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, March 16, 2000

• 1114

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia)): We'll bring the meeting to order.

I was hoping we could follow the order of business on this list, but I noticed, Madame Alarie, that you have your hand up for some reason. Go ahead.

• 1115

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): About the agenda, Mr. Chairman. I think the points should be put in the order in which the requests were submitted to your attention. For example, I'd like you to put item 3 at the head of the list. It's item 4?

[English]

The Chair: According to our clerk, Madame Alarie, the motion from Mr. Hilstrom is dated February 29. The one from Mr. Borotsik is February 28. We're going to deal with these anyway, Madame Alarie, so why don't we—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

An hon. member: December 13.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I submitted my motion on November 23, 1999 and it was passed on December 15, 1999. I think that comes before February 2000. I have all the documents to support this if you want to see them.

[English]

The Chair: Your original motion, of course, was passed way back when. Do you have another motion before the committee? We have one from Mr. Hilstrom and we have one from Mr. Borotsik.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: The motion we passed is still there.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, if I can just jump to the defence of Madame Alarie, we've recognized that this motion has been approved and accepted by this committee. Madame Alarie has been trying to deal with it over the last number of months.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to use the term “play politics”, but why is it that we cannot deal with Madame Alarie's motion? You do have, as is now recognized, the majority sitting in the committee right now. Let's deal with Madame Alarie's motion first, prior to Mr. Calder's motion, which seems to be a bit redundant, and then we can go through the normal process. I would just ask the chair that he be honourable about this and deal with Madame Alarie's motion.

The Chair: I'm going to try to be as honourable as possible, Rick. Since we had a couple of motions—three motions, actually—serving pretty well the same purpose, I had thought we would deal with the one from Mr. Calder first, because in effect if that were passed it would negate the other two.

According to the clerk, Mr. Hilstrom's motion is identical to Madame Alarie's and the date of his takes precedence over hers. Is that what you're saying, Georges? This one is the same as this one, right?

The Clerk of the Committee: That's right.

The Chair: You're saying the date here comes before this one?

The Clerk: No.

The Chair: What are you saying?

The Clerk: What I'm saying is that this one has—

The Chair: The same effect, yes.

The Clerk: Yes, but it's signed by four.

The Chair: Oh, I see. The clerk is saying, Rick, that because Hilstrom's is signed by four and Madame Alarie's is signed by herself, it basically takes precedence. Is that what you're saying, Georges?

• 1120

The Clerk: They deal with the same motion, so it's your call.

The Chair: Well, we all know the contents of the motions. Let's be practical about this. What would be the point of having a whole debate about her motion? Chances are we would defeat it anyway. Then we'd go to another one. We might as well deal with the Calder motion. We can have the same debate and deal with all three at the same time.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

How can you assume a vote is going to be defeated when we haven't even had the vote yet? That's pretty...I don't know what term to use, Mr. Chairman, to be polite, but that's just not right.

The Chair: Can we deal with Mr. Borotsik's motion first?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would certainly give my time to Madame Alarie. I believe very strongly in this issue. We should deal with that motion and put it to a vote. Put it to a vote.

The Chair: Is that what you want?

Yes, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): I just want to speak to your motion, my colleague.

An hon. member: Is it on the table?

The Chair: Just before we get to the motion, let's hear from Larry and then we'll deal with it.

Go ahead, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I understand that the House leaders of each party here, including yours, Howard, have agreed to this committee. You agreed and then changed your decision—not you personally—because of whatever has happened. But everyone has agreed it's the most important—

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Larry, wake up this morning. It's after 10 o'clock.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I know what I say and what I do.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Sorry, I want to finish my sentence.

You made a most important motion on a most important topic, and I want to see us study the GMOs. I just thought—really, this is my opinion—that if we do it.... I'm glad you brought up your points and you spoke strongly the last time. Because of you and you and you, we will now have this committee and the health committee.... I don't want to see just the health committee do it, I want to see our interests covered, but I believe the two committees together can best address it and listen. It's a major—

The Chair: We'll get to that motion.

Murray, and Madame Alarie.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's not a motion, Mr. Chair, it's my comments.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We all agree on the point that we want to study the labelling and GMOs. I think we're all agreed on that. What we can't agree on right now is how we're going to do it.

Madame Alarie thinks it should be done totally out of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. I disagree. I think it should be a joint committee, because not only does this fall under the jurisdiction of agriculture, it also falls under the jurisdiction of health. It is that simple. My motion covers it accordingly.

We're all agreed on the fact of studying. Fine. We just can't agree on what mechanism or committee should do the study. Let's vote on it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. There is a motion on the table that's been passed by this committee. I don't care if that member disagrees or not. This committee has passed a motion that we're going to study GMOs, and until you rescind that motion it is sitting on this table and has already been passed. I don't care, Murray, I know you voted against the motion.

Mr. Murray Calder: My motion doesn't cancel that; it just lays out the mechanism for how we're going to study it. It's that simple.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There's a motion already on the table.

An hon. member: Call the vote.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: One moment, please.

[Translation]

I listened to what Larry said. In the fall, when I'd already started talking about that, you suggested, Mr. Chairman, that I wait for the Health and Agriculture Committee to be struck. As early as in the fall, I heard that, and as early as in the fall I said no because I don't want a problem concerning farmers, the consumers and the environment to be drowned out in a subject as broad as health.

• 1125

If the committee is interested in agriculture, we have to settle agricultural problems here. After that, nothing prevents decisions being made by taking both committees into account. How can we get witnesses defending only the interests of agriculture when we're swimming in antibiotics? That way we'd be making the same mistake as we did for rBST.

I was always polite. On November 25, I accepted to have the debate on the motion delayed to give you enough time to make up your minds and to have the motion remain on the agenda of the committee until the new notice in the new year. I was polite; I respected that decision and I waited until the last meeting to ask you again that the question be put on my motion.

When Larry says that the house leaders agreed, I'm sorry. I was sent the whip, the House Leader and the Leader to ask me if I had changed my mind and I answered no to each and every one. I'm not here to waste my time. If this is just keep-busy work, just say so. I for one have other things to do. I'll set up a parallel committee and you'll see that things will move along very easily. If that's what you want, that's what you're going to get.

