll leave you with the rest.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Gerrard.

Mr. Manson Moir (Reeve of the Rural Municipality of Albert, Manitoba): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee. We do appreciate the opportunity.

Before I start, I would like to give a vote of thanks to our member, Rick Borotsik, for keeping this in front of the government for a number of months—two years now that we've been requesting this.

The Chair: Thank you. And for the record, would you just mention your name and position, so that they can be picked up by the staff.

Mr. Manson Moir: I am Manson Moir, reeve of the RM of Albert, province of Manitoba. I'm also a farmer.

Concerning the flood, one of our biggest problems was to identify it as a flood: you think of water halfway up a house wall, and that didn't happen in our area. But the land was so wet you could not work it, you could not sow it. In our municipality 77% of the acres went unseeded in 1999. So that relates to losing a year's income, and we weren't alone. There were other areas just as severely hit.

• 0925

We think the total economic hurt, the initial outside hurt, was well over $200 million. If you want to play some numbers game with the farm programs, we have received about $120 million. We've been asking for $85 million of assistance through the DFA between the province and the federal government. Dr. Gerrard pointed out that fell through the cracks just because of the criteria and the definitions of disasters within the DFA Act.

If we're not successful in getting some compensation from this, at least we want it to be recognized that there are times when we need to review these acts and fill in some of the gaps that are going to hurt, because it can happen anywhere. How do you accommodate those hurt who are outside the particular rules and terms of reference that carry on?

The hurt comes personally to each farmer with the effect that it has on our communities—small rural communities that are in the process of transition anyway. We know agriculture's changing and our communities are going to look different. We're going to have fewer people living in rural Canada and we have to address that. But we're asking for some time to address that. If a town with thirty businesses in it loses ten or thirteen of them, that's a pretty dramatic effect within a short period of time between early 1999 and 2001. These people don't get jobs locally. They have to go to the next place to find a job, and we're losing the population. In the last thirty years, the four municipalities in the southwest corner of Manitoba have lost 42% of their population. We're going to have to live with that, and we can address it, but we don't need the big push that has happened to us in the last two years.

One of the other things I deal with on a regular basis, being a local politician, is meeting people on the street. Whenever I go to a hockey game or wherever, or go to play cards with my neighbours, I get the sense there is a quiet desperation out there. You may not be hearing a whole lot, but we do make little news items every once in a while. I like to use the phrase and the term “quiet desperation out there” because people are desperate in knowing that sometime within the next year or two they're going to have to make a decision on what they're going to do with the rest of their lives.

I've spent most of my time trying to find things for the 18- and 20-year-olds to do in our community when they graduate from high school or come back from university. I'm more worried about the 40-year-olds who are farming and have businesses, because they still have some time in their lives to do something and it won't be done in small rural communities. They'll be looking for something in larger areas.

Mr. Chair, I would again say thank you for this opportunity. I do appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rick, is there another presenter?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Not to my knowledge, no. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. I think it was important that the committee hear....

The Chair: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): You said that we need to review the DFA. Can you just give us a quick explanation of that?

Mr. Manson Moir: The Disaster Financial Assistance Act.

Mr. Wayne Easter: What changes need to be made, from your perspective?

Mr. Manson Moir: Land restoration is one. It mentions that, but it doesn't get specific enough about how that goes about because each case is different, whatever it might be. Maybe Ray Redfern, because he's involved in agri-products, can give us a little more insight in that question.

Mr. Ray Redfern (Rural Disaster Recovery Coalition; Owner, Redfern Farm Services): Yes. My name is Ray Redfern. Besides being the chair of a coalition of broad groups, I am involved directly in the industry.

Perhaps I can only use the example that in the case of cereal crop land, land restoration usually means the replacement of things like lost inputs. We're talking about the reduction of fertility, of course, that occurs when you have leaching of product. In many cases when a flood like this occurs, farmers would have been preparing for next season. They've already invested considerable millions of dollars in putting on nutrient for that season. In this particular case, the flood would have leached it all away. So you're talking about the loss of nutrients that were put on—in other words, a direct replacement of cost, not of an income opportunity, which is the non-insurable loss of a DFA program.

• 0930

Weed control would be the second thing that comes to mind. From the bit of press we have had, you can imagine that the weed problem has became acute. To return land to a normal seeding or usable state—with weeds that have become rampant—time and energy and certainly cost were involved.

So those were the two most costly expenses in terms of direct attributable losses that farmers had in the area. Not only in terms of unseeded acres, but also for those acres that were reseeded again there was considerable cost to reseed them the same year.

That would be the short version.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We're not asking questions, I guess, so I'll just ask the chair if maybe we could cover the situation with regard to farm financing. Could we see if there's a possibility that farmers can handle this on their own for this year's crop? What are the projections? Do we expect the income from grain to be good? Do we expect that fertilizer and fuel prices are going to drop to where farmers can make a profit?

Maybe we should cover it briefly. Farmers want to handle things on their own, and if they could they would. I'm asking you to help them cover that.

The Chair: I'll hear Jerry too, and then we can probably think about the two together.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): With regard to emergency funding, it's my understanding that there is a federal-provincial agreement that requires certain things be done by the province in proportion to population before the agreement kicks in. In other words, in order to save reasonable costs—I think it's one dollar per resident in the province—the provinces have to cover those costs before federal moneys will kick in. That was the agreement struck by all provinces and the federal government.

I'm not sure it's falling through the cracks, but you don't meet the requirements of the agreements. Is this a request to change the negotiations of the agreements, or is it a request to go a different route? That's really the crux of what I'm getting at.

The Chair: These are two separate matters—the crystal ball Howard is looking at, and the concerns.

Can someone answer the primary question first?

Mr. Larry Maguire (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba): Yes, thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Pickard, this group is not asking for anything different from what happened in response to the 1997 flood of the Red River Valley, when a precedent was established. Whether it was the Red River Valley, the Saguenay, the ice storm here in Ottawa in 1998, or the tornado in Edmonton some years before, they're looking at the economic recovery initiative program that was developed in 1997.

There have always been specific issues or specific programs developed for each specific disaster. These people are talking about a natural disaster. If the loss of income had come from any kind of management mistake these individuals had made, they wouldn't be here before you today. They are quite willing to bear the cost of their own personal mistakes. But this was a natural disaster similar to other disasters that have occurred in Canada. It just didn't make the front pages.

There wasn't a house floating down the river, but there were 55 inches of rain in an area that normally gets 12. It was not a flood of the river; it was the saturation of a land mass that caused 1.1 million acres to not be seeded.

The Chair: Can somebody answer Howard's question about the crystal ball for 2001 and 2002?

• 0935

Mr. Manson Moir: I think he raises a very good point. We're not looking for anything more than something that's really cost us, and it has cost us big-time here. We're prepared to become farmers that are going to generate enough income to stay on the farm, and that's going to take some diversification. To do that, we need.... We've lost a year's income and we have less money to move into being more self-sufficient and diversifying.

