AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 7,1997

• 0904

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum. Your first item of business this morning is to elect a chairman of this committee and I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

• 0905

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Madam Clerk, I move the name of Joe McGuire for chair.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam Clerk, before we got to that, I was going to propose a motion that we elect our chair and vice-chairs by secret ballot, as is the custom in the House in selecting the Speaker of the chamber. Also, all of us are elected by secret ballot when we run for election.

Mr. John Harvard: Madam, I think at this juncture the only business before us, while you're in the chair, is to elect a chairperson. Other matters will come later.

The Clerk: Yes. I have distributed the agenda to you and it is stated right there. My role is very limited here and it's only to receive motions for the election of the chair. As to the point you have raised, there doesn't seem to be any consensus and I don't have any authority to deal with that.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): On a point of order, would the hon. member from across the way please explain to me what democracy means.

An hon. member: That's not a point of order.

The Clerk: I can't receive points of order either.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I'm new in this place. I don't have the experience that the hon. member has. I always thought in a democracy we elected people by ballot.

Mr. John Harvard: Madam Clerk, I would suggest that you call the question.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I would like those comments recorded, please.

The Clerk: My role is limited, as I stated earlier. It has been moved by Mr. Harvard that Mr. McGuire do take the chair of this committee as chairman. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?

Motion agreed to

The Clerk: I declare Mr. McGuire elected chairman of this committee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would put forth the name of Murray Calder as vice-chair of the committee.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the chair has not called for a vice-chair yet, so I imagine we have to wait for his instructions.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I believe I dropped the name “vice-chair” in there, my honourable friend.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: To pre-empt that, I will nominate for vice-chair Mr. Jay Hill from Prince George—Peace River.

The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Now, just hold on here. I'll call for the motion and then we will take names for the vice-chair.

I just want to say before we move on to the selection of the first and second vice-chairs that I'm very happy to be your chair. I haven't been on the agriculture committee now for four years. The last time I was on the agriculture committee, I was sitting over on that side, and except for Mr. Harvard, I don't think there was anybody else around at that time. I'm glad to be back.

I call for motions for the election of the first vice-chair.

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, I would like to put forward the name of my colleague Murray Calder for the first vice-chair.

The Chairman: Are there any other nominations?

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to nominate Jay Hill from Prince George—Peace River.

Mr. John Harvard: I think they have to be separate votes, one for government chair and one for opposition chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, you're looking for first vice-chair.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: First vice-chair.

The Chairman: Therefore we have to have a show of hands. All those in favour of Mr. Calder as first vice-chair please raise hands.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Chair, are we recording these votes, please? I would like them recorded by name.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Mr. Calder is elected as first vice-chair. I call for nominations for the second vice-chair.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I move Mr. Hill.

The Chairman: Mr. Hill is again nominated for second vice-chair. Are there any other nominations?

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Mr. Hill is second vice-chair.

• 0910

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. According to the standing orders there's no such thing as first or second vice-chair. There's just the election of two vice-chairs.

The Chairman: According to my esteemed clerk, there are first and second vice-chairs, one from the government side and one for the official opposition.

The Clerk: That's what the standing orders say, one from the government and one from the opposition.

The Chairman: And she's been here a lot longer than you guys have.

Mr. Jay Hill: But it doesn't say first or second.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): However, should the chair not be available, then the first vice-chair would be Mr. Calder, who would then take the chair. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Absolutely right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chairman: Item 3 is the appointment of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which is the steering committee. The motion reads that the chair, the two vice-chairs and.... Is there anyone else who should be on that steering committee?

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if I may be so bold, I would suggest that the steering committee be comprised of nine people: the chairman, the vice-chair 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 one from the Conservatives. So that would be five on the government side and four on the opposition.

The Chairman: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Are you going to entertain discussion on this motion, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: It would be my observation, Mr. Chairman, that a nine-person subcommittee is more than just a little bit unwieldy. According to the standing orders, the steering committee is not going to be able to take any action without coming back to the committee at any rate, so I don't think it's necessary for the government to have a majority on the steering committee.