Personally, I'm here because I believe in the causes of agriculture and I want to defend them. They're of great interest. I've been concerned with that for months. The more I read and the more information I gather, the more I know that this committee must examine agricultural questions concerning GMOs.

Amongst the motions the Liberal Party will be debating during the weekend, resolution number 98 is asking for exactly the same thing I am, without it, however, being done within the context of health. So I'd like to set the record straight: I never accepted this being dealt with in the Health Committee.

[English]

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I said that all House leaders had agreed. I'm sorry, I withdraw those comments if they had not all agreed. I was not trying to do that to my colleague, who is here for the right reason, for agriculture. Otherwise we can disagree.

The Chair: Joe McGuire and then Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Obviously, Mr. Chairman, we're not going to agree on any compromises here on going ahead with the joint committee. I think the only option we have is to deal with Madame Alarie's motion right now. Let's get on with the business of the committee.

The Chair: Is that agreeable? Howard, do you have something to say?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I put the motion forward to you on February 29 for the express purpose that this committee was ignoring a motion that had been passed, in regard to Madame Alarie and the GMO issue. My motion is in support of going ahead with this Standing Committee on Agriculture looking into the GMO from a primary producer and grain handling perspective.

The health issues associated with GMOs can be handled by the health committee, but the actual production side of GMOs should be heard by the standing agriculture committee, which has a direct contact. We have a big problem with working as a subcommittee to the health committee for the simple fact that we will not be masters of our own destiny, in looking into the primary producer, the grain handling side, and the organic farmers.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, I have one other issue—

The Chair: Let's bring the motion forward, Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: —about this agenda you've set forward here. I would like to know, where's my motion requiring the agriculture minister to be here by December 15 of last year? The last we heard, Mr. McGuire spoke of talking to the minister and getting him here in regard to the performance reviews that were done on his department. We haven't seen him here. We haven't heard anything, and he's not even on the agenda.

My request is that, number one, you deal with Madame Alarie's motion and we go ahead and have these hearings, as we've been asked. Secondly, I'd like an answer to why the agriculture minister isn't scheduled to be here yet.

The Chair: We were going to get to the list, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is my motion going to be cancelled or something, the same as Madame Alarie's?

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, on the list we have the Minister of Agriculture confirmed for March 28 and April 4. We're going to get to that right after the motion.

Madame Alarie, we'll deal with your motion first, and then we'll get to Mr. Calder's motion.

Go ahead, Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to my motion.

• 1130

I think it is an extremely important motion for agriculture at this time. When you move around in the world of agriculture, you can see that farmers have a very serious concern on two levels. First, they have a concern as to whether they should continue sowing GMOs, what their advantages or disadvantages are and what course they're steering in doing it. Certain sectors are really affected.

For example, at this point the canola crop could pose environmental problems as it might eventually re-sow itself easily in the ordinary crop. There is a problem for organic farmers because they can't be provided with seed that contains less than 5% of GMOs for the time being. As international standards are set at 1%, there's a whole sector of our agriculture that is threatened. It is our duty to examine this.

There is the matter of potatoes in the Maritimes. After the decisions made by the major corporations, we must be able to reassure the producers and, to do so, be concerned, in turn, as to whether there are disadvantages. We have work to do to be able to say that yes, those potatoes can be used without danger and the companies can put them back into circulation. But at the present time we don't have any studies or documentation from witnesses and we haven't taken any firm position because we lack information.

So the farming community has major concerns. They are told that this is the biotechnology of the future but that the studies haven't been detailed enough to guarantee that they will make a profit on it. Eight hundred farms were examined in Iowa where there is a major agricultural sector. The farmer growing traditional corn and the one growing GMO corn reap the same level of profit.

There are all kinds of points like that one that we would have to hear witnesses on to form a conclusion. Everything I'm saying here I can prove with documents. I have them all. I don't have them in front of me but I have them all.

So we have to try to see what questions we can put to the people who can give us the right information and we will all come out of this with a clearer picture, one which does not exist at all at this point in the farming community.

When you worry and you put questions you are told that you're emotional and not scientific. That is not true. There are scientists who have the same questions that I'm putting to you today. We have to go into those questions in depth to get a clear idea.

You have to see the risks that are involved. The calculation of risk isn't really self-evident. Maybe there would be an advantage to putting questions to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the scientists who've given their opinion on this matter.

There are risks for agriculture as well as for the consumer. We have to be able to know how to evaluate them and we have to evaluate them.

We also have an important problem. I was in Seattle and I was also present at the Montreal Biosafety Protocol. That gave me an opportunity to meet people from all around the world. If you think they are reassured by what happened with the Biosafety Protocol, you're wrong. People left.... You also witnessed what happened at the Edimburg meeting.

We're divided between third world countries, the European countries and the North American countries, the USA and Canada. At some point, our producers are going to have to go outside our borders.

There's always the matter of exports. I quite agree, but we have to be able to speak a common a language and pursue a common dialogue.

Basically, internationally speaking, we've lost our credibility. We're seen as being closely bound to the Americans and doing everything the Americans want. Now, I know that we can separate ourselves from them. Our producers are forward-looking and very productive. We have our ideas and we've often defended them.

However, to manage that, we have to accept to look at the matter and do it here. In fact, the agricultural community is really a closed world and a very specialized one and that is even truer about the area we're looking at than other matters that are of a more general nature.

Of course, there is also the environment that one shouldn't neglect and that is not coming up anywhere. That is why I'm asking that we look at this immediately. I was happy to see that your party's resolution 98, on the weekend, was asking for exactly the same thing I am asking for. So I must be on the right track.

• 1135

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Steckle, and then Ian Murray.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I don't for one moment doubt Madame Alarie's sincerity in this. I very much concur with what she is saying.

My concern with this issue is that it's not an issue that is in isolation of health or the department, because ultimately the decisions that are going to be made and the direction we're going to go in are going to have to be done in such a way that both of these departments, health and agriculture, can agree on.

