AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 21, 1999

• 0942

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and (2), the main business of the committee this morning is to elect a chair and vice-chairs. As clerk, I will not entertain any other motions than the one to elect the chair. They are not first and second vice-chairs; they are vice-chairs, one from the government side and one from the opposition side.

I am ready to receive motions to elect a chair.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Clerk, I would be pleased to move the name of John Harvard as chair of the committee.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): I second the motion.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): I would like to propose—

The Clerk: We'll deal with that motion first. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to propose a second name for that.

The Clerk: Mr. Harvard, please take the chair. I declare Mr. Harvard elected chair of the committee.

An hon. member: Didn't we vote on that?

An hon. member: We always voted on that one.

An hon. member: It was unanimous.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): This party didn't vote yet.

The Clerk: I heard unanimous—

An hon. member: I didn't hear him ask for agreement on that.

An hon. member: Who seconded it?

The Clerk: Mr. Murray.

An hon. member: Did we have an election?

An hon. member: It's all over.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Is it over with?

Mr. Clerk, before this starts, I would like to see the minutes of that and have it reported back to us that in fact you did ask for agreement from us, because certainly I never heard any request for agreement. I think this procedure has to be started off...because it will set the tone for the rest of the committee over the coming years.

An hon. member: I heard that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Did you hear that? You heard “carried”, but did you hear him ask for agreement?

The Clerk: Yes, I did ask.

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. The consensus seems to be that there is agreement for that, so....

The Clerk: I declare Mr. Harvard elected, then. Please take the chair.

• 0945

The Chairman (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia)): Thank you very much, members. I hope this augurs well for the future.

We're now going to entertain nominations for vice-chair.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'll put my two cents' worth in here. I'd like to nominate Howard Hilstrom.

The Chairman: Is it one at a time?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Are there other nominees for the opposition vice-chair?

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): I'll second the motion.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Ritz. Any other nominations for opposition vice-chair?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: So Mr. Hilstrom is the opposition vice-chair.

Now we'll vote for the vice-chair from the government side. Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray: Mr. Chair, I'd like to nominate Murray Calder for the position of vice-chairman.

The Chairman: And a seconder?

Mr. Paul Steckle: I will second that.

The Chairman: Any other nominations?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Congratulations to Mr. Calder and of course Mr. Hilstrom.

Now, where do we go to next?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have some tremendously urgent issues in agriculture today, and I would like to circulate three motions for this ag committee to consider before we get to routine business. I have them here—

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: —and I'd like to circulate them in both French and English. I think this is more urgent than getting on to routine business of the committee.

The Chairman: Just hang on, Mr. Hilstrom. This, after all, is an organizing meeting and we might have to put a few things in place. You don't have to worry, we'll get to your suggestions.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: They're actual motions.

The Chairman: And we'll deal with your motions. But I think maybe we can at least get the organization done, okay?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, just before we leave that issue, seeing as how I brought up the issue of the motions, do I have to read them out? Is that the requirement when I mention a motion, that it in fact be read out to the committee before you make your ruling as to whether or not this should be heard now or later on in the agenda of business?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with my colleague from the Reform Party, but before we table any motions, we should stop to consider how we plan to proceed. We have a number of routine motions to pass. Once we have determined how the committee is going to operate, than we can entertain these motions. Every committee must start by establishing its own internal rules of operation. That was the gist of the first comment made earlier, one that I wish to reiterate at this time.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Howard, I'm sure this will take about two minutes. These are straightforward, they're done all the time. Let's get them out of the way and then we'll get to your motions, okay?

The first routine motion, members, is that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be comprised of nine members: the chairman and the vice-chairman from the government side, the parliamentary secretary and two committee members; and from the opposition side, the vice-chair from the Reform Party, a representative from the Bloc, a representative from the NDP, and a representative from the Conservatives. Do I have a motion in support of that?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Oui.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick. Do we need a seconder?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We were just handed these motions about two minutes ago. When we go through these, I don't want to see a “slam, bam, thank you, ma'am” type of meeting held here. Can you give us just a couple of minutes to read this through, seeing as how you're bringing it up?

The Chairman: All right.

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

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Was this the subcommittee's previous makeup?

The Chairman: Yes, it's exactly the same.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there are no changes?

The Chairman: Absolutely no changes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So I expect that “slam, bam” really isn't the case here.

The Chairman: This is exactly what we had for the last year.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We agree with this one.

• 0950

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, are the routine motions going to be voted on all together or are we going to consider each one separately?

[English]

The Chairman: No, just one at a time.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The next one, under the title “Library of Parliament”, is 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.