I would put forward an alternate suggestion, that we have the chair, the two vice-chairs and one member each from the other three parties in question—in other words, one member from the Bloc, the NDP and the PCs—to make a total of a six-person steering committee. I believe that even with six, at times it's going to be a bit unwieldy to get the business done.

The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): I would like to second the motion of the first vice-chair, Murray Calder. As you can see, Denis, everyone is scrambling to put on their headphones. That will happen all the time since members very rarely speak in French. I hope that you will support me on this.

Out of respect for democracy, we allocate a seat to each party officially recognized in the House of Commons. That is a healthy approach and since the Liberal Party must also control the subcommittee, it appoints five members and allocates four seats to the opposition. I support this wonderful decision.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I think there is some merit in Mr. Hill's suggestion that subcommittees, especially the steering committee, can become a little unwieldy with so many members. But it's pretty customary around here that subcommittees always reflect the composition of the parent committee or the House of Commons. The Liberal Party has the majority, and to me it would be anathema if we were not to have the majority on any subcommittee. If the opposition parties insist on having representation on the steering committee, then I don't think we have any other choice but to go to the number nine. There are four opposition parties, and to maintain the majority we would have to have five.

I don't like nine either. I think it's very large. But if the opposition parties each want one member on the steering committee, then I will not agree to holding a minority position.

The Chairman: Who do you exclude?

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a couple of quick points, Mr. Chairman. One is that I've been informed that the procedure and House affairs committee has constituted a steering committee along the lines of what I've suggested, and the government does not hold a majority on the steering committee of that very important committee.

• 0915

Second, just to dispute the hon. member across the way, if you have five Liberals and one each of the four opposition parties, it does not clearly represent the make-up of the House of Commons, because there would only be one Reform on it, the same as one PC, even though we have three times the members in the House of Commons. So I don't see that as being a valid argument for going with nine people.

The Chairman: I think everybody would agree that every opposition party should have a member on the committee. I don't think we can eliminate any legitimate party in the House of Commons. So that's four automatically.

Now, I think Mr. Harvard is correct; I agree that nine is unwieldy. The steering committee might as well be the whole committee almost if it gets that big. I do agree that the government party should have the majority on it, but it's entirely in the committee's hands.

Mr. Chrétien.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I would like to revise my position. It is often said that it is a great man who admits his mistakes. Earlier on, I was mistaken when I informed my colleague Murray Calder that I supported his motion calling for the subcommittee to be made up of five Liberals and of four opposition members.

I've just been informed that in most committees—my Reform Party colleagues should listen closely to this—it has been agreed that the steering committee would be composed of one representative per party in addition to the chair, which means that we would be entitled to five members. In addition to the chair, there would be Mr. Calder, a member of the Reform Party, a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and a member of the New Democratic Party.

Most committees have decided to go with this format. This might help the steering committee of the Agriculture and Agrifood Committee to be more effective. It would have only six members, including yourself, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Calder, if you listened more closely, you would understand that this is not so farfetched since several committees have agreed to this proposal.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Calder thanked the hon. member previously for his position, so I think perhaps he has to take that thanks back.

In my experience with standing committees, and I have to agree—not that I would like to—with Mr. Hill on this one, in steering committees and committees obviously more work gets done when you have a committee of a more workable size, and six is obviously much better than nine.

I appreciate the government's side of the debate, I really do. I recognize that you are the government, and quite frankly, if you wish to make the decision you are going to have a steering committee of nine. The fact of the matter is that all issues debated at the steering committee are going to be done in such a way that all final decisions will come to the total Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I think the government's position could be put forward at that time.

I see the steering committee as a working committee, not necessarily one of partisanship but one of basically laying down the rules and certainly bringing forward some direction for this committee to decide on which way they want to go. I don't think you're going to find the partisanship—at least I hope you don't—in this. We're all here for the same reason and we all have the same goals in mind.

In saying that, I would like to support a steering committee of six simply because of the workability and the functionality of that size of committee. Again, it's your decision ultimately if the government is going to have a majority on that steering committee. I will live with either decision. I think for functionality it's better to have six.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, I think in that situation that would be the maximum size of the steering committee, but that is not always going to be the case, because there will be members who are busy at other things. Therefore, for the sake of time, I'm going to call the question on this and put a motion forward.

