AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 8, 1998

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): I'd like to bring this meeting to order, members. I had hoped, I guess Monday, when I was elected chair, that we wouldn't need a meeting this week, but after having a meeting with the clerk a couple of days ago, I quickly realized we would have to have a meeting today. I would hope it won't last that long. It's largely housekeeping. There are a number of things that have to be put into place.

After meeting with the clerk, I realized that a lot of work has been done with respect to our so-called Take Note hearings, which will begin the week after our break. More than 30 organizations have indicated they want to take part in these Take Note hearings.

The clerk and his staff have drawn up what you might call a tentative schedule. It's going to take a number of weeks to hear these groups, but I think it's important, because my understanding is that even though the negotiations are more than a year away, the government would like to have the input from these organizations by, say, the middle of the winter.

Despite the fact that we have other things to do, I think it behooves us to get this work done as quickly as possible.

I want to share a couple of other things with you, because it'll put things into perspective as we draw up the schedule. There was an indication, members, that we could have the minister here on October 20. It now turns out, because of scheduling conflicts and so on, that he'll have to delay his appearance for two days, to October 22.

Your chair and the clerk had tentatively, on our own, as a working paper, as it were, pencilled in the minister for October 20. Now that we're having to put the minister back two days, that frees up October 20, which is the Tuesday of the first week we're back after the Thanksgiving break. So that gives us two hours.

Let me just give you a thought at this point, which simply has to do with nothing more than scheduling; it's up to you to decide.

• 0915

Since we have two hours on the Tuesday, there were two things that I thought we could put in. One is that provided the committee is supportive of Madam Alarie's motion, which we will come to in just a minute, we could hear from officials of CFRA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, on that Tuesday.

As well, as chairman, I think—and it's up to you people to decide, of course—on October 16, which is three days before we come back.... October 16 is World Food Day. A couple of years ago, Canada committed itself to an action plan with respect to world food security. It's my understanding that the minister is proposing to announce the plan on that day, October 16. My understanding is that this will be quite a sweeping plan. It goes well beyond agriculture. It has to do with rural development, poverty, and economic development in many of its aspects.

As a committee, I think it would be not a bad idea to hear more about this action plan on that particular Tuesday, and then we could get rolling perhaps later.... On the Thursday we could hear from the minister, and anything that flows from the Tuesday meetings we could, of course, put to the minister when he arrives on the Thursday.

Anyway, I just thought I would give that information to you.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Are we going to be able to respond?

The Chairman: You can respond now or as we go through the list, Mr. Proctor, whatever you suggest.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I guess all I was going to say, Mr. Chair, is that I think all of the matters you raise are important issues, but I don't think there is any more important issue facing rural Canada than the crisis in commodity prices and the decline in income.

Particularly if the minister is available on October 22, it would be terribly useful to hear firsthand from a representative of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or other like-minded groups on their perspective of what the situation is out there so that when we meet with the minister on the Thursday, we can talk to him about what sort of remedies might be possible.

We have lots of problems, I think, on the horizon from the Americans in terms of their loan forgiveness program. We have the European Union. I think there are lots of headaches out there. That's the critical issue. It would be good to have a perspective from some folks we think are in the know here—and I'm open as to who that group would be—prior to meeting with the minister.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to your reference to World Food Day, certainly I think we'd like to see that briefing and so on. Of course, in regard to that we certainly want to be sure that all these programs aren't on the backs of the farmer, that type of thing, but that Canadian taxpayers carry it together.

I have two motions that I'd had in before. I don't know whether you want me to do that. I'd like to withdraw the one in regard to having the ministers of Agriculture, International Trade and Natural Resources here to discuss the unilateral blockade. The blockade is more or less over, the trade issues are going, and I met with Vanclief; they have a good plan. So I'd like to withdraw that one.

The other one that I'd still like the committee to consider regards the implementation of an early warning system. This was brought up at meetings in Winnipeg and it's been brought up with the minister before. So I think we should still consider that as a committee.

I'd like to bring forward a motion today, before we get into the 48 hours' notice and so on.

I move that this committee study and report to the House on the upcoming crisis in farm incomes due to the worldwide collapse of commodity prices. The committee should also review and report to the government potential solutions to the crisis.

I'd ask that this motion—and it's seconded by Jake Hoeppner, MP for Portage—Lisgar—be considered by the committee.

• 0920

The Chairman: If it's all right with you, Mr. Hilstrom, we'll get to the motion very quickly, but I'd like to try as much as possible to follow the agenda proposed by the clerk. I think we can get to it in just a couple of minutes.

Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib): With due respect to my friend Proctor, there is clearly a significant problem and even a crisis among our farmers; I am referring to the question of scrapie.

On October 16, there will be an industry meeting to settle the question of compensation. Since the Minister is coming on Thursday, October 22, we should talk about this problem again on Tuesday, October 20. I see nothing wrong with holding this meeting later. We can defer by a week our discussion on the crisis being experienced by the farmers. I think the problem is increasing somewhat, at least in Quebec, and even in New Brunswick and somewhat in Ontario.

It is important that we settle the scrapie problem once and for all, and take advantage of the October 16 meeting to do so, or at least to obtain first-hand information on the disease on October 20. Since the Minister will be coming on October 22, we can ask him questions at that time.

[English]

The Chairman: Did you want to comment, Mr. McCormick?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make a brief comment to my colleague, Mr. Hilstrom. He acknowledged what I hope will be the tone of our committee, to work for all parties involved across this country. He acknowledged the work the minister is undertaking in the ongoing effort with the Americans on the border dispute. Not that we have to acknowledge all these things, but I say thanks for that acknowledgement. I look forward to working with each one on these very important issues, however they come out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz, and then let's get to the motions. Any comments, maybe we can relate them to the motions as opposed to these just general comments.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the comments here on the cooperative approach. I would hope that the same would take place with regard to this motion. I'm specifically addressing the motion we just introduced concerning the crisis in agriculture.

Mr. Coderre, to simply dismiss this as a cyclical thing that always comes up I don't think really puts the problem in perspective. We have a very serious problem developing, primarily in western Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I do not think that my colleague has understood me.

[English]

What I just said was that I understand, and I truly believe also that there's a crisis and we have to look at it, but because we have a punctuality problem right now in Quebec—we've discussed that for the last eight months, and it's a matter of timing—and since we have a meeting on October 16 to finalize the question of compensation, which will be very important for that issue, then I think we should profit from the situation and the timing to have on October 20 a meeting on scrapie.

But I never said, and it's not my intention to say it, that I don't truly believe the farm crisis is a very important issue. It has nothing to do with a cycle. I'm just saying, in terms of a punctuality situation, that we have to settle scrapie now. That's the only point.

The Chairman: I don't want to cut you off, Mr. Breitkreuz—I know you want to support the motion, and that's fine—but why don't we just wait until we get to the motion? We'll get to it probably in a minute.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Fine.

