AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 5, 1998

• 1534

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 106(1), your first item of business is to elect a chair.

I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Translation]

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): I move that John Harvard be elected Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[English]

The Clerk: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Mr. John Harvard the newly elected chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.

The Chairman (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): Thank you very much, colleagues. I'll try to live up to the confidence you place in me.

• 1535

Let me just say, Mr. Breitkreuz—and I'll recognize you in a moment—that I think an understanding has been given by the whips of the respective parties to do only what might be considered housekeeping, that is, the election of officers and a couple of other pieces of business, but nothing beyond that. That's because the Bloc's agricultural critic is not able to be here today. So there will be no motions outside of what I call “housekeeping”.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): I move that Mr. Howard Hilstrom from Selkirk—Interlake be elected to the position of vice-chair.

The Chairman: The name of Mr. Hilstrom has been put forward. Is that for second vice-chair?

Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Do we first have to elect the first vice-chair?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Does it really matter?

The Chairman: I don't think it matters. This is for second vice-chair.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It can be for vice-chair. It doesn't have to be for second vice-chair.

The Chairman: Let me consult with the clerk.

He'll be the vice-chair from the opposition, and the government members will have to pick a vice-chair as well.

An hon. member: I second that.

The Chairman: Just hang on, please.

Ms. Susan Whelan: I move that Murray Calder be elected as the first vice-chair.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll first take the nomination of Mr. Hilstrom for vice-chair for the opposition.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom has been elected vice-chair for the opposition.

Now for the government vice-chair, Susan.

Ms. Susan Whelan: I move that Murray Calder be elected first vice-chair of the committee.

The Chairman: The name of Murray Calder has been moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Calder has been elected vice-chair on the government side.

Colleagues, there is at least one other motion that I want to deal with. The clerk has submitted two motions.

I'll go through the first one, and I would rather not deal with it right now. It's the so-called subcommittee on agenda and procedure, often referred to in the vernacular as the steering committee. I haven't given it a lot of thought. The last time we had a steering committee, it was large, with nine members. At that size, it's hardly a steering committee. I would rather put this over to the next meeting so we can have some time to reflect. I don't know if members are in favour of such a large steering committee.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Are we debating this?

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: As a member of that particular steering committee, having been to the meetings, let me say that it wasn't terribly onerous. As a matter of fact, I thought the steering committee worked quite well, and most everybody, from both the government side and the opposition side, was fairly consistent in the way business was handled.

I don't have any difficulty with the size of the steering committee, and I would like to ask the chairman why he feels this way. The steering committee meetings weren't that onerous. We didn't have them every second day. It was a matter of simply sitting down, dealing with an agenda and getting it done quite quickly. I would like to know why the chairman's would like to see it reduced.

The Chairman: Perhaps I'm just thinking of years past when steering committees were a lot smaller, with three or five members.

Maybe that's what we have to live with, and if that's what the pleasure of the members is, that's fine.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, Ms. Alarie isn't here today. I'm sure she would be interested in hearing your reasons for maintaining or reducing the number of steering committee members. Undoubtedly, you'd like Ms. Alarie to hear what you have to say. May I suggest that we wait until the next meeting so that you and she can discuss the excellent reasons you have for deciding one way or the other?

• 1540

[English]

The Chairman: In view of what Mr. de Savoye has just said, I suggest that it certainly would be within the spirit of that understanding last week among the whips of the respective parties. I suggest to members that we just put over that particular motion until the next meeting, the first meeting.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If I may, I'm just going to put something forward for you to mull over until the next meeting. It may not affect some parties here because they only have one member on the committee, but I'm arguing for a small steering committee.

I would like to remind members that the steering committee doesn't do anything that isn't approved by the larger committee. There is really no sense in tying up extra members when a lot of these decisions are made on procedure and on where the committee will be headed and so on. Every party can still have a representative on that committee, and that agenda, or whatever they bring forth, is approved by the larger committee. I ask people to consider that in light of this whole discussion on reducing the size of the committee.

The Chairman: Let's give it some thought and put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I agree with Garry. We could discuss this at our next meeting. In my opinion, things were going quite well up until now. This is a party issue and I agree that there should be at least one representative from each opposition party, for a total of four. It is also customary to have a majority from the government party. I hope that we will come to the same conclusion as last time when everything went very smoothly.

[English]

The Chairman: So it's put over until the next meeting?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The clerk has suggested a motion that I'd like to throw out to you. I don't know whether this was considered part of the understanding vis-à-vis Madame Alarie, but I'll read the motion to you and then if you want to put it over until the next meeting, Mr. de Savoye, I certainly would listen to that.

The motion simply says that unless there is unanimous consent, 48 hours' notice must be given to members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, you are correct. The Whips had agreed that this type of motion would not be debated today, but rather at the next meeting. I'd like us to abide by that decision.

[English]

The Chairman: I certainly don't want to violate that. I think we can put up with that until the next meeting.

I will invite a motion of adjournment.

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

The Chairman: Sorry, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have one last comment. It's not about the 48 hours; we'll get into that next time. In regard to routine motions here, when a private member's bill is referred to us I would like it if the committee would agree to put the bill on the agenda at the earliest possible time, in order for us to be able to decide on its work plan and to to invite the member to explain the bill to the committee. The idea is to have that member here as soon as possible.

The Chairman: So you're giving notice of that for the next meeting?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That is the motion I would like to bring forward.

The Chairman: Okay. Now I'll invite a motion of adjournment.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: There is one other motion I would like to bring forward. It's about this 48 hours' notice. The motion should be changed to require that at least one of the three members should be from the opposition. Whenever our committee meets and we hear witnesses and so on, we should require that at least one of the three members at the committee be from the opposition.

The Chairman: Isn't that standard, Mr. Clerk? I think that's standard.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But committees still determine their own procedures and make their own rules, so I'd like to put that forward.

The Chairman: We'll deal with that next meeting.

Thanks very much.