[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
.1007 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), the election of the Chair is the first item of business.
[English]
I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that Lyle Vanclief be our chairman this year.
A voice: I'll second that.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): I'd like to ask the nominee for the chair of the committee, in light of the Western Grain Marketing Panel report and the minister's indication that he would respond before Thanksgiving, if he is chair of the committee, would he be prepared to have hearings with regard to the panel's report and the minister's response both here in Ottawa and out in the prairies, where it's a very important issue?
Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): Can the clerk preside a meeting? Is that formal?
The Clerk: Perhaps I can offer words of advice. I can't rule on any points of order that are raised. I can say that members of the committee are allowed to engage in a debate. I would leave it up to members of the committee to perhaps try not to carry that principle outside of reasonable bounds, but members can certainly exchange and have comments on the motion that's been put forward.
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I would submit that at the moment we are electing the chair and vice-chairs, and I would suggest that we attempt to get that resolved in terms of the balloting. I would move that we call for the question.
Mr. Hermanson: I'd like to support the chair. I think he did an excellent job last year, but this is an important issue and I just want to know his openness to doing this. It would have a great impact on my and my colleagues' support for the member as the chair of the committee. I think Lyle is prepared to respond to this; I don't think this is a difficult issue.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): I don't think this is the place for that discussion. It's not the chair's decision to make, whether or not the committee would travel or not; it's the committee's.
Mr. Hermanson: I asked if he would be open to it.
.1010
Mr. Easter: I think it would be difficult for the chair to take a position without knowing where the committee stands. I believe the discussion is irrelevant. We should get on with electing the chair.
Mr. Hermanson: I just wanted to know if the chair would be open to that process.
Mr. Easter: If he's a Liberal, he's open to debate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
A voice: That is doubtful. It's questionable.
Mr. Vanclief (Prince Edward - Hastings): I'm not campaigning for the position, but in response to the discussion, which quite frankly I think is irrelevant here, I will state that the way the committee has been conducted in the past and should be conducted in the future is that these types of discussions take place at the steering committee.
As we know, the steering committee makes recommendations to the full committee for the proposed agenda and the workings of the committee, and all of the normal processes for the committee's activities should be and would be followed as they have been in the past.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Toupin, it is up to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to make the decisions that are necessary. I move, and there is a motion to this effect, that we proceed with the election of the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: I just have a comment. I understand from Mr. Vanclief that he would not try to block any attempt and I appreciate that. Correct me, Lyle, if I'm wrong, but I understand that you indicated you certainly wouldn't try to block any type of investigation or hearings into the panel and the minister's response.
Mr. Vanclief: No one person on this committee can block it. No one person has ever been able to block it. It's a democratic committee, and it follows the normal rules, procedures and traditions of the committee. I see no reason why that should change.
The Clerk: It is moved by Mr. Glen McKinnon that Lyle Vanclief do take the chair of this committee as chairperson. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Vanclief duly elected chair of this committee and invite him to take the chair. Congratulations, sir.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that vote of - I think - confidence again, committee members. I didn't look up when the hands were shown, so we will leave it as it is.
The first order of business is to elect the vice-chairs. Motions for such?
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I'd like to place Mr. Glen McKinnon in nomination for the position of vice-chair.
The Chairman: Is there a seconder for that motion? Seconded by Mr. Thompson.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I second Mr. Reed's motion.
[English]
The Chairman: The clerk says we don't need a seconder for that motion. I'll call the question. We can have only one motion on the floor at a time. I'll call the question on the motion, which is that Mr. Glen McKinnon be first vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Is there a motion for second vice-chair?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I nominate Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien for the position of Vice-Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: There is a motion on the floor that Mr. Chrétien be the second vice-chair of the committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: That's correct, Vice-Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: I would like to ask Mr. Chrétien whether, if he has the position of the vice-chair, he would communicate accurately to the dairy farmers in his province that if they pursue the cause of separation from Canada the dairy industry in Quebec would in fact be in great jeopardy.