The Chairman: Madame Alarie, on the proposed list of things to do, the first issue being the motion, you've already heard that there is an opportunity to deal with the motion on October 20, if that's the view of the committee.

You have the floor.

• 0925

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): I was supposed to accompany Secretary of State Normand in Paris as part of the activities of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. However, since I asked to have the motion debated rapidly, and since you agreed to that request, I am going to have myself replaced. I will be there on the 16th, 20th and 22nd. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: If I understand Madame Alarie properly, she would like to have the CFIA officials here on October 20 for an hour, which will follow the crucial meeting on October 16.

So I would like to know from members....

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the scrapie issue certainly can go ahead on those days. The income crisis is something that has to be done by the committee, I believe—and I will see how the various members feel about that—but it can come after the scrapie issue is finished off. I know that's been ongoing and has to be finished.

So we're in agreement and understanding on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: As I understand it, we are agreed that we'll hear from the CFIA officials on October 20 for roughly an hour.

Do you also agree, since we have at that morning's meeting another hour, that we hear from the appropriate officials on food security for that day, to fill out that morning? Is that agreeable?

Denis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I should add that I am asking to have an open meeting. We have already had three in camera sessions. We have examined the issue, and the public is already aware of the situation. We have obtained some relevant information, and the public must now know what the Agency has been doing during all that time.

You are talking about an hour. I feel that we need a full session to discuss the situation. I have a large number of questions to raise. In addition, considering the egregious manner in which the Agency has dealt with this matter, its officials have some explaining to do; we will need more than an hour to settle everything.

[English]

The Chairman: I mean, meetings go two hours. Do you want the full two hours, then?

Any disagreement?

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I think we will need those two hours plus, probably, according to what transpired in meetings previously on this issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I recognize and appreciate as well that scrapie is a big issue in the province of Quebec. We have talked about it several times. Last year a subcommittee of this committee met with the minister late in the spring session, and I don't believe we're going to learn a heck of a lot more.

I don't disagree that we should have a meeting on scrapie on October 20. If it was, however, for an hour, then I would strongly urge that we take the other hour to talk about the crisis in incomes on Canadian farms.

I would remind the committee that it's my understanding that officials from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are going to be sitting down with officials from Agriculture Canada prior to October 20—I think it's October 16 or 17, if I have my dates right—to begin discussions on this very point.

I think, therefore, it would be prudent and pertinent and timely to hear from some of those organizations prior to our meeting with the minister.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Quite frankly, I'm not so sure that one hour dealing with farm incomes at this point in time is sufficient preparation from this committee to look at what I consider to be the most pressing issue this committee is going to deal with over the next eight months. I would hate to give short shrift to what the situation actually demands from study from not only this committee but also a number of other organizations, as Mr. Proctor has indicated.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to again put my support with respect to scrapie on October 20. We will be hearing from the minister on October 22. I would suggest that this committee at a later date, probably the week after that, sit down and for a period of time discuss the possibilities and the potential and the options available to us as a committee, and to the government, to put into place support programs—although I don't want to call them what everybody else calls them—that are going to be necessary over the next little while.

• 0930

We're going to have to hear from a number of organizations and people, Mr. Chairman. We're going to have to hear from the government on this one as well.

This is not just simply, Mr. Coderre, a problem of an ad hoc solution for one situation—and it's a very serious situation with scrapie—but this is a program that's going to have to be put into place in an extraordinary circumstance, where in fact farmers are going to be losing their way of doing business in the next little while.

I hope the Reform would support me on this to say that the following week, we block aside a serious conversation and debate with all organizations and departments of this government to look at what we can put forward.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, the Americans are debating whether it should be $7.5 billion or $4 billion that's going to go into a support program for American agriculture. We're not saying anything—

The Chairman: I hear what you're saying, but basically what we're talking about now is whether we're going to hear about scrapie for one hour or two hours. Let's not get off track.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All I'm saying is that I would support that, Mr. Chairman, as long as we have the opportunity to debate at great length the following week what Mr. Proctor has put on the table.

The Chairman: Let's get to that.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, I stand behind you when you said earlier on in this meeting that we would discuss these according to the agenda schedule that was set out, and that the motions will be discussed.

Regarding my motion that I put in on the net farm income crisis, my presentation would certainly have included the fact that we will have to hear from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and about 15 or 20, maybe even 30, other organizations that are directly affected by this across the country.

So I'll defer those comments until you say that we're discussing my motion in that regard.

The Chairman: We'll get to your motion in a moment.

Members, as I understand it—I'll get to you in a moment, Mr. McCormick—we have to deal with this one issue of scrapie. Basically, what we have to settle is whether we want to hear the scrapie subject for the whole morning of Tuesday, October 20, or for one hour. Without a lot of debate, let's see if we can settle that.

Madame Alarie, since it's your motion, yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I would like to see a two-hour session, because we have discussed it often, and we are near the final point. We do not want to spend the winter discussing it. So if we spend two full hours on it, and go over it thoroughly with the Agency, it will be finished. So we need two hours.

[English]

The Chairman: How many want two hours for scrapie on Tuesday, October 20? Seven? Okay, that's a majority.

That's settled. On October 20, it's scrapie for two hours, and we'll have officials from CFIA.

My guess is that given the heavy workload of the Take Note hearings and anything we might do with regard to farm incomes, I don't think we're going to be getting to food security. That would be my guess.

Mr. Hilstrom, you have two motions, right?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, I do.

The Chairman: Let's deal with—

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I just want to put something on the record, sir, if I may.

I would perhaps drop a warning that, from my perception, after only being around the table here for five years, heaven forbid; I don't want to see us sit for the record hours the HRD committee did for two years. They set an all-time record here and on the road.

Sometimes when we talk about sitting all morning.... We're at a very important time here to do with ag in Canada. Our mornings will be quite long at times, no doubt.

I just want to give a little plug for my colleagues from Quebec at this time—and this is on the motion we just passed. Keep in mind that today, everyone in the room here, I believe, is invited to a lunch meeting and reception with the Quebec lamb producers.

• 0935

I know, Mr. Chair, you've seen the same bumper sticker I have, and that I like to refer to, which says, “Eat lamb: 1,000 coyotes can't be wrong”. Remember that today.

An hon. member: It's 100,000.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Is that it? Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

Let's get to Mr. Hilstrom's motion, which he filed with the committee a few days back. It has to do with his proposal that the committee study and report back to the House of Commons on the development and implementation of an early warning system to anticipate and deal with unilateral trade actions before they become a crisis.

Maybe you can give us a bit more information, Mr. Hilstrom, on your thinking, and then we'll hear from others.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This early warning system was in relation to the fact that, for instance, when South Dakota threatened to do something, there didn't seem to be anything to kick in necessarily to take some immediate action on it. Various industry groups in agriculture have suggested this very process. In government, it would be, I suppose, a policy-type thing that the government would automatically institute as these small crises came up as opposed to letting them go on.

That's kind of the basis of it. It's in support of industry requests for some kind of a system. That would have to be discussed with some of these industry people who have brought this forward so that we could come up with a recommendation for the minister.

