AGRI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 7, 2002
| ¿ | 0905 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0910 |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
|
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, November 7, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0905)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. We have a very brief agenda today; under orders of the day, routine motions, and then future business.
Bienvenue, Louis, to our committee.
First of all, looking at the draft routine motions, these, I think, are pretty well standard motions that we've operated by in the past. There are no major changes. But we would need motions that we can record for the House to indicate that we've set up our procedures.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): So there are two members of the Alliance, then; two members of the government, chair and parliamentary secretary, so three; and then one of the other ones. Is that the idea? Is that standard?
The Chair: You're going down further now, are you?
Mr. Bob Speller: No, I'm on the first one.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): I would agree with Mr. Speller that we start at number one.
The Chair: No, I agree. But as I said, these were the same procedures we used in our last....
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I thought the numbers on the committee were contained in the Standing Orders or someplace like that. We don't have to write those down. There'll be three Alliance, eight Liberals, and so on.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chair, just as a clarification, in the last session did we not just have one member of the Alliance and one member of the Liberals, as yourself, the chair, or did we have the chair and the vice-chair from the Liberals?
And I'm talking about the first motion, on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. This is our steering committee.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Well, it says “a” representative of the Alliance.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The vice-chair.
An hon. member: The vice-chair could be that rep.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm just asking for clarification. What was the makeup last time?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): If you want to read it, according to what's written here, it's the chair, two vice-chairs--of which one is an Alliance person--and then it goes on to say “and a representative of the Canadian Alliance”.
¿ (0910)
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I would move the first motion, that we do have a subcommittee on agenda and procedure with the makeup as identified here on the agenda.
The Chair: Any debate?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: For clarification, that means that there will be a chair--yourself--and one member of each party? No? So you're going to have to have two from the Alliance; that's a clarification.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): You see? You should have stood for vice-chair. I told you.
The Chair: I guess what has happened here is that last time, if I remember correctly, this was the topic of quite a bit of debate. There was a problem with translation, and it got changed around a bit.
This is the normal procedure of the House, is it not, Madam Clerk?
The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chair: It's not last time's motion. I think this is the standard motion most committees operate with.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chair, that's the end of the debate from the Alliance. We're prepared to vote on this.
The Chair: So everyone is satisfied with that composition?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Motion 2 deals with our research.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Motion 3 concerns the reduced quorum.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Number 4 concerns witnesses.
Louis.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Why is it “at the discretion of the Chair”? Why not “according to established procedures”? The last line reads:
[English]
“at the discretion of the Chair”. Why is it not “at the discretion of the Executive Committee”?
The Chair: I don't know. It's the same everywhere, so I'm not sure. I've never had that question posed. We've never been too hard on that because we always allowed the clerk to.... But is there a reason for...?
The Clerk: It's pretty much standard in all committees.
[Translation]
This is fairly routine in all committees. In exceptional circumstances, the Chair would be authorized to...
[English]
The Chair: Are we satisfied, then, with motion 4?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Motion 5, is that standard? It's not what we had last time, I don't think. It's the standard, is it?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's not standard.
The Chair: Would somebody make a motion on that. Dick?
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I think we've had this discussion about the witnesses being given up to seven minutes before. I think we've always felt that was a little chintzy, and we've generally agreed on at least ten minutes for witnesses.
The Chair: Are you making a motion, then, that they be given up to ten minutes?
Mr. Dick Proctor: I would make that motion.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chair, I make a second motion, that the time allocations for the initial questions be the same as last time as opposed to this recommended one, which was seven for the Alliance, seven for the Liberals, seven for the Bloc, five for the NDP, and five for the PCs. That's what we had last time, I believe. I think we should stay with that standard, so my motion is that we do the same as what the committee did in the last session.
The Chair: So Dick made the motion, and now you're making an amendment.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No. He made a motion as to the time for witnesses.
The Chair: For the record, I think we have to have an entire motion. We can't deal with parts.
¿ (0915)
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Then I make an amendment to this.
The Chair: An amendment? Okay.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Dick made an amendment to the motion you put forward that it be....
The Chair: I didn't put the motion forward. Dick put the motion on the table, and now you would be making the amendment.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Then I amend his motion further to have the party allocation times amended also to seven, seven, seven, five, and five, which is per party. Is that clear?