I would like to move that the steering committee be comprised on the government side of the chairman, the vice-chairman, the parliamentary secretary and two Liberal committee members; on the opposition side it would be comprised of the vice-chair from the Reform Party, a representative from the Bloc, a representative from the NDP, and a representative from the Conservative Party.

The Chairman: The motion is now put. Is there any further discussion?

• 0920

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I would move that this motion and the selection of the size and the make-up of the steering committee be tabled until such time as the chair can review the issue and report back.

The Chairman: Is that agreeable?

Mr. Jay Hill: There is no debate on tabling a motion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The clerk has informed me that Mr. Hill can amend the motion but he cannot put the motion on the table.

The Clerk: It's up to the committee.

The Chairman: The standing orders will tell you. The question, put by Mr. Calder, is on the nine-member committee. All those in favour of the nine-member committee—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the motion is made to table, you have to deal with it first.

The Chairman: Mr. Hill, what do you mean by “tabling”?

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I would amend the motion to read that the decision be put off until the next meeting of the committee.

The Chairman: Okay, you've heard the amendment. Are we prepared to vote on the amendment to the motion?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I call the question on the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Could you please reread Mr. Hill's motion?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hill's amendment is that the motion by Mr. Calder be postponed for further discussion. Is that correct?

Mr. Jay Hill: Until the next meeting.

The Chairman: Until the next meeting.

Amendment negatived

The Chairman: The motion is on Mr. Calder's nine-member committee.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: On item 4, the Library of Parliament:

That the Committee retain the services of one or more Research Officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the Committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chairman.

Could I have a motion to that effect?

Mr. John Harvard: I so move.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Next is item 5.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): On a related note, it's a point of honour with me to mention this at each meeting and at each committee. I would like assurances that all documents will always be submitted to us in both official languages. I will be expressing my disapproval each time I'm handed a document in only one official language. All work-related documents must be distributed to us in both French and English.

[English]

The Chairman: I believe that's normal procedure.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I am very happy to lend my support to the new member from Bourassa, but I would go one step further by adding the word "simultaneously" to the motion; not 15 days later, but at the same time. Otherwise, we should hold off circulating these documents. Agreed?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I understand my friend's concern and I share that concern, but I do think we have to be careful. There are times when witnesses come and they don't understand the demands and the requirements of the committee, and I can tell you that experience shows that the witnesses will sometimes show up with written briefs in only one language. It could be in French or it could be in English. The question you then face, Mr. Coderre, is whether or not you are going to refuse to listen to a witness because his brief is only in one language. That's the problem you have, and I can tell you that some witnesses would be very, very upset if you refused to listen to them.

• 0925

The practice I have been familiar with is that we will accept the brief in the one language, the interpretation will be given by our interpreters, and the brief will be translated into the other official language as quickly as possible. I understand what you're saying, and I'm with you, but you have to be careful of that one thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes indeed, we need to be careful.

[English]

The Chairman: If I could beg your indulgence, maybe this is a topic that could be addressed at the steering committee. We'd like to get through these motions. Maybe this could be discussed at length at the steering committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, everyone knows the friendship and respect I have for the parliamentary secretary. However, when one is guided by one's principles, these principles must be upheld and this applies not only to the witnesses, but also to the members of this committee. Therefore, I would like the record to show that the member for Bourassa will always request that documents be distributed simultaneously in both official languages.

I concur with my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic that the distribution should be simultaneous. If we make the effort to do this in English, then we should make an equal effort when it comes to the French version. I am going to be a stickler for this, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: We will bring this up at the steering committee. It's going to mean a lot of debate. I see a lot of hands already.

Mr. Chrétien.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Harvard, the parliamentary secretary, has to understand that as a unilingual francophone, I would be very disappointed if my colleagues in the House of Commons were to treat a member of this Parliament as a second-class citizen. You probably remember the words that were quoted in Hansard.