That's basically it.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): What would you have in mind there?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It would be a series of actions recommended to the government that they would take, culminating in formal action under NAFTA or WTO. I don't know whether it would fall under actual NAFTA protocol, or where it would fall under, but it would be to look into the possibility of having some formal system, either by legislation or otherwise, for the government to follow, for the ag minister and trade minister to follow, to stop the things we saw happen in South Dakota.

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom, I'm sure the parliamentary secretary will tell us a bit more, or a lot more. It's my understanding that the government is well into this already.

We'll hear from Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I don't think the government is objecting to setting up something like this, but as far as getting the details of how you would have an early warning system, do you go by election year, anticipating that something is going to happen because the Americans are having an election? How would you click into something actually happening, legally? What could we do in anticipation of that?

I mean, I think something should be done. I don't know if we can ever stop this as long as the Americans have elections every two years. They hold their politicians' feet to the fire pretty readily, and they're very responsive to their constituents there. It appears that every time the farming community, whether it's in Maine, South Dakota or North Dakota or wherever...they're going to be looking for their government to take steps against Canadians because of Canadian product going across the border, whether it's cattle, beef, grain or whatever.

There's nothing Canada would like better than to have this thing stopped altogether, that we wouldn't have to be reacting all the time every time there's an election year and the Americans' constituents for governor or whatever have to respond in order to cater to their voters.

I mean, I don't know really how it would work, but since it's your motion, Howard, do you have any suggestions on what actually the government could do to really trigger an early warning system, or what exactly the Canadian government could do after they knew something was going to happen as far as trade distortion by the Americans?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you. You certainly identified that this is an ongoing issue. If we were to accept your assumption that it happens every election year down there, then it is definitely an ongoing thing.

• 0940

I think this motion here would end up having the minister, or appropriate officials there, including Mr. Gifford, come and tell us what is currently in place to work with in anticipating these things, when warning is given, as it was done in South Dakota—using your assumption—by the fact that every election year this is going to happen, and we know this is going to come up.

So I would like to see us examine what the government is currently ready to do every election year and every time a state says they don't like potatoes coming in from Manitoba or P.E.I. and they're going to do this or that. What does the government have in place? We'd like to examine that, and then recommend to the government, from industry people who maybe would appear as witnesses, some other additional suggestions.

That's the basis of that motion.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Okay, let's find out.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll declare that I don't have a hard and fast plan that should be instituted right now, one that I've developed. I haven't done that. What I'm saying is that the crisis that happened really shouldn't have happened, or at least we should examine why it did, and why it wasn't prevented.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Sure.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So that's the basis of it.

The Chairman: All right, now, hold it. What I'm hearing from you, Mr. Hilstrom, is a bit different from your motion. You seem to be saying now that you'd like to hear from the government what the government is doing to watch out for crises of this kind or incidents of this kind. I think that's a reasonable question. But the motion more or less suggests that we, the committee, study and implement some kind of other level of government, an early warning system to stop the Janklows of the world from doing their silly politicking and causing this harassment at the border.

I think that's far different from what you're now talking about. It seems to me that if you want to hear from the government as to what they're trying to do to prevent that, it makes a lot of sense, but I don't think that's what your motion is saying, Mr. Hilstrom, really, with all respect.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. By way of comment on that, my interpretation of “I move that this committee study” would include collecting information from the current situation and then looking at development of this crisis management—

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom, if I can—and I'll get to others—you seem to be saying that you want to then commit this committee to carrying out some kind of a study. I guess you have to ask yourself, is that what we're here for, or do we simply, at least as a first step, find out what the government is doing, which then maybe requires a further study and whatever? Are you asking for the use of resources of this committee so early in the process?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The study would entail simply the industry representatives and the associations of the representatives who mentioned this the other day in Winnipeg coming forward and saying what they feel is necessary in this area, and having the government coming to say, well, this is what we currently do. It's seeing if it can be improved.

That would be a minor type of thing, maybe a one- or two-hour hearing to get those two reports in, see where it could be improved, and put back a report from this committee to the House, to the minister, saying it would appear that this is what's needed to not have this reoccur every two years or every year there's an election, as the parliamentary secretary recognizes.

That's the simplicity of the study. It's not to commit for five or ten days of big hearings on this.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner and then Mr. Calder.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think what Mr. Hilstrom is saying is that it's very important that we do somehow address this issue. I live only three miles from the U.S. border, and I communicate with those farmers quite regularly. I want to tell you, a year ago we already saw in the national news media threats that there would be trade actions taken if some of these concerns weren't addressed. One is the subsidization of feed grains, which is affecting their livestock industry.

I would think it would have been of real value at that time if the government had taken a look at whether these issues were legitimate, whether they were just blowing smoke or whether there was some legitimacy to them, because we wouldn't have had these blockages right now.

• 0945

That, I think, is what Mr. Hilstrom is trying to look at. Let's avoid these problems. It could have been done. If there were some legitimate complaints, why not address them before we get blockades? That, I think, is his idea.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in the five years I've been with this.... Obviously our negotiators and the U.S. negotiators watch how we do legislation over here and how they do legislation over there, and then they figure out whether or not it is trade green, amber or blue according to NAFTA and/or the WTO. So that's monitored right off the bat.

As to what becomes sensitive if the United States is playing games, as they already have done at the Dakotas border because this is an election year—and we experience this every two years—the problem was solved, or is being solved right now. How did we know there was a problem? Because the people who were affected immediately started talking to our government, saying, listen, we can't put product down into the United States; they're harassing us, and so on and so forth. So there is a monitoring mechanism that's already in place.

I guess my question is—and probably this is what you're asking, Howard—how do we improve the process that's already in place at the present time?

The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz is next, but let me just say that it's my understanding that a lot of this is already in place. There may be weaknesses; I don't know.

But as I listen to you, Mr. Hilstrom, I'm not too sure whether you have fleshed out your proposal as well as perhaps you should have. At least as a first step, maybe we should hear from the government what machinery is already in place.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I really don't like the direction of this. We're trying to anticipate what would be the outcome of the discussions and the study we would make.

We've already made assumptions that this is simply an election-year ploy the Americans use every couple of years. I think we need to study this to in fact find out if there are some trade irritants they can, you know, play off of and play politics with.

To presuppose where this study would go I don't think is fair at this point. That's the real concern I have. Obviously something isn't working. The farmers are getting hurt. There's a lot of harm taking place there. We need to find out why things aren't working, why there is the delay in addressing this.

I think that's why the study needs to take place. I don't see any harm in having that study. But for us to sit here now and anticipate where that's going to go, and what we're going to find out as we do this study, I don't think is fair at this point. And that's why I think we need to have the study to get to the bottom of this.

The Chairman: But I do think, though, Mr. Breitkreuz, we have to be careful. There's a lot on the plate. We're going to be hearing from more than 30 organizations having to do with the WTO. The WTO has to do with trade. What Mr. Hilstrom is talking about is trade of one kind, or an aspect of trade.