One of the other problems we had with this is that in 1999, when we were down here a year ago—a larger group, but most of us who are here today—we said we'll get through 1999; it will be 2000 and 2001 when the hurt really starts, just because we're going to be a year without income. I think we're just asking to pick up a piece of the hurt that hasn't been addressed. It was a natural disaster. That's all we're asking for.

The Chair: Howard, are you satisfied with that?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, are you comfortable with the time?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): I'll make this really quick.

I remember when we went through that in 1997. The national disaster fund basically stipulates that a capital asset is destroyed by moving water. I think the issue we have in front of us right now is very simply that there is a capital asset the farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have invested in the soil—it's called fertilizer, herbicide, and everything else like that—and the fact that the level of rain you got that year, while it wasn't moving water, was a flood nonetheless. So there has to be a rewording of the disaster fund to address the issue you're facing.

The other issue, to basically talk to Howard's point, if you look at what the projected weather is going to be this year.... In 1997 it was a great big mass of blue where you are, dark blue. If this holds true all the way through, we have a repeat of 1997 coming up this year.

Would I be right in my assessment, Ray?

Mr. Ray Redfern: The possibility certainly exists. Our members of the legislature from Manitoba were briefed the other day, and they could add more to it. The reality is we have fields that are very high in moisture content already, the whole southwestern part of the province, and there is flooding forecast for the Souris River, which is in the centre of the area you're asking about. So yes, the possibility clearly exists.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: On a short point of clarification, I didn't want to misunderstand you, Murray, but I wasn't asking for a forecast on the weather; I was talking about income and costs. I know we have reporters here, and I don't want to get it reported that I was asking for—

A voice: It's still a pertinent issue, Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Fertilizer is going down in price, is it?

Mr. Ray Redfern: Yes.

The Chair: With that, are there other quick concerns or questions? No?

I'd like to thank you for coming today. You are the first group to appear before our committee. As I mentioned before, we'd like to meet groups under better circumstances, but certainly it will be a point of concern, and I know that our members will want to discuss this further when we look at the various farm situations across the country. So thank you. And let's hope that this dark cloud people talk about won't be a concern this spring and summer. In any case, bonne chance dans votre travail. Hopefully you'll have a good year in 2001. Thank you.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you to the committee, by the way, for their indulgence.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, they don't get a round of applause?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: With your indulgence, we'll now look at the draft routine motions.

The first one deals with the subcommittee on agenda, in other words the steering committee. I would look for a motion on how that would be set up for the coming year.

• 0940

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I honestly think that rather than make a motion and set up a subcommittee.... Every person sitting around this table realizes that we have a real disaster in grains and oilseeds. As far as I'm concerned, that has to be the number one issue of this committee. I don't think we need a subcommittee to come back and tell us that. I think this committee has a vested interest right across this country, whether it's western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, or Atlantic Canada. That is the number one issue. There have been emergency debates in the House. There have been all kinds of representations to the minister and to every member of Parliament. There's no question, if we don't go to a steering committee.... I don't think that does anything to bring up an agenda—

The Chair: I don't mean to interrupt, but I think we have to look at how the committee is to work. It's only part one of a number of points here that we have—in fact nine of them—on how we are to operate.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I think—

The Chair: I need a motion to establish whether it should be the entire committee, or whether it should be representatives of the committee. In the past, with most committees, they would have the—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think I have the floor, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: You do, but I've ruled you out of order. If the committee feels I haven't ruled properly, I will agree. Is there anyone who feels I'm not—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: You're ruling me out of order.

The Chair: I ruled you out of order because I've asked now to set up our routine motions and how this committee is to work. If we don't establish how we are to work, then we won't be able to work. It's my assumption as chair that we should determine first what our operation should be.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I am prepared to move...

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chair, I'm not giving up the floor that easily. I believe I had the floor, and I was dealing with how we should structure. I feel that I still have the floor. I don't think you can just step in. The committee here can rule me out of order. That's fine. But quite frankly, I think I had the floor.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We don't have any procedural rules. First of all, we need to establish the procedural rules before you take the floor. This is essential. We don't know how we are going to operate yet.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: There are standing rules in every committee. We do have rules in committee at this point in time.

The Chair: It's my assumption, Mr. Pickard, that we do not have rules in committees. The committee is its own master—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's correct.

The Chair: —and as master, we have to set up the rules by which we operate at one of our first meetings. I believe you have in front of you a draft prepared by the clerk consisting of some three pages, which outline—and it can be done very quickly—what those rules should be.

Rick, I'll go to you and then to Madam Tremblay.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of order, I don't disagree with Mr. Pickard, but there's a time and a place to debate that particular issue. I wonder if we could do the routine motions—get the rules. On the agenda there is other business. If Mr. Pickard wishes to suggest at that time that our first item on the agenda should be that of grains and oilseeds and support systems, I would agree with him a thousand percent. Maybe that should be done under other business after we get the routine procedures done. Then we can strike at that time the first item of business for this committee. If Mr. Pickard wishes to put that forward as the first item of business, then I would certainly be prepared to support him.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: My point, Mr. Chair, was clearly that I believe this committee sets the agenda, not a subcommittee set aside by the chair and two vice-chairs. Clearly, I'm asking that this committee.... That was what your debate was. Every person around this table knows that's the main issue.

The Chair: As chair, I have no difficulty with what you say, but I think we have to follow a certain procedure and—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: But the procedure would be to use this committee to set the agenda.

The Chair: Howard and.... Suzanne, I'm sorry.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That was my turn.

[Translation]

I move that the subcommittee consist of the chair, the two vice-chairs and a member from each opposition party. This is my motion for item 1.

[English]

The Chair: I never knew being chair would become such a difficult job just to get started.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: To clarify this just a little bit here, this subcommittee on agenda and procedure will meet and advance to the committee as a whole what we believe should be the agenda. The committee can vote us down and say that's not the agenda we want as a committee. I would think that the chair, the two vice-chairs, and one member from each of the other parties would be sufficient to sit on that. What would be the matter with that?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Just to make a suggestion.

• 0945

The Chair: Mr. Pickard, it will probably take about 15 minutes to set up these procedures.

After that it's my intention to look for items of business. With that you'll have an opportunity to bring forward to this committee what our future business would be. You've been in Parliament much longer than I have, but at least for the seven years I've been on committees, that's the way it has always worked.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chair, I said I would move that the chair, the two vice-chairs, and one member—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have already made this motion. There has already been a motion seconded by my colleague from the Alliance. We don't have to move anything, because it has already been done.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, you do have a motion on the floor.

The Chair: It appears that the wish of the committee is that we have a motion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What is the motion?