Now, agriculture may study this thing for six months. This is a very, very complex issue, and obviously we're not going to be conclusive in everything we hope to achieve in this. But if we arrive at certain conclusive decisions on this as an agriculture committee, then health studies it—because ultimately they're going to have to study it as well—and we come together and have two diametrically opposed views in certain areas, how are we going to come together on this?

I think it's important, and for that reason only, not for political reasons. I believe we should study it in tandem from the outset, so that we hear all the compelling arguments that are made from both sides. I think if we look at it that way.... I think you can put forward the kinds of witnesses you feel should come, and I would support you on that, because it's important we hear from the agriculture sector—very, very important—and that we don't allow the David Suzukis of this world to dominate this discussion.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Paul Steckle: If we do that, I will support you in the kinds of witnesses you want. I'm sure you will get total support from those on this side who will be on that joint committee. I think it's important that we move forward in order to get the discussion on further. I think we ought to deal with Madame Alarie's motion, and then get on with further discussion.

The Chair: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, thanks.

I essentially want to say something along the same lines as Mr. Steckle. Unless I'm missing something, this debate is about whether or not we should have a joint subcommittee with the members of the health committee or whether just the agriculture committee should deal with this problem.

The fact is that when we're talking about labelling, the only reason to have labelling is that consumers are concerned about what they are ingesting. So obviously it's a health concern. That's what they're concerned about. They're not concerned about the impact on farmers of genetically modified food, they're concerned about what they put in their mouths.

So if this is what this debate is all about, then I think it's rather nonsensical, because exactly as Mr. Steckle said, at some point the health committee will be drawn into this debate, and we may as well do it right the first time, rather than have competing committee reports and then have to go back and deal with it again.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murray hit the nail right on top of the head there. He pointed out quite clearly that this health committee is studying it from a health perspective, and the agriculture committee is approaching it from the idea that the CFIA is taking care of ensuring that their food is healthy and won't harm anybody, and that what we need to do as a committee on the agriculture side is look at it more from the production side—

An hon. member: Absolutely.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: —provide that information to the health committee, and then they can look at it. But what will happen if we go in as a subcommittee is that we're going to be subordinate to the main committee, subordinate to Allan Rock, and we aren't going to be able to do anything. As the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, when we—

Mr. Larry McCormick: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Just a minute, Larry.

Go ahead.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: As the standing committee, we have the full authority of Parliament to call witnesses, and I do not believe that we should subject ourselves to being subordinate to this other committee. Our hearing does not have to look into the same issues as the health committee is looking at. I guarantee you that the producer and the production side are not going to get a fair shake in this joint subcommittee with this health thing. We can do that independently. They won't look at it. We'll provide the health committee with the full report. That's the best way to go on this issue.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, and then Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

An hon. member: This is déjà vu all over again.

An hon. member: That's right. Let's get on with the motion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no. We've had this discussion. We've passed the motion. Mr. Chairman, this is totally unprecedented. The motion was passed, it's on the table. We as a committee have said we will study the GMOs. That was a motion that Madame Alarie put forward and it was passed. So this discussion has already taken place, and it seemed that the majority of this committee decided they wanted to head in that direction.

Now all of a sudden we find that because the chair, or other members—Mr. Calder—decide they don't like the motion, we're going to put it back on the table and we're going to defeat it. Well, that's totally unprecedented, Mr. Chairman—totally unprecedented. If you want to put forward a motion of rescinding that other motion, fair ball, but that's the process we should be going through, not simply saying that because we passed it and we don't like it, we're not going to act on it.

• 1140

Now that that has been said, let's go back to the original motion that was passed. We passed it in this committee because we felt it was important that agriculture have a very major say in what was going to happen with genetically modified organisms and biotech. We felt we couldn't abdicate our responsibility as this committee and allow health to take the issue forward on their own. We agreed with that. That's why we said let's have our own report, let's have our own discussion in this committee, let's decide what's best for our purposes with agriculture.

I have farmers who are very concerned, as does Ms. Alarie. They don't know what they're going to put in the ground this spring because they don't have a clue as to what's going to happen with the consumers. We should be discussing that. We should be debating that. We should be deciding with our own experts where we should be heading, and then we should put a plan forward. A plan may include an educational process with respect to GMOs. It may well mean that health has to be brought in, obviously. But we should put the plan forward. We should be the driving force here, not the one that's following health. If we follow health, we've abdicated our responsibility, and that's the debate we had previously.

Trust me, I look at the faces across the bench, and I know this motion is going to be rescinded or it's going to be defeated.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It has nothing to do with the faces.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I want the members to know that what you're doing here—

Mr. Larry McCormick: We don't vote both ways.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: —is totally beyond what democracy means. I mean that sincerely. We did decide this was the way we were going to do it. Now obviously we're going to change our minds. I don't think that's fair, and I certainly don't think it's right. I don't think it's democratic.

Having said that, when—I say not if, but when—we are going to decide as a committee to go with health and the subcommittee, I would like to know at that point in time, when we deal with Mr. Calder's motion, who's going to be involved in that committee. To what level are we going to have influence in that committee?

Mr. Murray, you could say this is maybe a point of order and we shouldn't be discussing this because we'll deal with it at that motion, but the point of the matter is we shouldn't even be discussing Mr. Calder's motion at this time. Right now, I feel very sorry for democracy.

I sent a letter to the Speaker—and I still haven't an answer to that letter—as to how a chairman and a committee cannot act on a ratified motion of a committee. Until I get that answer, believe me, I think we as a committee here have no place to go.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Calder, and then Mr. McCormick.

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

Look, I want to make this absolutely clear, because there seems to be some confusion here. First, Madame Alarie, I agree with everything you've said. This is a very contentious issue, and it has to be dealt with in a timely fashion. Your motion, when it was passed, dealt with exactly that.

The only thing I disagree with is the committee structure of how we deal with this. If agriculture deals with it all by itself, the general public is going to look at this and say we have a vested interest, we're only protecting our own turf, and everything else like that.