Have you digested that? It's the same as in the past.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Under the title “Reduced Quorum”: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three members are present, including one member from the opposition.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, is this again the standard?

The Chairman: It's exactly the same.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I do recall some debate the last time with respect to quorum. This is to just take evidence?

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And only three members need to be present?

The Chairman: That's right, just for witnesses. This is exactly what we've had.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Under “Travel Expenses/Witnesses”: that 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 representatives per organization.

This is again standard.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Under “Time Allocation”: that the witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement, and that during questioning of the witnesses in the first round, there be allocated seven minutes for questions from the Reform Party, the Bloc Québécois Party, the Liberal Party; then, five minutes for the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party; and thereafter, in the second round, five minutes for questions for each party in the same order as above, alternating thereafter between opposition and government members at the discretion of the chair.

Again, this is standard.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can I just ask something about that?

The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If we were to agree at any one particular meeting to change this particular motion for that meeting, could we do that? It happened in the past that we were not able to do that.

The Chairman: It could be done with unanimous consent.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, because previously it seemed there was an iron-clad rule that didn't seem to be changeable.

The Chairman: It can be waived with unanimous consent.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

The Chairman: Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarification on the seven minutes and five minutes for the New Democratic Party. Would I be out of turn in suggesting that we give the same prerogative to the New Democratic Party? We seem to be a very collective group.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): And the Conservatives.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No, but they're the only ones who have five minutes in the first round.

Mr. Murray Calder: And the Conservatives.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, yes, both. Can we not extend that courtesy?

The Chairman: So what you're saying is you want seven minutes to all parties in the first round?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, and then five.

An hon. member: It's an amendment.

The Chairman: Yes, Howard?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, whether the government members like it or not, the Canadian public has elected members of Parliament to this House. The official opposition is the Reform Party of Canada. The official opposition is entitled, on behalf of Canadians, to question for seven minutes. The parties with lesser support on agriculture in this country are the NDP and the Conservative Party, and they should only have the five minutes, as we've set up as standard, for good reason.

An hon. member: We'll remedy that after the next election, though.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I understand where the honourable member is coming from, but we also have the Bloc Québécois Party there too, for seven minutes.

The Chairman: The Bloc does get seven minutes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

The Chairman: I'll recognize Murray Calder in a moment, but this rule pretty well is a reflection of what is done in the House of Commons during Question Period, for example. It's a mirror.

Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, I've sat on this committee now for nearly six years, and one of the strengths of this committee is the fact that we have all worked together on the issues. Quite frankly, I agree with Ms. Ur that both the Conservatives and the NDP could use the extra two minutes—I know they're not going to disagree with me on that—and I can't come up with any really good reason, in fairness, for why they shouldn't have it.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik and then Odina.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I just want it on the record that neither I nor Mr. Proctor brought this suggestion forward. I do take some exception to the Reform member, who suggests that Canadians elected them to get two extra minutes in the agriculture committee. I don't quite think that was a platform on their agenda. If this committee decided that there should be some equity and some fairness, I certainly would not turn down my two minutes.

• 0955

However, I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that it has worked fairly well in the past. I don't have any difficulty in staying with the five minutes. I do believe there are times when the chair could be a little bit more flexible, however, in not cutting me off after the five minutes.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Don't push it that far.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If the committee decides to have equity and fairness, then by all means I would be more than happy to accept it. But I do take exception to the “fact” that Canadians wanted two extra minutes for the Reform Party.

The Chairman: Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I understand very well what the other two opposition parties are getting at. These two extra minutes that we are thinking about allotting to Reform Party members, and to Bloc members, who would then have seven minutes, can make all the difference. Our respective parties have made an effort to designate members. To my knowledge, the Reform Party is the official opposition, while the Bloc Québécois is the second opposition party, in terms of membership. When it's our turn to speak, these two extra minutes are important to us. As far as the electorate is concerned, we are truly the third party.

When a committee was examining a matter that did not concern Quebec, I would occasionally give my allotted time to NDP or Conservative members, and even, occasionally, to the Reform members. I think it's a matter of being flexible and I insist that we stick with the time allocation procedure outlined here.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom, then Joe McGuire, and then I think we'll have to make a decision.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I stay with my objection and my point that in fact we have representation by the Reform Party, and I'd also like to advise you that we should review the second half of that time allocation, where it alternates between the government and the opposition parties. That seems totally unfair; it should go into a rotation as opposed to the government side getting way more questions and input than the opposition parties.