The Chair: Suzanne, would you please repeat the motion, which is standard, I think, for most committees.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I move that the chair, the two vice- chairs, a member from the Bloc, a member from the NDP and a member from the Conservative Party do compose the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure... This motion was seconded by my colleague.

[English]

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'd like to see the parliamentary secretary sit on it.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I don't mind.

[Translation]

I am including this to make things easier, so that we do not have to pass an amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Just for clarification, we would wind up, then, with the chair, the vice-chair from the Alliance and the one from the Liberals—

An hon. member: And the PS.

The Chair: The parliamentary secretary was not mentioned in your motion.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We added this while you were talking.

[English]

An hon. member: It was a friendly amendment.

The Chair: You added the parliamentary secretary, so that would be four. The Alliance would end up with only one, and the Bloc would have only one.

Are we comfortable with that motion, then?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I don't have any problem with that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about the subcommittee. When we meet as the full committee, the majority wins.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I don't expect to win any battles in this subcommittee. We're going to work together on just setting an agenda. It's not going to be a vote situation, anyway. The committee as a whole can rubber-stamp that or else change it after some discussion. So I don't see why this is such a big problem, this first one. It's just whether you want to try to get eight people together instead of three. It's easier to get three or four together. But if you want to get eight together, that's fine with me.

The Chair: Jerry, on debate.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, the fact is the parliamentary secretary wishes to be on the committee. That's clear, and that's no problem. Every opposition party wants to be on the committee. We already have an executive structure in the committee. What we end up with is either having the committee sit or half the committee sit. In reality what we're talking about is a subcommittee where half the members sit and discuss issues and the other half of the members are excluded from setting the agenda.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: To discuss the agenda; we're not discussing issues.

• 0950

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It's still a discussion. It still was one. I see absolutely no reason that's more efficient, moves faster, or achieves more without half of this committee. There have always been debates on—

The Chair: One last—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Just a second, I still have the floor, I believe.

There have always been debates in that regard. I see no advantage of going down the route of having half of this committee as a procedure group.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard, you're speaking against the motion.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I certainly am.

The Chair: Is there further debate on the motion?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a question. We had a steering committee last time. It met beforehand so that our two hours in committee could be fully used dealing with the important issues. With regard to the agenda items, we did that beforehand, and that saved time during the committee meeting. We could spend a whole committee meeting arguing about the agenda. Let's get most of that done beforehand.

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Chair: We'll hear from one more. Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I made my point, Mr. Chair. I've sat on steering committees, and I've sat on committee. The subcommittee on agenda and procedure is extremely important to the efficiency of the general committee. The general committee is always in charge, because it can overrule anything the steering committee does. But it makes the system more efficient in terms of getting your witnesses together, planning your agenda items, etc. It saves time for the full committee. So I support the motion that's proposed and ask that you call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second routine motion is that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I so move, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I second it, Mr. Chairman.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided at least so many members are present, including one member from the opposition. This works both for and against. Sometimes we have delegations come, and it's difficult to get enough members to respect their visit here to the city and to the capital. What are your wishes in terms of a number there?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, I wish to amend the last line of the motion to read “one member from each of the opposition parties”, as opposed to “one member from the opposition”. I do that for the simple reason, Mr. Chairman, that if the Bloc were unable to attend or any one of us, it would not be too good. If a party notifies you that they choose not to be present, that's one thing, but just to go ahead and hold the committee meeting without all the parties being represented is not a good idea.

The Chair: Is that a motion, Howard, you're making, that it include one member from each party?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Each of the opposition parties, to have a reduced quorum.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): What about the government side?

The Chair: I'll look for a seconder. Dick, are you going to second this motion?

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): No, I was—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Obviously with the government members, too.

The Chair: Is there a seconder, then?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: So I can't entertain that, then.

Dick, did you have a motion?

Mr. Dick Proctor: No.

The Chair: Jerry, did you have a motion?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I think a reduced quorum is important. I think the question arises whether or not the committee can vote with a reduced number.

An hon. member: To receive evidence.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: The whole point is that if this committee meets with a reduced number, there's no danger of usurping anybody's democratic rights. We have witnesses come. It could be at the last minute that the chairman feels it's extremely important to hear that testimony. I believe if he notifies everyone on the committee, it facilitates a tremendous amount of communication, whether it's someone out of Quebec, western Canada, Ontario, or Atlantic Canada.

• 0955

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to give you the opportunity to call a meeting with a reduced quorum in order to continue to hear evidence. There's no reason. Just to be on a reasoned side, I would make the motion that five members or four members in a reduced quorum would facilitate opportunity.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'll second that motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It's been moved and seconded.

I'll just caution the committee that in the past it was three, but if we....

Mr. Jerry Pickard: With the permission of my seconder, may I make it three?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, five.

The Chair: Howard, debating on five.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll just quickly say that we have seventeen members here. There's no way three members are going to go out to hear presentations and ask questions of some presenters. That's to the point of being ridiculous. I think a more appropriate figure would be something like ten.

An hon. member: Going once, going twice....

An hon. member: Call the question on five.

The Chair: Okay, just to be sure then, Howard, are you amending that from five to ten?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, I'd amend the number of members in a reduced quorum to ten. If we can't get ten members of this committee together to hold a hearing, then we shouldn't be holding that meeting.

The Chair: I can't entertain that amendment. The normal quorum is nine, but you're putting it up to ten.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What's the matter with a quorum of nine then? Make your motion, pass it, and I'll amend the motion that's there, then, if it's down to three. I'll try to amend it.

The Chair: Okay, we have a motion on the floor for five.

Some hon. members: Call the question.

The Chair: That could be amended, so I'm looking for an amendment.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): If we have the motion for five, which I support, I would like to amend it to say that at least two should be from the opposition.

The Chair: Is there a seconder for the amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, dealing now with the amendment, we'll go to Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I'm going to speak to the amendment.

You talk about two opposition members. What if there were someone here to give witness and the opposition parties wanted to veto that person coming in. They could stay away, thereby nullifying the people being able to give testimony. I think that would be wrong.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I just have a question for Mr. Steckle.

Do you not think there should be some opposition represented?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Oh, absolutely. I would like to think you could have as many here as you want, but we should never have fewer than five.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: They're all invited. Every member has to be invited to that meeting.

Mr. Paul Steckle: For instance, if the witnesses were to be from a particular area of the country and three opposition parties decided to veto that witness, they'd stay away, and you therefore couldn't hear the witness. I think that would be against the rules of this place.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: You cannot withdraw, because I seconded you.

The Chair: I have to go to Wayne first, then I'll come back to you, Howard, okay?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Keep in mind that this motion is just to receive evidence. Any of us who have sat on committees all know certain circumstances in which there have been witnesses here and something has happened—either votes or something else—but we've paid their way to Ottawa, they've taken their time to prepare submissions, etc. For them not to be heard is very wrong. What this motion is doing, in those difficult circumstances when the full committee's not here for various reasons, is giving them the chance to be heard.