If you're looking for information under the rubric of study, maybe what you're trying to learn can be gotten through the WTO hearings we're going to be conducting over the next several weeks. But I think we have to seriously ask ourselves, if you take this motion literally, whether at the same time we're doing that WTO hearings we can carry on another study, even without asking the government what the government is already doing in this regard.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: First of all, let me say, with all due respect, that the chairman of the meeting, Mr. Chairman, is the chair of the committee. The chairman, unfortunately, is not the parliamentary secretary any longer. I find I have some difficulty in seeing how this conversation is leading. I suspect that the agenda will be set for this committee by the chairman, and that's not correct, Mr. Chairman.

In saying that, with all due respect, what Mr. Hilstrom has put forward does have some validity.

Mr. McCormick had said earlier today that the government had reacted and resolved the problem, and I agree with that. I said that publicly with Mr. Vanclief. The problem with that, however, is that perhaps the problem was dealt with in not a timely fashion. We recognized that there were some issues bubbling. We knew Mr. Janklow was rattling his sabre a long time prior to the actual action being taken.

An hon. member: Right on.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What I think Mr. Hilstrom is saying, Mr. Chairman, is not that this committee go through a rather expensive and long study process but simply what transpired; what is there in place now to stop that from transpiring in the future; and can we legislatively make recommendations to the government to have some action put into place when we do identify these issues?

That's all Mr. Hilstrom is saying, and I would like to see that certainly researched and debated at this committee.

• 0950

The Chairman: Let's hear from the PS.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I don't disagree with.... I know it's a major aggravation for Canadian producers that happens quite regularly. I don't think the government would have any objections to informing the committee about what they're doing and what they can do and whether it's possible legislatively—or militarily—to do whatever you have to do to solve these problems. But we're getting to the point where....

I mean, we already have the WTO hearings organized. Over the summer, farmers and farm groups have been asked to come in. The chair was organizing with his clerk who was coming in. All of sudden we have an emergency issue with the commodity prices.

Now, do we tell all those farm groups to stay home, that we're going to deal with something else now, and then are we going to maybe set that aside and deal with aggravations at the border?

We're going to have to prioritize what we are going to do and when we're going to do it. Because something happens to be current for the day, I don't think we can pop what's been planned out the window and bring in something else. I mean, we're going to have to sit down as a group here to decide how important the WTO hearings are, and whether we're going to replace them now.

Farmers and farm groups have already been asked to come before this committee to give testimony. Are we going to now push them aside and discuss the low commodity prices that exist? Everybody agrees it's a very important issue that the committee should be taking up, but where do our priorities lie? I think we're going to have to figure that out first.

This motion that's being addressed now is to solve the current problem. Maybe at some later date we can bring the government in, or maybe even do this during the WTO hearings, to have some update on what the government is doing, or can do, or how that system can be improved. But we're certainly going to have to deal with the WTO hearings. The organization is already in place. It's ongoing. People are being notified by the clerk to come in. We have to decide whether we're going to have them in or we're going to discuss low commodity prices.

At some point we're going to have to decide what's important, what's the most important, and what's the least important.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, can I respond?

The Chairman: Hang on. We have to do this in order.

For the benefit of Mr. Borotsik, as your chairman I think I have to bring certain information to the floor, before you, so that you can better make your decisions. I'm not going to make this decision for you, but there are a number of priorities before this committee. I'm not going to try to change your opinion one way or the other, but I think as your chairman, I have to tell you what's available in the way of time, in the way of resources, and in the way of what priorities we have.

As well, we're now experiencing what a steering committee is like that's 16 in number, and everybody has an opinion on how we should proceed. We're going to have to get to the question of the steering committee in a few minutes.

Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Yes—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: On a point of order, I agree totally with what you just said. It is the responsibility of the chairman to bring to the committee some timelines and some important issues, but it's not a matter of debate, Mr. Chairman. That's all I was trying to get to. I do appreciate your comments.

The Chairman: I'm not debating, I'm just trying to give you some information to help you.

Go ahead, Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a suggestion. Perhaps it's just one, simple word in in my hon. colleague's motion here—“study”. Maybe we can look at it as researching facts. It's impossible to legislate against unknown happenings down the road, but perhaps what we can do is have someone research what has happened in past elections; how the U.S. has attacked our farming communities out there; bring that data forward; and see how the government has reacted in those particular situations. We could gather that information and disperse it among colleagues around the table here. Each of us could read that and then in due process, if we have some problems with what has happened, or we can see improvements, rather than taking up time, maybe that would be one way we could address this concern.

• 0955

I'm sure in any situation there's always room for improvement, so this is what we could possibly do. It's just an easier way to work within the committees so that we're productive. I do believe we can learn from past experiences how we can make improvements so that this indeed does not happen to our farmers.

The Chairman: Okay. Monsieur Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): I think that the motion would be the responsibility of the committee that we are going to be forming shortly, namely the Program and Procedure Subcommittee. This subcommittee will prepare a program. I personally have no objection to seeing this kind of proposal on the agenda. I do not feel that it should be a standing committee motion. Proposals on the program would better be submitted to the Program and Procedure Subcommittee.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: We talked about this earlier. The problem of the world collapse of commodity prices is currently an irritant in all trade relations. I personally would very much like to see it included in the work of the committee on WTO hearings.

In any case, the current situation has arisen from this whole issue of trade. Instead of creating another committee, we should integrate the issue with the work currently being done on the WTO hearings.

[English]

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Hilstrom—and then we'll have to do something.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: My final comment on it is this. To my understanding, the WTO hearings are certainly going to deal with the specific lists that are being brought forward by the U.S. and by Canada. That's what we're going to be hearing about and that's what we're going to be dealing with. That is not where there's going to be any discussion about the solution to the ongoing problem of non-tariff trade actions being taken by the U.S. and having some formal system by the ministers to deal with that before the farmers are hurt.

We've mentioned here that when the farmers get hurt, then the government does something. That was mentioned by one of the members from the Liberal side. What we're saying on this side is, that's too late. We want to see the government have some system to take action before the hurt starts. That's the basis of that motion.

The last comment I'll make is that it's been brought out consistently, by the Minister of Natural Resources in particular, that this is just an election issue thing. It is a bigger issue than just when elections come up there. They have gigantic trade irritants that are going to be listed, everything from the Wheat Board right through to antibiotics and everything else.

Those are my final comments. I recognize that this committee has to prioritize what it's going to do. It doesn't have all the time in the world. I would like to see my motions be scheduled in, if they're approved, to the committee's work, because they are important issues.

If we don't get to the net income farm crisis type of thing until the end of November because of the committee work, well, so be it, but we're not going to throw it out and say we're not going to look at it because we're busy doing scrapie, busy doing WTO and that. I'm just saying that I want to see these things stay, recognizing that we have only so much time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I guess one of the questions before us is, how do we proceed on something like this? Do we even have enough information from the government, or from anywhere?