If we have the subcommittee put together where it has health and agriculture, the perfect balance, then we avoid what Mr. Steckle has already said. You have two independent committees working at it independently, coming out with two independent answers that eventually are going to have to be melded and compromised. Why don't we just do it that way first? We speed up the whole process, because this is a very contentious and timely issue.

That's all my motion deals with. It's not defeating Madame Alarie's motion; it's actually enhancing it.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: My first comment is to my colleagues across the way. Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not ready to hand over this most important issue to any health committee. I'm afraid that's what would happen if we did it independently.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray: I want to respond to Mr. Borotsik's comment about democracy. This is a question of practicality, because at the end of the day, again, the consumer will decide; the consumer will rule. It's the consumer the farmers are concerned about. Therefore, what's the point of doing this as something that, as has been said many times already around the table, can be seen as a potentially slanted report, which will just mean you'll have some other group wanting to do their own potentially slanted report, and we'll be back to square one again? Why not have a subcommittee that has all the powers it needs to call witnesses? Members of the health committee and members of the agriculture committee can listen to the same witnesses at the same time and pose questions to them, so that you'll have a reasonable outcome; otherwise we're asking for this to drag on, probably for years, until we reach a resolution.

An hon. member: Right. It will be two years.

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

• 1145

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: First of all, I should point out that this debate began on agriculture, and agriculture alone. Health was introduced later in the debate. I remember going to Brazil in October, and meeting with Dr. MacKenzie, who is very enthusiastic about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, whose seal guarantees the quality of all food stocks from Canada and ensure product quality. Why is health being introduced into this debate? The debate should be on agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, while my colleagues across the way are attempting to bring health into the agriculture debate, I would like to remind you of the process initiated to go before the World Trade Organization, in which each sector tackled the problems on the basis of its own specific standpoint. Thus, members of this committee saw witnesses. Then, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade undertook its own process, and we were able to combine the information obtained by both committees.

This is the 21st century, and communications are fairly advanced. If we have trouble forwarding information from the Agriculture Committee to the Health Committee, there is a serious problem.

Think about how the media will see this. I know what I'm talking about, because I was in the business for 16 years. They want to know what is being grown. They want to know the origin of the products that are being grown. I have already attended a number of information sessions, and I can tell you that they are wondering about what's happening on the agricultural front. How can we be concerned about health without being concerned about what our food is made of?

And this is why labelling must be debated first and foremost within a committee that deals with agriculture. This is paramount. If you are that worried about contradictory information, invite health people to sit in as observers. And if the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee has so much difficulty in communicating its information to the Health Committee, observers could help.

Let's take it logically. We have been debating this since December 15. People have talked about media perceptions: let me tell you that things are taking too long. I will leave you with the following comment: when urgent action is required—and we really do need urgent action here—we become embroiled in procedures. I am certain that Mr. Calder has a plan. In any case, whenever we see Mr. Knutson at the committee, we know that there is something up.

People are concerned about GMOs in all parts of Canada, in all parts of Quebec, and internationally as well. If we merge the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee with the Health Committee, we will just muddle the issue. It won't work.

You have a majority here this morning, and we had to wait until you had that majority before these proceedings could begin. That is the democracy game. However, if you tell everyone that GMOs will be considered both by the Health Committee and the Agriculture Committee, you will have a great deal of difficulty in explaining your rationale. People will wonder what the basic mandate of a committee entrusted with studying as important an issue as GMOs really is.

As far as I am concerned, I and Ms. Alarie are ready for the media battle. The Bloc Québécois is also ready to wage its own battle, and to hold parallel hearings. I challenge you to compare the results of our proceedings with those of the committee you want to set up.

[English]

The Chair: Members, we don't have unlimited time. So I'll recognize—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have one more comment.

The Chair: I would invite you to keep them as short as possible.

We'll go to Mr. Knutson, Mr. Calder, and Mr. Hilstrom. We'll finish with Ms. Alarie, and then we'll call the question.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I will speak again, but it's not finished.

The Chair: You could speak on the next motion.

Gar.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

As somebody who voted with the opposition on the last motion and may not do that this time, judging from my face, I think the opposition has a legitimate question as to why I may have changed by mind.

I genuinely believe the farmers in my riding are best served by a report that deals with the health issues front and centre. If it's a joint committee with a major health component, even a dominant health component, I'm not embarrassed....

• 1150

Perhaps I can finish, Larry, if you don't mind.

I'm not embarrassed to say that public health should be our priority. I don't care what committee I'm on. I could be on the defence committee, for crying out loud; I'd still say public health should be the priority. I think that best serves the interests of my farmers. If consumers aren't confident, do you know who's going to pay the price? It's the growers.

When I voted for the motion, there weren't two committees. I think it's a waste of time to have two committees. I know the opposition time is as valuable as my time, and I'm quite comfortable voting to have one joint committee.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: On parle depuis deux mois. We wasted two months on that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't need to say any more.

The Chair: Murray, Howard, and then Madame Alarie. Then we'll call the question.

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

Monsieur Desrochers says that I have an agenda. He's absolutely right. I've had an agenda here for the last six and a half years. I'm an active farmer. I want to see farming be viable and I think one of the things that will be going after farming right now, as Madame Alarie has said, is genetics. We have to have it. From that aspect of it, we also have to have the consumer convinced and educated on the fact that this is safe. We have to start dealing with facts.

That's my agenda, plain and simple. It always has been. I believe the quickest process we can take is with this joint committee. That's it.

The Chair: Howard, and then Mrs. Alarie.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two short points.

First, Mr. Calder's agenda certainly is not in the interests of farmers. I'll tell you what—

Some hon. members: No, no!