The opposition is protected. There might be three from the opposition and only two from the government on this list, for that matter, but at least there are five and there's the assurance of one, so Mr.—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: For clarification, you are then supporting what I'm saying on the two, on having at least two from the opposition. Because if there are votes—

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, I'm saying one is fine. I've been at meetings of the fisheries committee at which we've had more opposition than Liberals, but we've been able to hear the evidence.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But if you're talking about—

The Chair: Just a moment, here. We have to work through the chair. We can't get into a....

We have a motion and we have an amendment. Wayne, are you asking now for a subamendment to the other amendment?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, I'm just with the original motion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What is the amendment?

The Chair: Wayne has suggested one, but the amendment was for two from the opposition.

On the amendment then—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have not had the opportunity to fully discuss and debate, and a new issue has been thrown in by Mr. Steckle. I think that before the question is put we should have the opportunity to make comments in regard to the issues, and that one has not been addressed.

• 1000

The Chair: I'm waiting to hear though on the amendment. Now the main motion is for five with two from the opposition.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Right.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's the motion.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: The main motion is for five, the amendment is for two opposition.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Now you're asking for a vote on the amendment?

The Chair: On the amendment.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's what I'm speaking to. I would like to speak to that and I believe I should have the opportunity.

The Chair: You do have that right, yes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: On this issue of having two members of the opposition, no matter which opposition party, in a parliamentary democracy it is fundamental to democracy that the opposition be represented. For you to sit there and say that only the government should be represented on a given witness.... The ability to hold a reduced quorum meeting without the opposition parties should not be enshrined in our motions setting up this committee. That's my point. I support the amendment to have two members from the opposition there. I think it's a very important amendment that is fundamental to the operation of Parliament. This is a parliamentary committee and I think it's fundamental.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The main motion now is for at least five members, with one member from the opposition.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't have to be just one member. What the motion says is a minimum of one member—five members with a minimum of one member. It could be four members of the opposition and just the chair from the government. That's what it says. It's five members present with assurance that one is there from the opposition. That's simple.

The Chair: Okay, we'll look at Suzanne again.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, contrary to what Mr. Easter has just said, that does not even include the chair, because we are talking about five members. This may be five members from the opposition and we can sit and hold all of the hearings that we want. Consequently, this motion does not make much sense, because we could decide to chair the committee ourselves, hear any of the witnesses that we want, and you would be compelled to pay for all of that.

A Voice: No, no.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, yes. The expression in “at least one member from the opposition” does not exclude. However, it does not even include the chair or the vice-chairs.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, now we all have to stop talking together and address the chair. Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, Mr. Chairman, I found this discussion somewhat difficult to follow. It's very simple. This is only a matter of a reduced quorum which we may never even have to trigger, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that each and every member of this committee would like to be at all of the meetings when we hear witnesses. I have no difficulty with five members as a reduced quorum and certainly any numbers of members of the opposition being in attendance, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask for the question to be called, please, on the motion.

The Chair: Rose.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): This is absolutely ridiculous. If we can't get our act together here, how are we ever going to work for the good of the country? I agree with Rick, let's move on. We've had the agriculture committee before and we've gotten along. So I don't know why there is this horrendous upheaval here this time. Let's get our work done here and do some real business. Question.

The Chair: Okay, on the question, Howard, you want a recorded vote, I understand?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, I'll pass.

• 1005

The Chair: You'll pass on that.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I would move item number four, travelling expenses for witnesses.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We had some previous direction on number five. Howard, you've come back again with a change from the past.

As chair, I would like to mention one point. We have a large committee, and there's nothing more frustrating than being well down the list in terms of participating. We normally meet for about two hours. I would hope that all members can ask questions and be involved in that period.

With your understanding of that, I would entertain a motion on the allocation of time for questioning, beginning with how long the presenters have and then how long each of the various parties has.

Is there a motion?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll move, Mr. Chairman, that the witnesses be given up to 15 minutes for their opening statements, and that questions thereafter be allocated as per the notice I gave you.

Because of the proportion of members sitting in the House of Commons, I'd like to see the Canadian Alliance as first questioner with ten minutes, and the Liberals second with ten minutes. Then, as in Parliament, back to the Canadian Alliance for ten minutes; the Bloc for ten minutes; the Liberals for ten minutes; NDP five; and PC five. That's the way question period operates.

I'd be willing to amend that a little, but I do want to see more time for the official opposition, Mr. Chairman, than the seven minutes in the last committee you and I discussed.

The Chair: Rick?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, the Alliance has tried to put this motion through in all committees, and it has failed miserably. I suspect it will fail miserably at this committee as well.

We had an excellent working relationship in this committee last time. I believe the fifteen minutes for the opening statements is fine. It was seven minutes for the official opposition, seven minutes for the Liberals, seven for the Bloc, and then five for each of us.

I would be prepared to make that motion after we vote on this one, and I would call for the question.

The Chair: Now, Rick, I have to be careful here. Howard has a motion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'd vote on the motion. I called the question and the motion.

The Chair: I thought you were going to second it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, absolutely not. No.

The Chair: As you're the fifth party, I thought that....

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: My motion is specifically that the Liberals and the Canadian Alliance get ten minutes, instead of seven as we had talked about last time. Ten minutes, and then through the rotation of the opposition parties—but the parties that aren't the official opposition should have five minutes.

A voice: I'd like a recorded vote.

A voice: Anything to slow it down.

The Chair: A recorded vote would indicate that the Canadian Alliance members are opposed to this.

Do you want a voice vote on this, Howard, or are we satisfied to say that the Canadian Alliance...?

Mr. Charlie Penson: Let's find out how people are voting, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Well, I saw only three hands come up. Do you want the clerk to call the fifteen names, then?

• 1010

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, I would like the clerk to call a vote on this, because what we're talking about is questioning time for the largest opposition party.

(Motion negatived: nays 11; yeas 3)

The Chair: Now we'll entertain a motion for a different allocation of time. Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I would move that the witnesses be given up to twenty minutes for their opening statements—it seems to me that fifteen is a little on the short side—and then that we follow the procedure we had on the last Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and that was seven minutes for the official opposition, seven minutes for the government member, seven minutes for the Bloc, then it came to us, and then five minutes for the New Democratic Party, five for the Conservative, and then back around with five minutes for the second round.

The Chair: A seconder?

Mr. Paul Steckle: I will second that.

The Chair: On the motion, Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Proctor were to proceed as was done during the last Parliament, I have here the text that was agreed upon by your committee:

That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven minutes to the first three parties during the first round and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to the two other parties and to the government party during the second round, alternating between opposition and government parties, at the discretion of the Chair.

The last time, 10 minutes were allocated. Earlier, I suggested 15 minutes. I feel that 20 minutes is too long because there won't be enough time to ask questions.