The Chair: The amendment is on the floor for the time, then?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, absolutely. I don't know how you're going to handle this, Mr. Chairman, but we have a motion that's been amended twice, once with the time allocation to the speaker--
The Chair: No, that was not amended. This is only a proposed motion from the clerk. The motion that was accepted was the one Dick had put, and instead of seven it has ten. Howard has amended the allocation to parties.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'd like to speak against Howard's motion. I sit on a number of other committees, and as you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, this is the norm. This is the standard whereby all parties are in fact treated somewhat equitably at the committee level. We have, yes, Mr. Chairman, in the past gone to seven, seven, seven, five, and five. I would move a subamendment to have that read seven minutes for the first round, then going to three minutes for the second round, Mr. Chairman, and I would move that--
The Chair: I'm sorry, I can't take your amendment. I have to have a vote on Howard's amendment first, before I could come to....
Are we clear in what we're doing? Howard has proposed to amend it, and we're debating Howard's amendment. Howard proposes to amend it in terms of the time allocation per party. I'm going to put the vote whenever we're finished discussing it.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: When the amendment is either approved or defeated, then we can go to the next amendment? Fine, Mr. Chairman; all we have to do is defeat this one.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, do I get to speak again on my own amendment?
The Chair: I suppose I can allow that, very shortly.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think, Mr. Chairman, in the discussions we've had on this in the past, and the same holds true right now, that in fact the committees as they're established are a reflection of the House of Commons and the numbers of seats in the House of Commons. I think our committee should go by that standard, and thus the allocation of time for questioning is fair, because of the numbers of seats.
The Chair: Rose-Marie.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I spoke to this the last time it came up, and I strongly support that we all have equal opportunity. We were all elected. Yes, there are numbers and all the rest. Maybe it's not the norm at every committee, but why can't we set a precedent here in agriculture? We have been able to work beyond the political rhetoric here and have been productive and from my viewpoint have worked well with one another.
What difference does it make if we're the government or you're the official opposition or you happen to be the third or fourth party? I think it's important to show people out there--the people who have elected us to come here--that we're beyond the seven minutes or four minutes or whatever. Let's at this committee show that we're equals.
I would really strongly support that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you again.
David.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): One of the concerns I have is that this hasn't been equal at all, because it's come to this side, but it goes back to the other side each time.
Traditionally it's gone back and forth, and you've gotten five opportunities to speak, to the one or two that would come to this side.
An hon. member: Exactly.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It usually follows from you to the Bloc, then us, and back. So it's not back and forth.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Wait now, Howard. You've had a chance twice at this already.
Dick.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I would associate myself with Rose-Marie's intervention and just point out, in terms of the acknowledgment that some caucuses are larger than others, that given the fact the official opposition gets the lead-off question to witnesses, they get their full seven minutes and presumably the opportunity to ask the best questions. Then it works its way down. I think a fair allocation of seven minutes to each of the parties represented would be the just way to go.
¿ (0920)
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I call the question on the amendment.
The Chair: Okay, we're ready. All those in favour of Howard's amendment, please raise their right hands.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Could you repeat the motion, please?
The Chair: The amendment that Howard has requested is that the Alliance would have ten minutes.... No? Oh, ten minutes for the...and seven minutes for each of the parties.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, Dick's motion was to have ten minutes for the witness to present. My amendment was to have seven minutes for the Alliance on the first question, seven minutes for the Liberals, and seven minutes for the Bloc Québécois to ask the first question, and five minutes for the NDP and five minutes for the PCs. The reason was so that the committee could continue to work in the positive way it has in the past. Under that system we all worked cooperatively very well.
The Chair: Louis, are we clear on Howard's amendment? Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would move, Mr. Chairman, item 5, being ten minutes for witnesses, and the rest as identified there--seven minutes for each party, three minutes then allocated for subsequent questioners.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: How many minutes was that for the subsequent question?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Three.
The Chair: Is there any debate on that motion?
Howard.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, I don't think three minutes is long enough. I think we've gone with five minutes in the past, and it's only fair to the witnesses to have sufficient time. If your question takes two minutes to ask, that only leaves one minute for an answer there. I think that's insufficient.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, a friendly amendment; I'll make it five for subsequent rounds.
The Chair: Just before we do vote on that, a word of caution. We have a lot of people who spend time here at the table who may never get to ask a question if we take up too much time in the round. Is it fair to...?
For example, your party has three people, the Liberals have--
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): For the eighth person over here, it'll be three-and-a-half hours later that they could ask their first question.
The Chair: That's part of the problem.
At any rate, we're ready for the question.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now, going back to the main motion--we've looked at the amendments, which we've changed--that would be ten minutes, then seven minutes, and then five.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The notice of meetings; 48 hours' notice has always been the practice.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Distribution of documents.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: In camera meetings.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Item 9 has been moved.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Moving on to the matter of future business, we go in camera, do we?
The Clerk: For future business.
¿ (0925)
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Do we have to?
The Chair: I don't know. The clerk suggests that.
The Clerk: No, you don't have to.
The Chair: I can't see that we have a great audience here this morning, but we'll go in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]