Mr. Reed: This discussion is out of order.
Mr. Hermanson: No it's not. This is the country we're talking about. This is not out of order.
Mr. Reed: It's out of order. The motion has not been voted on at this point.
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, but we have to know what kind of a person we're voting for.
Mr. Reed: That can take place after. You should -
Mr. Hermanson: Is that the way you like to get elected? You don't tell the voters what you stand for until after you get elected and then surprise them?
Mr. Reed: I have surprised my voters for the last 21 years.
.1015
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, you have the right to put your concerns forward. Neither Mr. Chrétien nor anyone else is obliged to respond to them.
Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you because we're moving in the same direction as we have in past instances when we've chosen chairmen and vice-chairmen. It will be a tremendous opportunity for me to bring it up at every meeting I have during the election, showing what kind of liberal democracy we have in this House. You're true to form in ramming through these positions again. It's four in a row. Congratulations; I must give you credit for that.
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, I find myself doing things according to the democratic principles and the democratic -
Mr. Hoeppner: Liberal democratic principles.
The Chairman: Excuse me. There is one motion on the floor at a time. If the Reform Party wants to have an organization where they have several motions at a time before an association or an organization, that's their wish, but the rules of order in any organization say that there's one motion.
There's a motion before the committee now that Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien be the second vice-chair of the committee. If there are no further comments, I call for a vote on the motion.
Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 3
The Chairman: The clerk advises that since it's not a new session, we do not have to reappoint the steering committee. So the steering committee remains as it was before: Mr. Hermanson, Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Easter, Mr. Pickard and the chair.
There are a couple of comments before we adjourn today. The clerk will be contacting the members of the steering committee in the very near future about the time and place for a steering committee meeting.
I welcome everyone back to the committee. There is no question it is going to be a busy session. That's been indicated already with the number of issues people want to discuss.
Some of you might have noticed in The Ottawa Sun yesterday an article by Robert Fife from the parliamentary bureau. When we have the opportunity, we might want to clarify with Mr. Fife the importance of the agrifood industry in Canada. I won't give him the credit he might like by quoting, but I think we should continue to remind people such as Mr. Fife that this committee deals with a major industry in Canada, one that certainly includes primary producers but goes far beyond the primary production level, providing close to two million jobs in this country. The export business alone is approaching $20 billion per year. It's about a $75 billion industry in our country, a major player in the balance of trade.
We do spend a considerable amount of time in this committee talking about such things as safety nets, trade issues, etc. It goes far beyond some of the things Mr. Fife noticed. I would suggest that if he's listening or watching maybe he would like to come and sit in on the edges of the meeting sometime, and realize how important the agrifood industry is in Canada.
.1020
Just so the whole committee can refresh its memory, we do have two bills that were sent to committee just before the close of our time together in June: Bill C-34, the one regarding cash advances to farmers, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, and the other, Bill C-38, regarding the Farm Debt Review Boards. Both of those came to committee after first reading. Maybe the clerk could give us little bit of a sketch in a moment on how we handle bills when they come to committee after first reading, because they usually come after second reading.
We have meetings arranged for Bill C-34, with witnesses, this Thursday, September, 26, and again next Tuesday. The first one, on Thursday, is at 9 a.m. and the one next Tuesday is at 8:45.
What we're going to try to do to keep things straight is deal with one bill as much as we can and then move to the other one, so that we're not going back and forth with witnesses and presentations.
I'm going to ask the clerk to explain to us, since we received these two bills after first reading, which is a little different from past procedure, how we deal with them in committee.
The Clerk: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if it's acceptable, I have written a very short briefing note that I would be in a position to distribute to all the committee members, which spells out the different process, because in fact it's a process that does allow for a greater scope in the types of amendments that can be put forward to these two pieces of legislation. If that's acceptable, I'd just as soon distribute that short briefing to committee members sometime this week.