People generally bring us a text. We can refer to this text. They speak to us for 15 minutes. What is important is that we have as much time as possible to ask them questions, to discuss issues with them and to ask for clarifications. It would seem to me that if we took 15 minutes and that first the Alliance and then the Bloc could ask questions, followed by the NDP, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, alternating between the parties, that would work. I think that if we time them... What counts most is that we ask intelligent questions. It's not so much the time that's provided, but rather what we say that's important.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame. Are you suggesting, then, an amendment from 20 minutes?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to propose that the motion be amended by replacing “20” with “15” minutes.

[English]

The Chair: Is there a seconder for the amendment?

• 1015

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'd be prepared to withdraw the first part of mine.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like to comment on that.

The Chair: Dick, you've withdrawn?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm prepared to, as a friendly amendment, if you want to go with 15. There seems to be some agreement that 15 should be the case, and I'm prepared to yield on that point.

The Chair: So the motion now before the committee is that we have 15 minutes for the opening statement by the witnesses, and after that the seven minutes, then reduced to five. Is there debate on that motion as it now appears before the committee? Howard?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, there is. Last committee, you'll remember, as the official opposition we got our seven minutes, but we got one question, and then it went through the whole rotation before we ever got another question. We're sitting here with three members. That is patently unfair; it's not right according to our official status in Parliament.

My suggestion is that the question rotation be Canadian Alliance seven minutes, Liberals seven minutes, Canadian Alliance seven minutes, and then through the rotation. That would be fair, because, Mr. Chairman, we have 66 seats in this House of Commons. On this agriculture committee we have three members, the NDP have one, and the PCs have one, and they get the same number of question periods as we do. So my change is simply adding in one Canadian Alliance after the Liberal seven minutes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, but there's a Liberal after the Bloc. You guys get more time than anybody.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He is confusing us.

[English]

The Chair: Howard, I would take that as an amendment to the motion that Mr. Proctor has made. Now, if there's a seconder for that amendment, to give the Canadian Alliance another seven minutes—that's what you're saying.

Is there a seconder, Garry, on that?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. But I had some other comments. I've been trying to get in here for quite a while. We're a bit disorganized in our whole discussion here. We're talking about the 15 minutes, then we're talking about the rotation order. I'd like to get back to the 15 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I think there should be some flexibility on that. My experience on this committee has been that sometimes you have four or five people sitting there, and they represent—

The Chair: Garry, can I allow you to come back to that after we deal with the amendment? You're speaking on the main motion, and I'd like to deal with Howard's amendment.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I thought that Mr. Proctor had put something forth for our consideration. That's what I'm speaking to.

The Chair: That is the main motion, and there was an amendment made to it. We have to deal with the amendment before we go to the main motion.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: What is the amendment?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The amendment is simply the rotation, and that the Canadian Alliance get the first question period, the Liberals get the second question period, and then the Canadian Alliance get the third question period, followed by the Bloc, the Liberals, the NDP, and the PCs.

The Chair: Now, is there a seconder for Howard's amendment?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Of course.

The Chair: Garry. Speaking, then, on the amendment—Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, what is important, is that there is no confusion. What is being proposed, is to respect how we proceeded in the past. In the past, the Canadian Alliance asked a question, the Bloc Québécois asked a question and the Liberals asked a question. After that, we started again and it was the NDP's turn, the Conservative Party's turn, and the Liberals, and after that we alternated. That is what we did in the past.

I don't think we can alternate: Alliance, Liberal, Alliance, Liberal. It makes no sense. What are we suppose to do here, we other members of the opposition? If they would like, we could make a compromise and give the Alliance ten minutes for their first turn. They would each ask questions for five minutes because there would be two of them. Then, we could move to the Bloc Québécois for seven minutes, then the Liberals, then the New Democrats and finally the Conservatives.

This is what we did before. We can accept a compromise to provide more time for them because they have more seats, but maybe not a greater percentage of the votes. It remains that there are after all four opposition parties. These four opposition parties received 60% of the vote in Canada. The Liberals received 40%. What are we going to base ourselves on to organize business? With all the work that we have to do, we cannot spend useless hours doing this. If we go beyond this, I don't see how it will help to work those additional hours. That is the compromise that I am proposing: a subamendment providing ten minutes for the first turn, or two five-minute questions each.

• 1020

[English]

The Chair: I really don't want to accept that subamendment because it doesn't pay respect to Howard's original amendment.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We could put in an extra—

The Chair: Are you willing to go with the ten minutes for one, rather than...?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think my amendment is to have a second question period for the Canadian Alliance in that first round.

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to move my amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, you wish to give your amendment now.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, I would give them ten minutes for their first turn.

[English]

The Chair: Is there a seconder for the motion?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I second that.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we're on the main motion. Are we ready for the question?

An hon. member: Yes, we are.

The Chair: Now it's back to Gary.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I really feel we're tying our hands by limiting it to 15 minutes. I think we should allow the chair some flexibility, at least 20 or 25 minutes. What we experienced in the last Parliament is that you sometimes have several speakers coming before the committee, and if you're going to limit it to 15 minutes, some of them don't even get an opportunity to make a presentation. I think it's ridiculous at this point to try to say, you will be allowed only 15 minutes and then we're going to go to questions. Some of their presentations are much more important than our questions.

The Chair: We'll now turn to David, and then Jerry.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): I think he has a good point. What we could look at is maybe saying a maximum of half an hour for the presenters.

An hon. member: That's a little bit long.

Mr. David Price: Sometimes we do have four or five witnesses there, and they each need to take part. Then sometimes we have witnesses on different subjects or....

An hon. member: I agree.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, these rules set the basis under which we try to operate. At any time this committee can make an exception to the time limit. So if we do have five members here, at any time the chair can say, if the committee agrees, we need to add a little extra time for this group in this specific case. There's no reason that can't be done. It has been done ever since committees started in this Parliament. I don't know why we're debating that, because it's a non-issue, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That was precisely the gist of my intervention. We will decide each time if we need more time. Please put the question on the motion.

[English]

The Chair: Are you ready for the question, then?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I just want to have it on the record, Mr. Chair, that you should be allowed flexibility even on the time allotted. You can judge if somebody's just blowing wind, and you can also decide whether it's a serious question and should be answered. I don't see that we need to tie our hands so rigorously with a lot of this. It flies in the face of democracy and of what actually happens in this committee. I think we should be allowed some flexibility in all of this.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Moving on now, we'll hear from Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I move that we adopt number six.

An hon. member: I second that, Mr. Chairman.

An hon. member: Call the question.

• 1025

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to speak, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Do you wish to debate?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes. I think that 48 hours is a bit much. Twenty-four hours would be sufficient. Why do we need 48 hours to know if we are going to put something on the agenda or not, or whether or not we will discuss an issue? If you realize on Tuesday that you want to speak to something, you are unable to discuss it during the week because the 48-hour notice required does not allow you to meet Thursday to discuss it. I think that 24 hours is clearly sufficient.