An hon. member: In your opinion, Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just a minute, this is my opinion. The reason I say that is that when we were talking about agriculture issues on behalf of farmers and primary producers, we went and studied three provinces instead of studying ten in regard to the safety net programs of this country. I don't believe this committee can take that as a legitimate way of proceeding.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Where were you? You weren't even there, Howard. I was there.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll make this quick, Mr. Chairman. The second point is that this suggestion that our report would somehow be slanted, biased, or other derogatory words is simply a red herring. As an agriculture committee, we have seven members on this side and eight members on this side. I guarantee you it will be a rigorous debate. The issues will be brought out and it'll be on an unbiased position that our report goes forward to the minister, who will make the final decision in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I can't say it enough: we have to continue with this hearing into GMOs. I don't agree with all the positions Madame Alarie is putting forward, but I do agree that as a committee we passed this and we have to hold the hearings.

The Chair: Madame Alarie, and then we'll call the question.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: First of all, in committee, when we have something to say we can say it. There is a Standing Order that says so quite clearly. We are not in the House; we are in committee.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: There are no barriers here. We are lucky.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I would like to ask all of you a question, starting with the Chairman. Why is it that we do not have enough pride to defend agricultural interests first and foremost? That is what I don't understand. We are not a joint committee, but rather the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. If we had stopped wasting time and had been working on this subject since our return in January, we might have been finished by now. I fail to understand why we have no pride in the agricultural community. Why would we be subordinate to another committee? I listened to what Paul said. I am sure that he would support the witness list, but have you ever been to committees where people don't listen because they're not interested, because it is not their particular subject? The Health Committee and the Agriculture committee are completely different, diametrically opposed. So we would wasting time, I am quite sure, and we will have a mediocre committee, rather than an interesting one. And yet, our interests are the same.

When you work on this subject, and I can tell you that for some months now I have been very interested in this issue, you go to conferences. And at conferences, farmers are the people who are demanding more and more. Initially, it was the consumers; now, increasingly, it is the farmers.

• 1155

I think we are repeating the same mistake. Look what happened in the case of rBST for years. In the end, the person who displayed the best judgment was Mr. Whelan, a Liberal. I'm paying you a compliment when I say that. He said at the Senate committee that as long as there was a risk for farmers, the answer would be no. After listening to specialists from around the world, he made a decision. He said that if he were still Minister of Agriculture, this would be out of the question.

I think he knew what he was doing, that he was not overwhelmed....

[English]

Mr. Murray Calder: Who was that, by the way? It was me.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I haven't finished speaking. So I think he had a good understanding of the agricultural community and that he understood the ins and outs of the whole issue.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: A real minister.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Paul, you say that the Health Committee could reach a conclusion that would be exactly the opposite to ours. Well, I would say that at that point parliamentarians have to do their duty, and that's where things get interesting. Because if our studies produce different results, there is a problem. We will have at least to find the problem, whereas, at the moment, everything is in flux. We don't know what we are talking about. Everyone is talking through their hats. If the findings are different, I think that as parliamentarians, we will have done an excellent job. We will say: these are the concerns of the agricultural community. The Health Committee will say: these are the concerns that we have about antibiotics, or whatever. At that point, a joint committee could be set up to try to determine what the problem is. It would be a good idea for there to be some joint action at that point, because we are working—all of us, I imagine—in the interest of the people who elected us and whom we serve.

I would also like to respond to Murray who said that he was concerned about the committee structure and the danger that we might give the impression that we are trying to protect our own interests. My answer is: so what? This is why we are the Agriculture Committee, we are not on some other committee. We are here to protect agricultural interests. If someone tells me that I am protecting the interests of agriculture, I'm going to be very pleased. I would think that I understood my role, and that my role was understood by the public. I would not be ashamed of that. I would not feel insulted by such a comment.

I also listened to what Larry said. He thinks that if we act independently, the danger is that there might be just one committee: the health committee. If that is the threat, then someone does not understand his job, and I would be the first to go to see the Minister of Agriculture to tell him to wake up, because he has a job to do, an interest that must be protected.

Farmers are waiting for a signal. Look at what happened with the Biosafety Protocol and its conclusions. The deadline was two or three years from now. The same thing happened at the WTO. We need answers immediately. There are already a number of members of Parliament who are wondering about this.

I used the Access to Information Act to get answers to my questions. Members of Parliament write to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, and everyone is concerned. Everyone wants to see something done soon. But with the time we have wasted doing who knows what, so as not to be on the same committees, we got behind. The government itself has established three committees: a committee of experts, a committee on voluntary labelling and one on biotechnology. Their findings will be in in 2001 or 2002. If you think this is not urgent, I can tell you that personally I think it is urgent to send out a signal that people interested in agriculture are already asking the real questions.

When people say that everything relates to health, that is true. When I'm healthy, I'm in a good mood. I'm a little less red in the face when I am in better health. But if health were the answer to everything, there would be just one department, the Health Department, and we would have secretaries of state to do the rest. Excuse me, Murray, but it is simplistic to say that everything depends on health. Health is a concern for everyone, and I recognize that, but I do think some things need to be said in other areas, things that others cannot say for us. I'm therefore appealing to your pride.

I have seen the number of petitions that have been tabled by colleagues from all parties in the House asking for labelling. I've even seen the concerns of the Deputy Prime Minister, in response to access to information requests, who asked in writing when something was going to be done. It cost me a lot, but I am informed. I can make all of these documents available to you. I have them all in my office.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Ur wants to say a short thing and then I think we'll go to the vote.

• 1200

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Well, I won't say it's going to be short, Mr. Chair, but I will say.... No, I'm just adding a little humour to the debate here this morning.

I'm in a real dilemma here this morning. I'm on the health committee and I'm on agriculture, okay?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

A voice: That's good.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No, because basically what I hear here this morning is that my brainwaves don't work equally in health as in agriculture. Trust me, they do. And let me just share with you—and perhaps the government in the past has seen Rose-Marie Ur as a bit of a free thinker, to say the least—I can tell you—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, right.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

By the way, Mr. Hilstrom, my constituents can tell politics from real, genuine concerns. The last trip indicated that.

A voice: Hear, hear!

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But the fact of the matter is that when the health committee was studying tobacco.... And guess what, I'm a past producer. I was a nurse in a previous life as well. And I argued. I was on health, but I argued for my agricultural people because they were growing a legal product. Until it's an illegal product, how can we put those kinds of constraints on them, that they can't do this and they can't do that?