The Chairman: All right. Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you've had any indication from the minister as to whether he intends to send Bill C-60 down the same route - send it to committee prior to second reading.
The Chairman: C-60, the Food Inspection Act? I haven't had any indication that it's coming after first reading, but I haven't discussed it with him.
Mr. Hermanson: Could you perhaps bring that information to our steering committee meeting?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Landry.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, in early June we had discussed the meeting of the representatives of all countries in Rome on October 12th or 13th within the framework of the International Year of Agriculture and Agri-food. I would like to know whether Canada or our committee will be represented there.
[English]
The Chairman: It's my clear understanding that yes, somebody will be going from Agriculture Canada. At what level? I don't know whether the minister himself is going, or who is going, but I will make note of that and find out, so we can all be made aware of the representation that will be there.
Mr. Easter, on that subject?
Mr. Easter: Yes, on that subject, Mr. Chairman. I'd just recommend, through you to the minister, that if somebody is going, it be somebody who is elected, rather than a bureaucrat. I find all too often we're represented internationally by bureaucrats in Ag Canada, and I think that somebody from the agriculture committee or the minister or his parliamentary secretary should be representing us - not bureaucracy.
The Chairman: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chrétien, a comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): I'd like to raise two points. The first is about Bill C-38. Could the Clerk provide us with the timetable on Bill C-38 in his briefing note? I would like to submit the name of a Quebec witness who is very interested in appearing before us to express his concerns about Bill C-38.
[English]
The Chairman: We're aware of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Moreover, this morning I phoned Mr. Marc Toupin, the clerk of our committee. As I understand it, he has contacted the Chair concerning the concerns and doubts about the US challenge to the tariffs applied to quota products, namely dairy products, eggs and poultry. I don't know whether it's appropriate to try to get a decision today.
.1025
[English]
The Chairman: I don't know whether there's a decision. I can just, from my own personal information, try to bring people up to date.
As we know, back in mid-July there was some activity and the NAFTA panel - I hope I will get this correct - made a preliminary draft report to both governments, which was to remain in confidence to the governments.
We all know that it appeared as though it did not stay in confidence very long. The press certainly made some comment on it, but our government did not make a comment.
There was a process in the NAFTA panel process in which each of the parties had fourteen days in which to respond to it, after which the panel had another fourteen days to take the next step. In case I got it incorrect, I won't try to explain what that was. Then there was yet another fourteen days, after which the NAFTA panel was to come forward with their final report and it would become public.
Apparently activities took place in all of those three stages, those three fourteen-day periods. However, as time went on, it appears as though the panel members did not feel that they had sufficient time to deal with it. They are all academics, and the bottom line was that there was mutual agreement of all parties that the panel not come forward with their final public report until later in November.
I have been assured that all players in the industry and all provincial governments and everybody in the industry have been kept up to date on this and are well informed of it. But it appears as if it's one of those things on which everybody agreed that the timeline could slip, and that's where it's at.
So I don't believe anything else has come forward on that issue, Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Mr. Chairman, would that announcement come after the American election?
The Chairman: I don't know when it will come. All I heard was that it would be later in November.
Mr. Calder: Yes.
The Chairman: If you want to look at it in that way, I would think if you look at the calendar the American election is earlier in November.
Mr. Calder: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Chrétien: My point was to find out whether you could hold an in camera meeting with senior witnesses from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food or from International Trade. I don't think it would be in our interest to hold this meeting in public since some information may be disclosed especially concerning the US election which is to be held in early November.
Many issues certainly are incredible, notably in mid-July, as you pointed out, the preliminary report that was supposed to be ultra confidential and submitted only to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the Secretariat of Agriculture in the United States. I was in Toronto at the time and I read this on the front page of almost all the Canadian dailies. I was taken aback and I noted that this should have been confidential. There was probably a leak, either deliberate or not or even orchestrated.