[English]

The Chair: Just a moment, that is an amendment changing it to 24 hours.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, 24 hours.

[English]

The Chair: Is there a seconder?

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): I second the motion.

The Chair: Is there discussion on the amendment from 48 hours to 24? Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, it's a good amendment except that we have weekends, and there we'd have to watch it. I'm sure people would not want the notice to always be given on certain days of the week.

The Chair: Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, we have to look at the issue of translation and everything for whatever is put in front of us. Quite frankly, there is a shotgun clause in this by saying that if there's unanimous consent of the members of the committee, you can waive the 48-hour rule.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on the amendment?

Suzanne, do you wish to speak to the amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, given this committee's experience this morning, I have to wonder when will we be able to reach unanimity.

[English]

Mr. Murray Calder: That's a good point.

Call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now for the main motion of 48 hours' notice.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I would move number seven, that all documents be distributed to members of the committee only once they are available in both official languages.

Mr. Murray Calder: I would second that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, can we have an amendment made to that the same as we had on number six saying unless there's unanimous consent?

The Chair: For clarification, we have always recognized both official languages. When witnesses appear before us, we expect their documentation to be in both official languages. We do know that on occasion groups do come that don't have the documents translated. It is a considerable expense, certainly, for smaller groups that don't have a lot of financial resources. It is my understanding that in the past the clerk and the table officers could not distribute the single-language presentation, but the presenter could place it in front of us. We could then look at it in terms of coming from them rather than coming from the chair and the clerk. That has been the past procedure, and I think it has worked quite well. We look for everything that goes through the clerk or the chair to be in both official languages. It could come in French or English in terms of where the witnesses are, providing it doesn't come through us.

Howard, do you have a question?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can I speak to my amendment?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Again, my experience before the committee has been that we unnecessarily tied our hands with some of the witnesses that came before the committee. We could not even get unanimous consent, because it wasn't in our Standing Orders.

You've already made some excellent points, Mr. Chairman. Some of these people don't have the resources to do the translation.

We not only didn't allow them to distribute it officially, we didn't even allow them to distribute it unofficially.

I really think we should not tie our hands unnecessarily. With unanimous consent we could at least pay the courtesy of allowing them to distribute something to us. But they can't. That happened in the last committee, Larry, and we were not allowed to see or read what they had. We couldn't even go up to them and ask for it because the chairman said no. That defies common sense, and I think we should have the ability to do that.

The Chair: Murray, on the same issue.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, formally—and that's what this is dealing with right now—if the presenters come to the committee and they don't have their report in both official languages, they cannot present it to the committee. There's nothing to stop them from faxing that report to us the day before they come here, and that has been done in the past.

• 1030

I won't agree with reports being put out that I can't read or the Bloc members can't read. I won't agree to that because we are a bilingual nation. I think, in all fairness to us as committee members here, that we have enough smarts with us that we can listen to a presentation, take down notes while the presentation is being made, and ask questions.

Now, Garry, if you're not at that level, then I'm sorry for you. But on the other side of the coin, they could still put their brief into translation and we'd get it within a couple of days. I don't see a big deal with this.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can I reply to that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think that Mr. Calder should realize that some of the information we receive is of a technical nature. There are lines, there are graphs, and there are all kinds of charts available. That's a very condescending view to say we're not smart enough to realize some of this stuff. Some of the stuff they do present is not easily relayed by word of mouth.

Mr. Murray Calder: Then I don't have a problem with it.

The Chair: Okay. Jerry?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, unless we have a clear rule, our staff are in a position where they are unable to function. The rule is for the staff. It's not a rule for witnesses coming. Witnesses can make sure information is in every one of our hands. I totally agree with some of the comments Mr. Calder mentioned. It's very difficult for me if I receive a brief in French, as I wouldn't fully understand and be able to deal with it, or if some other folks on the committee received a brief in English and couldn't fully deal with it.

So as far as our staff goes, I believe any information coming through our staff is required to be translated and put before the committee. That's consistent with all the rules that we have in the House. I don't believe that it does restrict anyone from faxing information or putting information from the chairs, as the chairman has suggested. No one can stop anyone doing that. The reality is this is a technical issue for our staff and I think it has to be dealt with that way.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. If there were a group appearing before us with enough copies of their brief, but the copies were only in English, pursuant to this rule, we would not be able to receive one.

[English]

The Chair: No, that's not my interpretation of it.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Or could we still receive the English version while waiting for the translation? If that's the case, unless I do not understand...

[English]

The Chair: No. Can I just explain once more?

Normally, when witnesses come before this committee, they come at the call of the clerk and the chairperson. So when they prepare to come, they submit to the clerk their documentation. The documentation that is presented to the clerk or to the chair must be in both official languages. If we are to handle it and to pass it out to committee members, it has to be in both official languages.

On the other hand, if a group were to come and didn't have a written presentation, they might have documentation with them on the day they come that they would leave for us on our tables. It could be in one language or the other. It's their work.

But anything that goes through the chair and through the clerk has to be translated and available in both official languages. That's what we're saying. I don't know why it's here, Suzanne, because really this is the way Parliament and Canada operates for some reason.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I think everyone should know that it encourages the staff to say to every group, if you would like it distributed through the committee, bring it in the official languages. Otherwise, groups can just come around and pass material out. That is not the direction we wish to go in. Quite frankly, Suzanne has a good point on that.

I believe that, although we don't stop them, we discourage that type of action from occurring. The fact is, we encourage people to come with things translated so that everyone has it equally. But I think we're getting pretty picky if we don't try to encourage every group and if the staff says the only way we will distribute material is if it's bilingual. I think that's clear.

• 1035

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Pickard, I have no problem with what you're saying. That's not really my main point, however. I encourage the distribution in both official languages. That's not what I'm arguing against.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We go next to the in-camera meetings. Could I have a motion that the clerk maintain minutes of the....

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: And the seconder is...?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Seconded.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now we're down to working meals.

Mr. Larry McCormick: We won't ask you to propose this.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'll bring my brown-bag lunch.

The Chair: It's moved by Dick and seconded by Paul.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: I hope that the workings of our committee are more productive than our organizational efforts.

A voice: It's the old baptism of fire.

The Chair: With that now, Jerry has given notice that we do have other business here. Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes, Mr. Chair. There is no question—as I pointed out in some preliminary comments I need not repeat—that there is a crisis in this country and that the crisis affects many of our agricultural people. It's one that has been debated in the House in emergency debates. It's one about which there have been all kinds of comments and accusations made in that direction.

I believe that we, as an agricultural committee, have a responsibility to look very carefully at what we intend to do about U.S. and foreign subsidies that are affecting the sale of grain in this country. I believe we need to know exactly where the officials stand on actions to be taken to attempt to resolve this crisis. I know that we've heard many times that there are federal-provincial agreements. I know there's speculation that there may be announcements coming shortly and that there will be a ministers meeting in short order.