I have the highest regard for my unilingual English colleagues and when persons wish to testify in French... Simultaneous translation is of course available, but if these witnesses submit a unilingual French document, we will hold it back, have it translated by the House of Commons and circulate it simultaneously in both languages to everyone. That's how we must proceed, otherwise some members will be treated like second-class citizens. I'm not talking about you, but about myself.

Should you ever disagree with me on this point, I invite you to come to Quebec to defend your position.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't think anybody wants anybody treated as a second-class citizen here. Let's postpone this until the steering committee meeting and then we'll get into further discussion on it.

Mr. John Harvard: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. Talking of second-class citizens, I think we saw that portrayed here this morning when we did not have a secret ballot vote. In a country where everybody is treated equally, sir, that is number one.

The Chairman: Order. I think we've already discussed that, Mr. Hoeppner.

We'll proceed to item 5, meetings in the absence of a quorum:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least [blank] number of members are present, including a number of members from the opposition.

What do you suggest, committee members, as far as these numbers are concerned? Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I don't know what quorum is, so that would be helpful to start.

The Chairman: Quorum is nine.

Should it be five members present, six members present? Agreed? How many members of the opposition should be included in that five or six?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to that. If you have six members as a quorum, what will you then do if you have witnesses before the committee and there are only three members present? Other committees function well to hear witnesses when there are only three; why would you then have six on this committee?

The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I think Mr. Breitkreuz has a good point. I understand that we face this rather unusual configuration of five parties, but in this particular case we have to have due regard for witnesses.

Sometimes you will find situations, Mr. Chairman, where witnesses will have come hundreds of miles to make a presentation. It could be through no politicking, through nobody's fault. If you go forward with the suggestion that all opposition parties be represented with at least one member to form a quorum, you're sometimes going to have a person not being able to make a presentation because one person has not been able to show up. Surely out of deference and courtesy to witnesses we can have the minimum requirement of one opposition member and two government members and leave it at that.

• 0930

Let's not play around with something like that. We have to show courtesy to witnesses.

The Chairman: How many of those members—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That was my suggestion. I think I would leave it at three members and you don't even have to have a requirement as to representation from both sides.

The Chairman: Three members, with at least one from the opposition.

Mr. John Harvard: It's traditional to have at least one member of the opposition. It may not have to be the official opposition, but certainly one from the opposition.

The Chairman: Mr. Byrne, did you have a comment?

Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): I would support just having three.

The Chairman: Just having three.

The Clerk: Not including any opposition?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Item 6 is on opening statements and questions. This is the procedure regarding, when we have witnesses, how many minutes each party will have in the first and second rounds. Could we have a motion on the first round, the number of minutes for their opening statements, and then the number of minutes for the second round.

Mr. John Harvard: Could we leave that to the steering committee? I think that's a matter that really should be looked at by the steering committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Next is witnesses' expenses, and this is normal:

That, at the discretion of the Chairman, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulations established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the Committee, and that payment of these expenses be limited to two (2) representatives per organization.

It is moved by Mr. Harvard.

Motion agreed to

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, unless you have any other business, I think we're down to the last item here, which is adjournment.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, before adjournment, could we set the time for the steering committee to meet? Will that be struck by the chair, and could we have some indication today as to when that may be? We have to strike the steering committee and I would like to set an agenda or at least a timeframe.

Mr. John Harvard: Could we leave that to the call of the chair? I'm sure that—

The Chairman: The clerk will need the names of those people who are going to be on.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Yes, each party will submit them to the clerk.

Mr. John Harvard: As soon as the chair gets the names from each party, he can call the meeting.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can I ask the intention of the chair as to the timeframe on that?

The Chairman: The intention is to have a steering committee meeting on Thursday morning.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perfect.

The Chairman: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, at this time I would like to put forward a motion for the committee to deal with. It's a routine motion that a lot of the other committees, I'm informed, have adopted: that whenever order in council appointments are referred to this committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of said appointments. Rather than just going to you as chairman, they would be circulated to all members of the committee. I would like to move that motion now.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on that motion?

The clerk has informed me I should read this motion, moved by Mr. Hill:

That whenever Order in Council appointments are referred to this Committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the Committee a copy of said appointments.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.