• 1000

For example, does this last crisis of harassment on the border fit a pattern? What kind of a pattern? How long has this been going on?

Maybe the government can be helpful. I'm just wondering—and I'm really going to put the question to members—whether maybe we should be finding out more about what's available before deciding on a study.

Maybe I'm taking the word “study” too literally, Howard, but that's what you're asking for. I mean, in this motion you're asking for a study, not just to get some information from government or elsewhere.

Are you prepared for the question?

Yes, Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: It is a little along the lines of what you said about international trade. There are crises all the time. They occur during elections, when negotiations are resumed, and so on. However, there is a lack of information on the process. How did we get through the last crisis?

I think that a briefing session would help us see things more clearly. We could look at the recent crisis and ask ourselves how things went.

If we follow the normal procedure, if we do not use diplomacy, it will take a whole year to settle the crisis. So we must have a briefing session first of all on the process.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Calder, do you have something, just very quickly? Then we'll put the question.

Mr. Murray Calder: We have a trade system in place right now, so let's take a look at that first. How does it work? If we need to have improvements to it, how do we make improvements to it? Those are the two questions.

So I agree with my colleague across the way. We have to take a look at the system and understand how it works. Then, if there's anything wrong with it, we have to figure out how to fix it.

With regard to the dispute at the Dakotas, was it too long before it was solved? What would be a reasonable period of time to have it solved? This would all be taking a look at making improvements.

The Chairman: Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Hilstrom's motion could very well fit into the government performance that comes out every fall. In this, the government has market access, Canada-U.S., and then the commitment; then it says what the achievements were.

When this booklet is presented to Parliament or to the committee, we could bring in witnesses at that time and say, okay, if this is the commitment and this is the achievement, what can then be done to improve the system?

So we could deal with it through the estimates and through the pilot project begun here a year ago on the performance of the department. It would formalize everything. It would get the proper officials in and so on to deal with the motion.

The Chairman: All right. Let's put the question.

All in favour of the motion, raise your hands.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Could we have a recorded vote?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Does Mr. Hilstrom want to do that?

Some hon. member: Why a vote when we can have a settlement?

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom is thinking about it. Hang on.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, just give me one second.

Mr. Chairman, in the interests of seeing the committee be as totally efficient as possible, and because of the fact that we will have an opportunity to deal with that, as the parliamentary secretary has said—I'll probably hold him to it—then we'll deal with that under the estimates and under that report. I recognize that there are two paramount things we have to deal with for Canadian farmers right across the country, not just western Canada: the WTO talks, the NAFTA irritants, and the farm income crisis.

We're going to be finished with scrapie and the sheep. That, by the way, Mr. Chairman, is across the country, not just in Quebec.

So in recognizing those facts and in a spirit of wanting to provide practical work with practical solutions out of this committee, I'll withdraw that motion without a vote, recognizing that we're going to be dealing with it in the future.

• 1005

(Motion withdrawn)

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom. Boy, time flies when you're dealing with motions.

I will now go to another motion, also submitted by Mr. Hilstrom.

This is the one you submitted today: That the Committee study and report to the House on the upcoming crisis in farm incomes due to the worldwide collapse of commodity prices. The committee should also review and report to House potential solutions to the crisis.

Can we hear from Mr. Hilstrom on this particular motion?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If Canadian farmers see this committee meeting over the next six months and not dealing with net farm income as a major issue, as bankruptcies and different things happen on the prairies, and eventually across the country, we will be remiss in our duties in trying to help the ministers and help Parliament have a full, factual package and opportunity to debate whatever we might send to the House.

This crisis, at current, is in regard to the drastic drop in exports, which is backing up supply all through the United States and Canada in regard to those export products.

Now, what the western Canadian farmer is doing, and has been doing for some time, is diversifying away from strictly the coarse grains like wheat and barley and this kind of thing, now going into, in a big way, peas, beans, and soya beans. As a result, those products are going to be gigantically increased in supply, and places like Ontario, traditionally the supplier of those products, are going to find the market is getting saturated with those products.

Western Canadian farmers have already gone away from a lot of wheat production and that type of thing, so this crisis is going to be seen first in the west—and we talk in terms of it in the prairie provinces now—and then across the country as the world recession kicks in full time, as it appears to be doing.

So I consider this motion to be of the utmost importance, and I would ask for support from all parties on this.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Can I ask one question, Mr. Hilstrom, before I go to Mr. Calder? For this study you're advocating, what kind of a scope are you suggesting?

• 1010

Just for the sake of illustration, are you wanting a study that would include bringing in—just to exaggerate it a bit—a hundred organizations or would you be satisfied in hearing from a select few, two or three or four, plus the government? I just want to get some sense of the scope you're thinking of.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I don't think we have to worry at this particular time about the supply-managed sectors, because the cash income crisis isn't going to be hitting there in the short term. In the long term, three or five years down the road, when WTO negotiations happen, depending on what the government of the day does, we may have a crisis there, too, but we don't know about that.

I'm restricting this at this time, simply suggesting that the people we'd want to hear from are in those sectors being hurt by the drop in exports around the world in order to get a full understanding of the crisis.

Now, I don't know, but I would suggest there may be about 20 organizations we'd have to hear from. For instance, in Manitoba we have Keystone Agricultural Producers and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We have some umbrella groups that would be able to come to us and say, all right, in our sectors, here's what they are.

Now, the commodities we'd be talking about here are maybe five or six. So we're not looking at a gigantic number of presenters on this.

I think what would come out of this is that we would have factual information from the horse's mouth, and interpretation of statistics and so on by these presenters, so that we would have good information to give to the House. They would also provide to us some of the obvious solutions they see.

I think the parliamentary secretary and a lot of members had a presentation from Prairie Pools the other day, a lobby group, and they looked at the problems with cost recovery being put on the backs of farmers, that type of thing.

I'm sure a lot of good solutions could come out of these kinds of hearings by our committee. I really believe it would be good.

The Chairman: Do you think it's possible we could kill two birds with one stone? You mentioned Keystone. When Keystone is here—because they've already agreed to come for the WTO hearings—could we ask them about farm incomes?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, I don't think there would be time. The WTO hearings—and I don't have a big briefing on this, other than what I got from the minister the other day—will take up a fair bit of time, and I don't think this can be fit in.

I think this is the kind of thing that if we were to be able to do it in the November timeframe, and maybe even through into February, when we're sitting in February...that the whole crisis is going to be there, and that we could deal with it through those timeframes. I wouldn't want to see it joined up.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

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

Actually, I think this whole situation should be moved ahead of the WTO, because obviously, when we go into the WTO negotiations.... We were told in 1993 that by 1999, commodity prices should be stable, because we have adopted a flat line of 85% of 1993 prices. In other words, subsidies were going to be reduced by 15% and everything was going to be rosy by the time we got to this period of time. That's not the case.

That immediately tells me, right off the bat, that the United States and Europe, for instance, have not adopted that 15% reduction, because they're still putting subsidies into commodities, there's overproduction, and by that, the commodity prices are depressed.