All these things are speculation, but I believe that it is the role of this committee to take what is the most important issue I see in agriculture presently and have a full hearing on that, unless some miracle formula comes up. Members on both sides of the House have suggested very strongly that it is the crucial issue of this country today. I certainly have been one of those.

Mr. Chair, that's the direction we should be going without delay. When I was talking about the procedure of having a subcommittee to set the agenda here, what I didn't want to risk was to have anything divert the agenda away for any reason whatsoever. That's why I strenuously opposed the proposal that we have a committee struck to set the agenda. We always leave open to all committee members the opportunity to have witnesses come forward, and we've always given every committee member the opportunity to invite witnesses. It is extremely important to go at that issue full tilt through this committee and to try to find answers and solutions.

The Chair: Murray, and then....

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I agree with what Jerry says. Another thing that we really have to be serious about looking at as a committee is what the federal government itself is involved in.

• 1040

We've just heard the Manitoba delegation this morning, and one of the things I see as a big issue this year is the fact that farmers, because they've had three bad years right now, are tapped out financially. We in turn have control over the Farm Credit Corporation, which basically is holding mortgages on these farms. I really believe we should have these people appear in front of the committee and ask them first what is the state of the mortgages they're dealing with, given the fact that the usual routine with a mortgage is, if you're three payments behind, the mortgage has to be renegotiated, or there is foreclosure, or what not.

So where are we with that situation? And how can we, as a federal government, direct the FCC to be perhaps a little more lenient towards the situation as it stands right now? I think that's a very important issue we should look at.

The Chair: Howard, and then Rick.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think she had a list going.

The Chair: There is a list.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: There is a list of six topics that have been given to the committee. Number one is the farm income crisis that has been brought up, and I thought we wanted to have some discussion on that first.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I thought the clerk was saying that somebody else was speaking before me. Is it my turn?

The Chair: I think it's your turn, and then Larry and Rick.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I support this motion, if it's reached that stage yet, that we hold the hearings into the farm income issue. I'd point out that we have to think a little bit about and agree on the witnesses to be called, possibly at a subcommittee meeting, to ensure that we delve into the this fully. The last agriculture committee didn't do that, and as a result, this time I think we have to get it right.

We have to include full examination of the safety nets programs, including the income disaster component, but we have to do it in the context of the relationship between our farm support and that of the U.S. in particular. Europe is over-subsidized. The European Union puts 50% of its whole budget into agriculture support—that's insane, and nobody's advocating going there. But we do compete very closely, and the major importer of our agriculture products is the United States. There is an invisible line between their farmers and ours, so those are our competitors. We have to make sure we consciously set up our hearings to get answers and recommendations in that regard.

This is what we're going for, recommendations to the minister. We want to suggest to the minister how narrow that gap should become, if it is not totally eliminated. That is our ultimate decision for report to the minister. Will we recommend total elimination of the subsidy gap between us and the U.S., or will we say that it should be a 75% difference? Farm income is absolutely the issue for this committee to study now.

The Chair: Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I thank you, Mr. Chair. Probably I can't add a lot to this, except that it's good to see we're all agreeing that the number one issue is the farm crisis.

I'm sure we all agree there's a short term need; we need money now, and we also need it in the future. We've all met with farmers from across the country in the last few weeks again. These are business people, and these business people know that, besides just needing a solution today, they do need a plan for the future, they need to know they're going to be in a viable business.

And I just want to put the word “community” in here, Mr. Chair, because as much as this crisis is with the producers, it's also within these communities. Almost every facet of the communities in rural Canada is being affected by this—the businesses, the social life, and so on. I just want to make sure we do address.... We can do the short term, we can do the long term, but one is as important as the other, and I think we have to work on it now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I don't think you'll get any disagreement from the members...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]...on the need to ease the immediate farm crisis. I think if we strike the first order of business, that in fact should be what this committee studies.

• 1045

My only input is to suggest that the minister be invited to appear before this committee, to explain to us what the government, the minister, and the department project for that particular issue—what support they think should be there, what plans they have in place. I think that should be the first step: to invite the minister to this committee.

Mr. Speaker, we should put forward not only an immediate agriculture plan, but a long term plan as well. It would deal with a—I'm not going to use the term “guarantee”, but a long-term safety net program that would give farmers some hope in the future, not only six months down the road, but six years down the road.

That's going to take some time. But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we get the minister here sooner rather than later.

The Chair: Other speakers?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, a whole number of items have been forwarded to the committee for debate. Will the subcommittee come back with a recommendation on which of these issues should be dealt with?

I know all the members have already filed their pet items, and a lot of them mesh with other members' favourites. But will the subcommittee bring these forward? I know Mr. Pickard probably won't like that, but is the subcommittee going to recommend coming back with the items to be studied?

The Chair: We have Thursday off this week, then we're off for a week, and then we come back for quite an extended period to look at issues.

Rick, you've made a suggestion.

Larry, I'm not sure we could really get department officials in here for Thursday to explain what they're doing to address this crisis. We could start this on Thursday, and then maybe take some time at the end to draft where we're going to go from here, as a committee.

We also have a small problem, because our regular clerk is not here for probably the next two weeks. But we could proceed, Larry, if representatives from the department meet with us on Thursday. Is that a possibility?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I know that people from all sides of the committee and all sides of the table have been most concerned that we address this. They have talked before about officials being here, and asked that the minister be here. I know that the minister wants to come officially, but I've not heard that either is available on Thursday. I understand the minister is not available, because they're working on this file.

I believe we should ask very strongly that he be here the following week. We can ask for the officials this Thursday, whether they can come or not.

The Chair: Howard, and then Jerry.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I don't want to have a repetition of what happened last time. I want this committee to have a coordinated effort and a well-thought-out plan, possibly drafted by the chairman, on just how he sees us proceeding with these hearings, to make sure we cover everything and have an idea of where we're going in our report to the minister at the end of the hearings, when we've had a number of witnesses come in.

I think it would be time well spent, in the next committee meeting on Thursday, to talk about what witnesses we're going to have. You could suggest them yourself.

For instance, in the issue of U.S. subsidies, we may consider whether we should have a presentation by some American representatives of the Department of Agriculture and that kind of thing. We should talk about this, and set out a very clear road map for these hearings and do it right this time.

We've raised other issues to study, but I don't think we should try to hold hearings into two or three different issues at the same time. I don't think anything is more urgent than this. Let's do just one issue at this time.

• 1050

The Chair: Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we deal with the grains and oilseeds issue. I believe we are all involved in trying to make sure there's a speedy solution to a short-term problem. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think it's wrong if we say we'll start this off in ten days. I believe we have opportunities on Thursday—at least if the minister's not available—to have officials here to talk about their perception of where we can go and what we can do.