Mr. Calder was smiling earlier when he claimed that maybe this was delayed deliberately and that the announcement would only be made after the US election. Are we Canadians being used for the benefit of one candidate and to the detriment of another? Do we deliberately want to support the election of one person as president of the United States, be it voluntarily or involuntarily? Perhaps we're not the ones managing the panel's agenda either.
.1030
Regardless of that, we had an established timetable at the outset. As you put so well, there were 14 days, 14 days and then 14 more days, after which we were to have the final decision. Many things happen. First of all, all this was supposed to be confidential and it isn't. There were to be normal deadlines but they're not being respected. You tell me that we're dealing with academics and that it's very difficult to coordinate their five schedules. Be that as it may, if it's possible, I'm prepared to respect the deadline, but I would formally request that the committee invite the responsible individuals who can keep us informed, which is our right.
Farm union leaders are constantly asking me questions about this. The same is true for many of my colleagues in ridings that have a large number of farmers. People are getting increasing worried and are wondering why this is being delayed so much since the report was to be available by late August.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien, I can certainly ask the minister to provide us with an update if he can. I just remind you that the panel has not issued the report. I don't know what they could update us on other than the status of where the report is.
I can assure you that even though there was some reporting in the press within not too many minutes after the panel confidentially reported to each of the governments, the information did not come from this side of the 49th parallel. How and where the press got it, I don't know. It didn't come from this side, and our government has maintained our honour in not commenting on that report and in not issuing a report.
I will follow up with the minister. I'll tell the minister that there is concern, that we would like an update on the status of the NAFTA panel challenge, and I will ask him to comment one way or the other to us on that as quickly as possible.
Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first time I spoke, I think I neglected to publicly congratulate you on your election to the chair. I sincerely do express my congratulations.
I understood we were going to deal with this matter in the steering committee, but since several other issues have been brought up that are also steering committee types of questions, perhaps with the whole committee here it is the right time to again bring up the matter of the Western Grain Marketing Panel report. The panel issued several unanimous recommendations. It appears the minister will not accept all of them, or perhaps most of them. That either means the panel was out to lunch, in which case we wasted $2 million of taxpayers' money, or else the minister is out to lunch.
I'd just like a commitment from the committee that we will investigate this matter, that we'll hold some public hearings. I would think that we should actually go out to the prairies and hold some of these meetings on the panel's report and on the minister's response. I'd like an indication from the committee that they're prepared to do that.
The Chairman: I think you've expressed that it's an issue we will need to follow up as a committee. Mr. Chrétien has expressed a concern about another issue, as has Mr. Landry about yet another issue. We will take those forward to the steering committee and deal with them there. Hopefully, within the next 48 hours we'll have an opportunity to continue that discussion. Quite frankly, while I won't get into it here because we can go on, we need to discuss it at steering committee.
I think the record of this committee is that we have delved into every matter pretty deeply. I don't see any reason why we will change from that pattern, as I said earlier today.
Mr. Hermanson: Could I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that the committee in fact undertake preparations, and that the steering committee be charged with putting forward a proposal to look into the Western Grain Marketing Panel report and the minister's response to it?
Mr. McKinnon: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I feel the chair has indicated that it should first be discussed at the steering committee level and then brought back as a recommendation. It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, Mr. Hermanson, but I think you are getting the cart ahead of the horse in this instance.
Mr. Hermanson: If I could respond, what I'm asking for is that -
The Chairman: You made a motion. Is there a seconder for the motion?
There is no seconder for the motion, but I can assure you, Mr. Hermanson, that it will go forward. I assume you will be at the steering committee, and I would be awfully surprised if the matter didn't come up again with your presence at that committee. So I think we'd best leave it at that at this stage. There was no seconder for your motion, so that's indicative of the desire of the committee to not discuss the matter here any further.
.1035
If there's nothing further before the committee today, I thank you for your attendance. The steering committee will be contacted and notified. We have a busy session, a busy fall ahead of us, and I know we can all look forward to each other's cooperation as we go forward.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.