We know the United States, for instance, has pulled EEP off the shelf and dusted it off. They're using it against Europe. Europe is obviously within retaliation.

There should be a lower supply of grains, for instance, in Europe proper, because Russia's harvest this year, for instance, is 22% lower than what historically its average has been. So that should have caused a shortage but hasn't. Obviously some of the European countries will put into that.

The question now is, how do we help our farmers here, who are basically in that vice at the present time? I believe it is time-sensitive, because we are currently working away at what should be in the budget for 1999, which is going to be unveiled in February. Those negotiations are going on now, so I believe this committee should be looking at this immediately.

The question then is, how do we take and support our farmers without breaking trade rules, too? Because obviously we're going to be looking at something that's ad hoc. I hate to use that word, but that's what it's going to be. How do we do that without pulling in trade retaliation?

• 1015

So this is going to be a very complicated thing to work with, and that's one of the reasons I think it has to be moved in front of the WTO.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to making the priorities, I was under the assumption that the committee members had committed themselves to the WTO hearings. Work went into organizing this over the summer. Farmers and farm groups have been notified. Do we now say, sorry, you can't come, because we're going to talk about commodity prices? That's going to take a few months to get a handle on anyway. We have initial reports.

I think the proposer of the motion is looking at February as a timeline, which I agree would be an excellent time. At that time, we're going to know—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: November.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Whatever. I mean, we're going to have to do what we said we were going to do. If we're going to do WTO, the farmers are biting at the bit to come in here and give evidence. I think to switch horses now.... What will be the issue in December?

I think we have to stay firm on the line, and get the WTO done. There are opportunities in Parliament to discuss the commodity prices.

Mr. Proctor brought this topic up earlier this morning. I know there's an NDP opposition day. Whether or not the commodity crisis is your topic, I have no idea, and maybe you don't either, but there are opportunities in Parliament to get the ball rolling on the crisis in commodity prices. You can bring it out and the government can begin working on it, but I think it's imperative that we deal with WTO now.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, maybe we're losing sight of where we're going here. Both Mr. Proctor and Mr. Hilstrom are bang on. The urgent issue right now in western Canadian agriculture is, without a doubt, whether farmers are going to have the opportunity financially to put their crop in come springtime. To sit and spin your wheels on other issues, which are very important, aren't going to solve that problem.

We do have a number of people who have already been invited to come and speak to this committee. Although I appreciate your concern about trying to change horses in midstream, is it not possible that these organizations we're going to can not only talk to the issue of WTO and trade in the global aspect of it but can also bring forward excellent information with respect to where their producers are sitting now with the commodity crisis?

Can we not, Mr. Chairman, kill two birds with one stone and extend sittings of this committee so that when these people are here in the next month or so we can hear their position and opinions with respect to the commodity crisis?

Talking about WTO and world trade doesn't do us a damn bit of good if our producers aren't growing anything in the next year, and that's where it's coming to right now. Make no mistake about that. We are in a serious situation. The minister has said—and I quote him—that the NISA account is going to be everything we need. That is not the case. I would like to hear these organizations tell us that.

As well, Mr. Chairman, some of the organizations that will be appearing before us are not particularly producers but of industry—fertilizer and farm equipment dealers and manufacturers. They are going to suffer a severe downturn in their businesses, which is really serious economic activity in western Canada, particularly—and in Ontario and eastern Canada; I'll be very parochial about this.

Mr. Chairman, can we not have both of these discussions at the same time when we have these people appearing before us? Can we not extend sitting? Can we not make this an urgency matter where we talk about the crisis and the type of supports we have to look at so that we can take it to the minister when he comes?

The Chairman: Basically, Mr. Borotsik—and Mr. Hilstrom, this is especially for you—you've asked the same question I asked. Is it possible, at least in some instances, to kill two birds with one stone?

• 1020

I'll just give you an idea, Mr. Hilstrom. This is a very tentative lineup with respect to the WTO, but a number of these organizations would be able to contribute to a discussion on farm incomes. It's not hard and fast in terms of slotting these organizations, but this is the preliminary list, in this particular order: the Canadian Alliance of Agri-food Exporters, who I'm sure would be interested in this area; Canadian Cattlemen's Association; Keystone Agricultural Producers; National Farmers Union; Canadian Dehydrators Association; Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance; Canadian Sugar Institute; Canadian Sugar Beet Producers; Canadian Pork Council; Canadian Meat Council; chicken farmers; more poultry processors; and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.

I mean, all these organizations have said they want to contribute to the WTO discussions. Can we kill two birds with one stone?

What do you say, Howard?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We certainly can kill two birds with one stone. However, it would require a couple of minor changes.

One, I would suggest that the presentation time would have to be doubled. You're dealing with two related but really separate issues here, because the difference between the crisis, which is related to trade, is that this motion of mine includes solutions recommended to the government by this committee. So number one would be that they have their time increased so that we would have sufficient time to deal specifically with the farm cash-income crisis.

The second point I would make is that these organizations would have to be advised that they now have a second issue, essentially separate from the first one—related, but separate—and they have to be prepared to come before us with the idea of explaining the impacts and the costs on their industry, along with the solutions their industry sees Parliament taking to address the crisis.

Those are my two points. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I've been in very close touch with a lot of people in the west in the last few days, and again next week I'm going to be talking to a lot more. If we were to ask them what their priority is, I think there's no doubt as to what they would want us to be dealing with before this committee.

I'd like to pick up on something you said, that we should be deciding on our priorities. I'm willing to sit here double time. I'm willing to put in the extra time. This is becoming a real crisis—is a real crisis—at this time. If we're going to get things in place before the February budget, that budget is not printed up the day before it's given. We have to get a lot of this done in November. I mean, this is not something that can wait for a long time.

So I would suggest you ask some of those presenters who are coming what's a priority for them. I think I know what the answer would be.

Now, I didn't hear in your list there a lot of the grain producers and so on. Maybe it's in there and you just didn't get to it.

The Chairman: Yes, they're there.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

I have a pretty good feeling, from talking to people in the last week, that this is not something that can be put off, and I think this committee would be remiss to dismiss this.

The Chairman: Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I absolutely agree that we have to prioritize. We can discuss all we want about WTO, but if we don't have any farmers and commodity to trade, what's the use of having WTO?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The fact of the matter is, let's put the horse before the cart here and move forward.

The Chairman: Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I agree with Rose-Marie. We have a short- term problem, a crisis, and a medium-term problem, namely the WTO negotiations. If we wish to pave the way for profitable negotiations in the WTO, we must begin by looking at the current crisis in net agricultural income. In any case, we will gather material for the discussions with the WTO people. I realize that this does not solve anything, but that is the reality: we have a crisis to deal with.

[English]

The Chairman: Any further comment?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a question? In terms of the timing you set out for those hearings on the WTO—and I, of course, wasn't involved, because I just got on the committee—I assume that timing just included time to deal with that particular issue. I mean, the trade discussions that are going to be covered under there are things that the Americans have been arguing about for the last five or ten years, the Canadian Wheat Board audits and so on. Those aren't things that are directly related to this income thing we're talking about.