I know there are federal-provincial agreements. Every person sitting around this table knows that. We know the minister's heading into some of those discussions in the very short term. We've heard rumours that there are debates at cabinet with regard to dollars and proposals that are being put forward. All of those bits of information are speculation, are rumour. We need to start dealing on Thursday, not ten days from today.

I have no problem with Howard's suggestion that we have to be well organized and have to move forward, but we can't move forward, Mr. Chairman, without getting departmental information in the first place. Therefore, I think we're not very far from heading in the proper direction by bringing the minister and officials in. Or, if the minister is unavailable, as I said, we can bring departmental officials in so that we can start the discussion at the same time.

I don't think there's anyone at this table who would really worry about three or four hours spent Thursday at one committee. Your steering committee can sit down and do the planning while we've implemented a start into getting the basic information from the government at the same time. I believe it has to be done Thursday, and I think the planning has to be done Thursday as well.

The Chair: Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I don't have any problem with what Mr. Pickard is suggesting, or with the urgency that is denoted. But I also note that, according to my schedule, the minister is at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. Also, John Ryan, from the Farm Credit Corporation, is speaking on Thursday, and that's also an area that has been raised here today.

Personally speaking—I won't attempt to speak for anybody else—it would seem to me to be useful to hear what those folks are saying at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Not to discount the importance of the steering committee dealing with other issues, but I just think that instead of trying to get officials here in two days—you're obviously not going to get the minister—our time would be better spent doing it that way.

Just to pick up on Rick's point about getting the minister before the committee early on, I agree. But I would also note from the last standing committee that we seemed not to have the minister here on a very regular basis. When I was at another committee, I was struck by the ease with which the chair was able to say that if members wanted the minister there the next Tuesday, he would be there the next Tuesday. So I would urge you, Mr. Chair, and perhaps the parliamentary secretary and others, to do what you can to ensure that the Minister of Agriculture appears before the standing committee a lot more frequently than what we saw in the last Parliament.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, that's right and fine, and I agree that the sooner we get at it, the better it is.

I just would like to point out something in regard to Jerry Pickard's comments about the issue.

I grew up on a farm in southern Saskatchewan in the fifties and the early sixties. This issue of reoccurring financial crisis has happened many times and for many different reasons, so for the idea that we're just dealing now with an immediate problem...well, it's not even immediate, it has been there for several years. We have to recommend to the minister a long-term solution to this issue. It's more than just a short term, and that's why I'm insisting that we try to have some planning to do more than just saying we need $1 billion or $2 billion this year. We need to recommend to the minister, from our hearings and from what people tell us, that here is the nature of a long-term solution and that it has to have some relationship to our competitors in the world of the export markets.

• 1055

The Chair: We have to vacate the room here in just a couple of minutes, so I'm caught between two things: one, saying let's start right on Thursday; the other saying let's be a little bit preparatory and let's meet on Thursday to review the various synopses that might evolve from the suggestions we heard this morning.

Although I'm one who would probably rather rush into this than wait for ten days, it seems that the committee is saying we'll meet on Thursday and we'll develop an agenda and work that through during the month of March. Is that acceptable to the committee? We would meet as a steering committee, in fact try to work out from there....

I guess I'll recognize Jerry again, and then Garry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your patience.

I move that we invite departmental officials to our meeting on Thursday. That's one motion.

I can't put a second motion on the floor, but I believe we need a second motion, which would ask the steering committee to meet at the first opportunity. And the steering committee doesn't have to meet Thursday; they can meet Wednesday or Tuesday or in the holidays, or whenever. But the steering committee should meet and structure a set of meetings that would start the week we get back to Parliament.

I think all of that needs to be done ahead of time. Right now, I believe we need officials here and to start the ball rolling. If I were a person ready to put seed in the ground and I didn't have the money to do it and were under that kind of stress and somebody came back to me and told me that the agriculture committee decided that ten days down the line is soon enough to start the discussions, I might change my mind on the gun legislation.

[Laughter]

The Chair: Is there a seconder for the motion that on Thursday we have a...?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, we just passed a motion in which we stated that we want to have 48 hours' notice for a motion, and now we want to pass a motion to ask staff to come and meet with us with less than 48 hours' notice.

It seems reasonable to me to wait ten days in order to know what we have to say, but if we go ahead without knowing exactly what to do... I think that Dick made an excellent suggestion. We know what is going to happen at the Crown Plaza Hotel Thursday morning: they will be discussing the crisis in agriculture. There are meetings held specifically on this issue. Why would we not go hear what those people have to say? These people would be indirect witnesses to what is happening in the sector. I believe that it is much more important for us to be at the Crown Plaza on Thursday than here quibbling on who knows what because we want to give the impression that we are acting quickly. There will be people there talking about the crisis they are experiencing. I think this is a bit rushed.

[English]

The Chair: I know. I'm just adding my time. Forty-six hours, Suzanne—but you do have a point.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: We don't have to meet—

The Chair: No, no, but I'm saying.... I'm going to Howard here.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just very quickly, Mr. Pickard is dead wrong on this thing. We have put this issue—all of us opposition parties, including now some of the Liberal members from the rural caucus—this issue of immediate assistance before the minister. It's been before him for the last four years. He's brought in the AIDA program. Protesters have been here for a month and a half now. The immediate issue is before the cabinet right now.

So we don't have to be rushing around here, saying “Look at what we're doing to the farmers. Look how great we are: we started a hearing here.” That's not very sensible. The minister can take action tomorrow by making an announcement. So what we have to do is get to the minister advice on long-term solutions to all this. The immediate evidence is before him. He doesn't need any more evidence to act today. What we need to do is advise the minister on solving this agriculture issue for the long term.

I've said it. That's it. No more.

The Chair: Jerry, do you want your motion put before—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I certainly do.

The Chair: The motion is that we have a meeting on Thursday with departmental officials to receive a briefing on what we call the “farm crisis”.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Who seconded the motion?

[English]

Who seconded the motion? You did?

• 1100

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On Thursday, then, as chair, I will call for a meeting of the planning committee to plan our meetings after we return from the March break. Are there any objections to that rule from the chair?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Chair, would the committee entertain the notion that we not have the meeting between nine and eleven on Thursday in order that those of us who think it might be more important to be at the Crown Plaza hotel in Ottawa and listen to the minister and the president and CEO of Farm Credit Corporation actually have the ability of attend both the committee meeting as well as the meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?

An hon. member: What time is that?

Mr. Dick Proctor: The minister is speaking at 9:30 on Thursday morning, according to my schedule.

The Chair: It is very difficult, I think, to change, with place and all that.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, I won't be here.

The Chair: We will meet then on Thursday at nine o'clock at the call of the clerk.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I was just advised that the minister is now speaking at one o'clock.

The Chair: That's my understanding. At one o'clock the minister is speaking at CFA, right.

Good gravy. We're adjourned.