Are you telling me that my judgment would be less than honourable if I sat on this? I can tell you the perception out there by the public is—and I'm a farmer—that if we don't do it jointly....

I don't know what the problem would be, if witnesses come forth, whether it's in front of the agriculture committee or the health committee, that we can't question those same people at the same time, and still come up with a good overall report on this issue. I think we can work together on this. One can't say, okay, it's all biased against agriculture. Trust me, agriculture is our mainstay, and I'll fight that with my dying breath.

But also, the perception of people out there.... Look at the people out there protesting on health issues all the time. If they aren't included, they're going to run with this like you wouldn't believe. So I want to make sure the efforts we put forward are not going to compromise agriculture or health, that the two of them together will form probably one of the best things that could ever come out of this committee. I would be totally supportive of that.

Some hon. members: Bravo, bravo!

The Chair: I think we've had a pretty good discussion, so I think we should call the question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, what is the question to be called on? What's the motion?

The Chair: The motion of Mrs. Alarie.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It was passed on December 15.

The Chair: No, there's a motion saying that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure should meet to establish an agenda for the calling of witnesses and so on. That's what the motion is, Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, all right.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I just want to make sure I understand what we're voting on.

The Chair: Let me read it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's prone to confusion.

The Chair: Let me read, just so that you understand that the motion I'm going to ask you to vote on is from Madame Alarie. It says:

I move that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food follow up immediately on the motion carried in committee on December 15, which reads as follows: “That this Committee study and report to the House about a clear and mandatory labelling mechanism for genetically modified organisms”; and that the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure meet to establish an agenda for the calling of witnesses, starting in March 2000, to follow up on the motion carried on December 15.

So her motion is to act on her previous motion. And of course the argument has been.... Well, you know what it is. Some people are saying let's ignore that, because we're going to have a subcommittee, or that's the intention. So all in favour—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that procedurally correct in the rules of Parliament? We might have to suspend this here until I get some independent advice, because this doesn't sound right, this motion of Madame Alarie's that we act on a motion that's already passed to be acted on.

The Chair: I think the clerk has indicated that it's in order. Is that right, Georges?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, I don't think it is.

The Chair: It's in order. All in favour of the motion, please—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, you're guaranteeing that? I want the chairman's guarantee that this is in keeping with parliamentary procedure.

The Chair: I'm following the advice of the clerk, Mr. Hilstrom, and he says it's in order.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I intend to review that, and if it's not, I'll...whatever.

The last thing, before we go to the vote.... I still have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman....

[English]

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I still have the floor. Before we go to any votes, there's only one way that we members of Parliament are accountable, and that's on a recorded vote. I'm asking that any votes in this committee be recorded.

The Chair: All in favour of the motion?

• 1205

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: We are going to relax a little this morning, Mr. Chairman. We get the impression that the Liberals want to settle things quickly. I would like the clerk to take the time to explain why a motion passed on December 15, in which we agree to hear from witnesses, is to be withdrawn today and replaced by another. I would like the clerk to take the time to explain this to us so that we understand....

[English]

Mr. Larry McCormick: I said—

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Larry, let me finish. I listened to you. I want to know why the government side is seeking to withdraw a motion that was passed on December 15 and to replace it with a different motion. I would ask the clerk to provide us with some information on this. This document says, with respect to committee staff:

The clerk is the procedural advisor to the Chairman and to all committee members; [...] As a non-partisan, independent officer, the clerk also serves all committee members, and representatives of all parties;

So I would like him to explain to all the members of this committee why the motion is being withdrawn today....

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: ... to be replaced with another motion.

[English]

The Chair: We'll hear from Georges and then we'll have the vote.

The Clerk: With your permission,

[Translation]

with your permission, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Alarie's motion was passed by the committee, and she is moving another motion which includes her first motion and which asks that the committee take action on this motion.

[English]

An hon. member: Withdraw it, then.

An hon. member: Withdraw it.

[Translation]

The Clerk: That is what we must vote on.

[English]

The Chair: I think it's quite clear.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: It's a follow-up to the first motion.

[English]

The Chair: All right. We'll call the question.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: It is not a second motion. It's a follow-up to the first.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Alarie...?

All in favour of the motion—

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: One moment. We still don't have all the details.

[English]

The Chair: All in favour of the motion—

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, honestly, Ms. Alarie has just....

[English]

The Chair: There's a point at which I have to call the question, Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, we've been given an explanation, and Ms. Alarie had another question to ask you on the subject.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Chairman, it's a follow-up to the first motion. It is formulated as a motion because when I put it as a question, verbally, I never got an answer. I would like you to make a decision and to call the witnesses. You are talking about a second motion. I'm telling you that the motion was already tabled on the 15th of December. Make a decision, for crying out loud! It's February now! This is a follow-up to that same motion, and I'm asking you to do something.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Alarie, I think the intent of the motion is quite clear. It's quite clear and I'm going to call the question.

All in favour of the motion—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: She can withdraw the motion if she wants to.

The Chair: Well, of course she can, but she hasn't done it, Mr. Borotsik, so I'm calling the question.

All in favour of the motion? The clerk will call the names in favour.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Alarie has something else to say.

[English]

The Chair: There's a point at which I have to call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but we will take the time to explain this.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Madame Alarie, one more.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know from the clerk if you can forbid me from asking questions and from talking about my motion, and from calling for the yeas and neas.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Alarie, I'm going to call the question. I think we've had enough discussion. We're going to call the question. And I will ask the clerk.... Madame Alarie, I'm going to ahead and call the question.

Go ahead, Mr. Etoka, and take the names down.

• 1210

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. According to Marleau and Montpetit, the question may not be called as long as debate continues on the motion. It's on page 786 of the Marleau and Montpetit.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Take the time to have a look at it. We want everything to be clear.

[English]

The Chair: I've called the question and that ends the debate.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: No, he cannot do that.