• 1025

So if I have to make a choice, I'll go with Mr. Calder. I want it to be done first.

The Chairman: We have actually before us the motion from Mr. Hilstrom.

Let me tell you this. Some 30 organizations have agreed to contribute to the WTO hearings. We had tentatively scheduled these people to start the week we came back, but now, especially because of the minister having to move back his appearance a couple of days, I don't think we'll be able to get to the WTO hearings in that week. We would have to start those one week later. According to the tentative schedule, we are going to be hearing all these organizations over a period of time taking us to Thursday, November 19.

That was based, ladies and gentlemen, on a three-meeting-a-week schedule. I was going to ask you at some point whether you really wanted to meet three days a week. According to the preliminary schedule, we would have to meet Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday until Thursday, November 19, to get through all of these organizations.

I was thinking that maybe that was too heavy a schedule and that maybe you'd want to take Wednesday out. If that were the case, then we would have to extend the hearings probably another two weeks, which probably would put us into the first week of December.

That's a piece of information you have to consider.

Mr. Calder, I think you wanted to say something.

Mr. Murray Calder: I'm just trying to think of how to work this in. I realize that you you have a schedule that's put forward and everything. I'll throw this idea out.

We take a look at the 30-some-odd groups that have already signified they want to come and talk to us about WTO. In that group of 30, we take a look at the ones that are most sensitive right now to the commodity prices, that crisis, and we put them to the front of the schedule. We inform those groups that we would like them to talk primarily about the crisis within the commodity groups and would they please bring us, in English and French, their submission as to their concerns about the WTO.

Now, when they get here, if we find that we have time left over from when they talked about the crisis within the commodity pricing, and we have some time to talk about WTO, so be it; we can do that. As Mr. Borotsik said, we could hit those two birds with one stone.

The Chairman: But if you do that, Mr. Calder, then what you're really suggesting is that we're going to have six weeks dealing with one issue, and that's farm income. Is that what you want, six weeks of that? Is that what you want?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would have no problem with that.

Mr. Murray Calder: Listen, I go back to what Mrs. Ur said, that if we don't have farmers here to take and produce the crops for the WTO, we don't really need to discuss that.

Frankly, if you have the co-op at the door, and they say they want their fuel bill paid now, and you don't have the money to cover it—and I was in that situation at one time in my farming career—you're just not there. The bank's at the door.

The Chairman: But does that take six weeks of hearings? Is there some other way we could garner that information?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If you change your political mindset, it could take 16 weeks of hearings, quite frankly. Yes, I think it's going to take 6 weeks.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder: It takes what it takes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, seeing as how it's my motion, I should just make a comment here in regard to that.

The presentations I've seen in other committees, not agriculture but other committees, is that they'll come in with a written presentation on their stand in regard to the trade negotiations. It will be very fully and completely written out. They'll sit there and read it, and then we'll ask them a few questions and whatever.

• 1030

I think it can be accommodated by way of this written report coming into the committee dealing with the farm income crisis as the major topic of discussion. That would be their verbal presentation, with questions primarily related to that. Then, if there was time, as you say—and I was talking about doubling the time they would have to present—we could extend their time, which would then allow them to deal with their trade issue, too, if there were some gigantically pertinent questions. But I know when time is short, members of this House and members of this committee will make their questions very pertinent and only ask what has to be asked. If you give us 10 minutes, we'll talk 10 minutes. If we know we have only a couple of minutes to talk to these people, we'll ask our pertinent questions, with no BS.

Again, I kind of lean toward Mr. Calder's idea on dealing with this motion.

The Chairman: Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I don't think there's any question about the importance of the low commodity prices, but if we're asking people in supply-managed industries, who were mixed up with other people here...if we're going to separate them out now from the grain producers, the pork producers, the beef producers, the people who are in the world economy more than supply management. If we're going to mix up those two in the same group and the same day, and we're going to be getting two different presentations....

You know, I don't know how much we can bite off here in a two- or three-hour session. If we're going to have two or three groups around the table at one time, and everybody is asking them for their presentations on the WTO, which was the original intent.... I mean, the pressure was on, because farmers said we don't want to be left out of the WTO hearings, we want the government to know where we stand; we don't want to go through what we went through last time, where we were told at the end of the negotiations that this and this was going to happen, and we had to live with it.

Now, to get this balanced position, we're going to need time to discuss with these people exactly where they want government to be on the WTO when they go to the WTO for their stand. These crises are going to happen. There could be another crisis in two months in something else. If we're going to keep putting off....

I think we should deal with what we have. I don't think the world is going to end tomorrow on the commodity price issue. It's going to be discussed in Parliament. The department knows what the prices are as well as the farmers. The bureaucrats are getting their information together now to see what's going on with the commodity prices.

I really don't know how you can do two things. It's nice to be all things to all people where everybody is going to be happy.

If you can work that out, Mr. Chairman, the more power to you, but if we're going to get a real feel for what we have to do in low commodity prices and for where everybody stands on WTO, all on the same day, all in three hours, go right ahead.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Time for a vote.

The Chairman: I must say, as your chairman, I guess I was the first one who threw out this idea of killing two birds with one stone, but as I listen to the debate I'm less enamoured of my own thought on that.

I guess the other thought I have now is that we have given an undertaking on these WTO hearings, and I don't think there's any doubt that if we now try to mix up the two, there will be a serious delay. We have other things to do, members, as well. It's not just WTO.

Mr. Calder, you wanted to say something.

Mr. Murray Calder: With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how we are separating supply management from other commodity groups by rearranging the schedule of which people appear in front of this committee.

I think what we are doing as a committee is showing that we can be flexible with an imminent crisis within the agricultural community, within part of the agriculture community. I know the supply-managed sector right now would have absolutely no problem, if they're at the front of the line, moving back to the middle of the line or the back of the line so that their comrades in producing food, who are having problems, can appear in front of this committee first. There would be no problem.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Hear, hear.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like to call for the question. I think we've batted this around enough.

• 1035

The Chairman: I think we have, but let me say this: You're going to have to leave the chairman with some flexibility. We have this commitment on the WTO hearings, and I don't know whether you're going to pass this motion to hear something on farm incomes, but it's not as easy as.... Given the fact that some of these organizations have been given a preliminary indication as to when they will appear, I don't think we can undo that. So you're going to have to leave me a considerable amount of leeway.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, the WTO negotiations are two years away in lots of instances, and we're talking about positions going into things that are down the road a long way. This farm income crisis is today. It was yesterday and it's going to be tomorrow. There's no way we can put that aside.

The suggestion from the other side is that our deliberations here and our solutions that we put forward to Parliament could have some bearing on the upcoming budget. It's imperative that farmers and farm organizations get their say as to what they would like to see in the budget, and it seems to me that this committee is the best vehicle possible for that to happen.