[English]

The Chair: [Technical Difficulty—Editor]...telling me, Madame Alarie, that you, as one member of the committee, don't have the power to hold the committee from making a decision. The committee must come to a decision. We've been discussing this for an hour now and we have to come to a decision. You may not like the outcome, but we have to come to a decision, and I'm calling the question.

Call the names in favour of the motion. Go ahead, Georges.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did Georges answer? Mr. Chairman, I would like Georges to read us this specific paragraph on page 786.

[English]

The Chair: Well, if there's no one in favour of the motion, I guess we can call who's against.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, if I can, please, just on a point of order, let's get some calm here, would you, please, Mr. Chairman? Please. This issue is of vital importance to all of our constituents. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The bickering that we have going on right now is political more so than realistic, okay?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no. Please, please, please...please listen to me.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Please—we have producers who depend on us. The issue now is that we are getting our asses kicked by consumer groups and activists when it deals with GMOs and biotech. The bottom-line solution is, let's fix the problem. How do we do that? We listen to people, we listen to experts, we listen to proposals, and we put in strategies. That's where we have to head. The question now is, do we do it at the agriculture committee or do we do it at the health committee?

Some of us, by the way, have a belief that it's more important to do it at the agricultural committee. There are others—

Mr. Joe McGuire: Or together.

An hon. member: Or together. That's a third option—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Personally I believe that we will lose some of our influence even if we do it together. That's my opinion. It may not be shared by others, and I appreciate that.

Please, please, please...to leave this meeting now and not come to a resolution is worse than the bickering we're doing right now, and I'm sure Madame Alarie would agree with that. Let's at least be seen as being positive in some fashion.

Now, we have a motion on the table, Mr. Chairman, that was passed on December 15 and that said we should study it at this committee. I do not see how Madame Alarie's motion right now is going to rescind that motion.

However, I see Mr. McCormick's motion—

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Calder's.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sorry.

I see Mr. Calder's motion as changing the intent of that December 15 motion. So I'm very confused and I wish the clerk would please tell me now, unequivocally, what the process is that we're following currently with Madame Alarie's motion and where we're heading.

Just let's do it procedurally as correctly as we can, please, and stop the damn bickering. Let's get something productive out of this.

Mr. Clerk, please tell me the procedurally correct process—please!

The Chair: You can't invite the clerk to take part in the debate.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, my interpretation of the motion from Madame Alarie is basically to place her original motion in abeyance.

An hon. member: No—

The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm talking about Mr. Calder's motion.

Madame Alarie's motion is basically asking the committee to move on her motion because she feels that there has been no action as a result of the motion. So she wants the committee to move.

An hon. member: Okay.

The Chair: We have others who are saying no, because they feel they should go ahead in a joint fashion with the health committee. This is what the debate is about. I think it's quite clear.

So let's call the question.

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: All in favour of Madame Alarie's motion...?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Chairman....

[English]

The Chair: I've called the question, Madame Alarie. I've called the question. I have called the question.

All in favour...?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, we will...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.... There is a point at which I have to call the question, Odina, okay? I have called the question.

• 1215

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I know, Mr. Chairman, but be assured of one thing: we won't let this drop. The way this committee is chaired is unacceptable. I repeat, there is a political agenda guiding the committee this morning. What's more, there is something wrong here. Mr. Byrne has not heard one word of what has happened. He is only here to vote, to overturn a decision that was made democratically last December 15. I will tell you this, we won't let this drop, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, calling a question and voting is also a part of democracy. Once again, I'm calling the question.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Chairman, once again, the Standing Order is clear and Marleau is also clear. I'm sorry, but you cannot do this.

[English]

The Chair: I'm calling the question.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 6)

The Chair: Now we can go to Mr. Calder's motion.

Mr. Calder, would you like to speak to your motion?

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, I think we have discussed this at depth. Right now, I would like to put the motion forward and we'll vote on it.

The Chair: So moved.

Mr. Hilstrom.

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

I don't think we have discussed this motion. I have some serious reservations about this, and before the chairman goes to negotiate, I believe is the word in here, with the chairman of the health committee, I would like that in fact we as a committee understand exactly the type of subcommittee you expect to be constituted and the authority it will have, whether all of us on this agriculture committee will be part of it, and so on. There are lots of things to debate about this motion before we actually get into it. Is that not true? Can we not have a bit of a debate on it?

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, are you seeking information or a debate?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm seeking information and debate as to the nature of our committee instructions to you to follow up on this motion.

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, I trust that we will have a very good discussion with others regarding the setting up of this committee. I'm sure it will be very balanced and that agriculture will not be subordinated in any fashion. I look forward to the discussions.

Mr. McGuire, did you want to say something?

Mr. Joe McGuire: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I suspect that the subcommittee would be a 16-member committee; I think that's generally agreed to. It will be co-chaired with equal numbers from both the agriculture and health committees, so it's as balanced as we can possibly make it.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I'm terribly confused right now. Mr. McGuire has just indicated that there will be a 16-member committee and it will be co-chaired. It seems like a lot of the discussions have already taken place. I assume the chairman has already discussed this with the chairman of the health committee. However, the motion says “undertake immediate discussions with the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health”. Do I assume from this, then, that this motion has already been acted upon, even prior to this committee passing this motion?

Mr. Joe McGuire: I don't think the member is so naive as to think nobody speaks about these things before they actually happen.

We haven't chosen the members.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, this doesn't seem to me to be naivety; it seems to me to be a usurpation of the powers of this committee. We had a motion on the table—

The Chair: Which committee?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This committee, the agriculture committee.

We had a motion on the table that we would sit as this committee. Now I'm told—

Mr. Joe McGuire: This motion hasn't been passed yet.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But my point is that negotiations have been already ongoing.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Nothing may happen if it's defeated.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No. We're not dealing with the issue. I take it from Mr. McGuire that the negotiations have already taken place and that in fact the government has already decided even the make-up of this particular joint committee, this subcommittee.

Is that correct, Mr. McGuire?

• 1220

Mr. Joe McGuire: The discussions have been in a very general sense. Most committees are 16-member. It's a subcommittee of two committees, if this happens, so I would think we would like a chair from each committee. We're not rocket scientists here. We're not reinventing the wheel. It's a normal way to proceed.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Not when you don't have a motion, Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: If the motion is defeated, then nothing happens.

The Chair: I look forward to the discussions. I think we'll probably come up with a very good subcommittee, and I'll report back in a couple of weeks if the motion passes.

Yes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So that we're clear, we're still studying Madame Alarie's motion, which says at the top of the motion, right after “Whereas”:

That this Committee study and report to the House about a clear and mandatory labelling mechanism for genetically modified organisms.

Is that statement and that motion identical to what the health committee is studying? Is that their motion that they are studying on GMOs?

That's our motion. According to Murray Calder's motion here, that's what we're going to be studying with the health committee. Is that identical to theirs?

The Chair: Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: Look, it's very simply this, and I have already stated it. I agree with Madame Alarie's motion. That's why I incorporated this into my motion. What I disagreed with was the structure as to how it was going to be studied. I believed and I still believe it has to be a joint committee.

I sit on a joint committee for international trade. I bring back all the information I glean from that committee to this committee. So from the instance right here, all I'm looking at is, no, I don't think they're studying anything within the health committee right now.

I'm not sure what's going on in the health committee, but I know how important this is to our industry and I also know health is deeply ingrained in the whole thing. That's why I believe it has to be a joint committee. It's as simple as that.

The Chair: Maybe I can answer that. Based on any discussion I've had, and I've had a number of them, when the subcommittee is established and its mandate is formulated, I think you will find that within that mandate, Madame Alarie's concerns as contained in her motion will be met.

I'm quite sure that will happen, Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Then I think this motion is very premature. I don't know that we need to have this mandate from the agriculture committee conflicting with the health committee, and I have questions about whether it's going to be an effective subcommittee anyway.

But I think you can go and talk to the health committee and come back to us with a motion so that we know clearly what we're studying, and Murray can bring forward a proper motion that indicates exactly the mandate of what this subcommittee will be studying, and it has to be equivalent to the motion of the health committee, or whatever you call it—we're a subcommittee, so the main committee on health.

I would oppose the motion on that basis.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? I will call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Can we now go to the top of the future business list?

Mr. Borotsik, are you the one who asked about the appearance of Minister Eggleton?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I am.

The Chair: Let me tell you—and we can go to the order of business, Mr. Borotsik—I have communicated with Mr. Eggleton your wish to have him appear, and he has agreed. He will be here on May 2 at 3.30 p.m.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased with that information. It's not quite as urgent as the last motion we passed, but as the members are aware or should be aware from in my letter, there are a number of things we have to talk about with the minister responsible for DFAA. I have some particular experience in my area right now that there are some inconsistencies in the program.

Mr. Chairman, May 2 is perfect. I'll put it on my agenda, and I certainly hope there are no changes to that attendance.

Thank you.

• 1225

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, in regard to that issue, I would like you to contact Minister Eggleton and ensure that he refreshes his memory and/or bring with him specific requests from the Manitoba and Saskatchewan governments, both past and present in the case of both provinces, as to whether or not there was an official request from the provinces to have this declared a natural disaster. That is one of the major issues that are unresolved in this whole issue—whether or not this is equivalent to the ice storm in the east here that was declared a disaster.

Could you do that?

The Chair: I will get the clerk to take note of that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Because I'll ask him when he comes.

The Chair: I'll have the clerk apprise the minister of your concern so that he can answer you when he appears.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It's only fair.

The Chair: With respect to your motion, Mr. Hilstrom—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Which one?

The Chair: —that the committee hold meetings to consider and report on the 2000-2001 main estimates, we will be hearing from Mr. Vanclief on that particular request of yours on Tuesday, April 4.

As well, the week before that, Mr. Hilstrom, as requested by you and Borotsik and others, Mr. Vanclief will be here on Tuesday, March 28, to talk about farm income and safety net. So he's coming twice.

Perhaps I can mention to you further meetings that have been established or put on the list. Mr. Proctor has gone, has he? He had asked us....

You're familiar with the fact that the National Farmers Union has come out with a study having to do with subsidies and that they're really not the culprit in the whole business of low prices. Mr. Proctor had asked that the National Farmers Union appear. We have invited them to be here on Thursday, March 23.

On Thursday, March 30, members, having to do with the AG's report, the deputy auditor general will be here. Her name is Sheila Fraser. That's March 30 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. It has to do with user charges, chapter 11.

As well, Mr. Hilstrom, on Tuesday, April 11—and this is on the estimates—we will have officials from the Department of Agriculture. These are ADMs, assistant deputy ministers. Among other things, they will be here to talk about cost recovery.

On May 4, by the way, we'll have another appearance from the Auditor General. This will be dealing with the AG's report, chapter 12, “A New Crop: Intellectual Property in Research”, and chapter 24, “Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development Fund.”

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, can I just jump in here for a moment and suggest that this schedule be sent to us individually?

The Chair: Sure. That's fine. You can have it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can I add just one other thing? Since a motion now has been passed to set this joint committee of health and agriculture, can I ask the chairman to please do this expeditiously and set up a schedule for those particular subcommittee meetings and allow this committee to have some information as to how you're going to do it?

What I'm saying is, sooner rather than later, get together with this committee to give us an understanding as to what the format will be and the timeline for this special standing committee.

The Chair: I would think the subcommittee will have its own.... I don't think I would be wanting to tell the subcommittee how to carry out its schedule. That's up to the subcommittee.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, Mr. Chairman, we do have to strike the subcommittee—unless, of course, Mr. McGuire, it's already been done.

Mr. Joe McGuire: We'll report to this committee no later than two weeks from today.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That would be very nice. Thank you very much, Mr. McGuire.

Do we have the makeup of that committee already that you could share with this committee?

Mr. Joe McGuire: Would you like to join?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would, actually, yes, thank you.

The Chair: I'm sure we'll be happy to have you on that subcommittee if you so wish, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: He does wish.

• 1230

The Chair: The list of future business will be circulated. They're doing it right now.

An hon. member: Oh, good.

The Chair: This meeting is over.