So I would go for the farm crisis being first and for telling these organizations that it was only tentative, it was not cast in stone, and that they could now just deal with the farm income crisis if we have to prioritize yes or no, which one first.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick, did you have something? No.

I'll take you, Garry.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In response to your concern about the fact that they were asked to come here on the WTO hearings, if you were to go back to those organizations today and say, you know, we are now faced with a choice here, then I have no doubt in my mind as to what most of them would say. They would rather address the crisis now and leave the WTO until the spring or February or whenever.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to call for the vote. Let's get on here.

The Chairman: Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have people looking at this from both ways. When are we going to do all this? I've heard the discussions and the debate here about questions to these witnesses, expert witnesses. I haven't even seen the list yet, but I don't doubt we have all the people who should be called.

Two major...will be the work of our committee for this year and the coming year. I'm just wondering whether we should be tabling this and spending a little more time looking at this, Mr. Chair, because this is most serious.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Call for the question.

The Chairman: My understanding from the clerk is that Larry is suggesting that we suspend the motion.

Correct?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I call for the question.

The Chairman: Just hang on.

You're suggesting that we—

Mr. Larry McCormick: Table this until, say, the next meeting.

The Chairman: And that's not debatable, right, Mr. Clerk? That's not debatable?

The Clerk of the Committee: No, you can debate the motion.

The Chairman: Okay. We can debate that.

Who wants to debate it?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I certainly do.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I do.

The Chairman: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We're not going to table this until the next committee meeting or whatever. We have debated this, we have it clear in our minds what we have to do, and I say let's vote and get this thing done and get on with representing these farmers out there. That's ridiculous.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I feel very similar. I know we don't need a World Trade Organization if we don't have farmers, and when it comes to the supply management people, if we don't solve this crisis, this issue of low feed-grain prices, supply management will suffer, because the Americans are going to push harder than hell, as you know, to do something.

So we'd better address it, and we'd better address it now, not next week.

• 1040

The Chairman: Let's deal with the motion to table and then get to the other one if it fails.

We'll vote on the motion by Mr. McCormick to suspend the motion for a week. Who's in favour of tabling the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: So we suspend it for one week.

Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: Now, wait a minute. The reason I voted on this the way I did this right off the bat is that I agree in principle with what Mr. Hilstrom has put forward here, but the conversation we've had here for the last three-quarters of an hour does not reflect in this motion. Therefore, if we table it, we can get that reflection, that the people who are appearing in front of this committee have the option—the option—to talk about the farm crisis and/or the WTO.

So the next motion that comes back to deal with that out of this committee deals with that as what we've discussed, because this motion does not.

The Chairman: We will deal with it at the next meeting.

Members, we have 30 minutes before the vote. You see the lights flashing. Let's see if we can finish the business.

We've gone through the motions. Next on your list is the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. That really is the steering committee. I think it's the view of most people that we strike a nine-member steering committee. That will consist of the chairman; the vice-chairman from the government side; the parliamentary secretary and two committee members; and from the opposition side, the vice-chair from the Reform Party; a representative from the Bloc; a representative from the NDP; and a representative from the Conservatives.

Can I ask the opposition parties to simply submit the names of your representatives whenever you choose? It's up to the Liberals, though, on the government side, as to who wants to sit on the steering committee besides the vice-chair, the chair, and the two parliamentary secretaries.

Mr. Coderre, you want on?

There's one more.

Mr. McCormick, do you want to sit on the steering committee?

So that's the five. That's settled.

Now, on the 48 hours' notice for motions, my understanding is that this is routine, that other committees have this.

Madame Alarie, you wanted to say something on that?

We have 30 minutes, by the way, members.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I am against the 48-hour notice, even if it is a routine matter in the other committees. I have been on other committees, and find that this one works very well and manages crisis situations smoothly. The 48-hour notice would encumber it. So far we have not had any difficulty tabling late motions, almost at the last minute, and we have often discussed them very rapidly. This is like life on the farm, where things come up at the last minute. I feel that the 48-hour notice would be unnecessary.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Alarie, if you find it a bit onerous, I'm wondering whether we could meet on some middle ground, and if someone has a majority support for a motion at any time, they can introduce it, instead of just being able to do it unilaterally.

One person, if you have majority support; would you agree with that?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Yes, that would suit me. As set forth in our rules of procedure, if we have majority support, we can submit last-minute motions.

[English]

The Chairman: I understand from the clerk that this would be possible.

Can I, then, have a motion that a motion can be brought in any time, as long as it's supported by a majority vote?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1045

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Remove the 48-hour.

The Chairman: Yes, we remove the 48-hour, and you can bring the motion at any time but it has to have majority support.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification, if it doesn't get the majority vote you can still file at that time and have it come back in 48 hours, correct? It's not going to get defeated.

The Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Now it's 48 hours.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Right. If it's not agreed to by majority vote, it would be filed and tabled at that time for a 48-hour notice.

The Chairman: Yes. Okay. Is that understood?

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: On the reduced quorum, my understanding is that it's this way. Without witnesses we need a full quorum of nine. In the cases of meetings where we have witnesses, quorum is reduced to three. However, it's my understanding from Mr. Breitkreuz that he would want one of the three to be a member of the opposition parties.

It's certainly okay with me. I gather that's agreeable to everyone. So the reduced quorum must have one representative from one of the opposition parties.

That's understood?

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: One more thing—the request for expenses for the WTO hearings.

Do you have have that in front of you? It's pretty well straightforward, ladies and gentlemen. I don't think I have to go through it.

The estimated cost is $76,461.50. This is actually mostly travel. The motion simply reads: That the budget relating to the proposed “Take Note” Hearings on WTO negotiations, totalling $76,900 for witnesses' expenses, be agreed to.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This came out of the blue here, and I'd like to have an opportunity until the next meeting to look at this.

The Chairman: Members, I think we can accommodate Mr. Hilstrom. The clerk has said that the committee should submit this expense list to what is called the liaison committee, which is a committee made of all the committee chairs and some other government representatives, at the next meeting. But my understanding is that the so-called liaison committee will not meet until after October 20, and our next meeting is scheduled for October 20.

So if you're prepared, Mr. Hilstrom, maybe that can be our first item of business on October 20. Let's do it very quickly so that we're prepared to make our submission to the liaison committee, which probably will be either later that day or the next day. But it definitely would have to be dealt with on October 20.

I invite a motion of adjournment.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: One more. On a point of clarification, I was looking at the make-up of the committee. I would ask if the parliamentary secretary is an official member appointed to the committee as a voting member.

In saying that, I see that the parliamentary secretary, being a representative of the minister, in most cases never has been a sitting member of this committee. I'd just like clarification as to whether he should be and is within his rights to be a sitting and voting member of this committee.

The Chairman: Yes, he's a member and he's a voting member, which is the normal thing.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: By the way, I have nothing wrong with the parliamentary secretary at all. I just wanted to know what the clarification was.

The Chairman: He's a full-fledged member.

An hon. member: If you could get rid of him, you would.

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.