The Chairman: Mr. McGuire, then Mr. Breitkreuz, and then we'll make a decision.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we went through these arguments over two years ago—quite extensive arguments—when we set up the time allocation at the beginning. It was decided at that time that based on the seats each party has elected to the House this would be a fair allocation of question time. Since the two people are really not pushing for seven minutes, I think we should just leave everything as is and continue with business.

The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That was my question to you. How are you going to recognize the fact that we have three times as many members if you don't somehow do it in the amount of time we're allowed to ask questions? Generally only one of us out of the three is allowed to ask questions.

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I don't think there has been a problem in the past. I don't know of any.

The Chairman: Unless Rose-Marie demands a vote, we'll just.—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I don't demand anything.

The Chairman: All right.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's just out of courtesy.

The Chairman: As the motion is written on the paper, all in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We have just two more.

Under the title “48 hours' notice”: that unless there is unanimous consent of the members of the committee, 48 hours' notice must be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee.

This is standard.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Finally, under documentation: that the clerk of the committee be authorized to only distribute documents available in both official languages.

Again, this is standard.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have a question on that one. By unanimous consent, we could not break that rule in the past. Can we—

The Chairman: You're going back to the second one now, are you?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm going back to this one on official languages. For example, we had the consent of the committee to distribute something in one language only. If we have unanimous consent, would that rule of the committee apply as well—that by unanimous consent we can distribute materials?

The Chairman: I guess so, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

Odina.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Besides, your Prime Minister is forever saying that Canada is a bilingual country. I don't see why we wouldn't get these documents in both official languages. I think that's a given.

• 1000

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz is simply asking for information, and I think I've given it to him. It could be, with unanimous consent. I don't think it will ever happen.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: There were occasions when materials were not available in one of the official languages. People did not have time. There wasn't sufficient notice given for them to appear before the committee and have this. But isn't some information better than no information?

The Chairman: We do run into that situation where a document is written in only one of the official languages. When that happens, it simply cannot be distributed until it's available in both languages. So that's the information. I don't think you're proposing a change, so may I—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd like to propose one addition to the motion.

The Chairman: Do you mean an amendment to this motion?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, an additional motion, a new one.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll now vote on the motion under documentation.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The concern I have is with regard to in camera meetings the committee may decide to have. I propose that no in camera meetings shall occur without a vote at an open meeting of the full committee. I believe this is covered under Beauchesne's. I think that is something we should adopt so that the whole agriculture committee, all of us and all parties, gets a say as to whether or not there will be any in camera meetings held. I'm concerned that it could be done without the agreement of the committee as a whole.

The Chairman: I'm not sure how that would happen.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Hilstrom give some examples as to when this was seen to be a problem? I can't recall any in camera sessions being held without the information and approval of the committee.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Why would we wait for a problem to happen? Let's make sure it doesn't happen from now on. That's my reason for proposing that.

The Chairman: Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chair, I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Hilstrom's motion or anything like that, but there is a process we go through now. We just put it in place. I would like to see his motion in writing, and I would like to see it in both English and French. Also, we have the 48-hour notice we go through.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Merci, Murray.

The Chairman: I really think it's redundant, Howard. I really do.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Check the rules under Beauchesne's.

The Chairman: That's what I'm asking the clerk to do.

Members, please. In Beauchesne's, under the title of in camera sittings, it simply points out two things. One is that we do have the right to have an in camera meeting. That isn't what Mr. Hilstrom is questioning. But the final decision as to whether to sit in camera rests with the members. We already have that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Let me clarify this. Can we get a commitment from the chair that he will not call an in camera meeting without getting the approval of the committee?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The whole committee.

The Chairman: I don't think I can do that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But in the past it seems that—

The Chairman: When in the past?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, I moved that motion, and I would like to have it dealt with formally, as opposed to just a decision by you.

Mr. Murray Calder: We have already laid out the process of 48 hours' notice, that it has to be submitted in writing, and that it has to be in English and French.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Ask the question on the motion.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: With all due respect, I don't think you understand the full intent of the motion. This has been passed already at other committees, and we would like to see it passed at this committee.

The Chairman: All right—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'll be seconding that motion, Mr. Chairman.

• 1005

The Chairman: We have a motion, notwithstanding what Beauchesne's says, that we basically would have to agree anyway; it's there. Mr. Hilstrom has moved that we pass a motion saying there will be no in camera session without first a formal vote of the committee. I guess I'll simply put it to you.

I'm sorry, did you want to say something?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, this motion was tabled neither 48 hours prior to this meeting nor in both official languages. Therefore, I believe it is out of order.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Routine motion or not, this is still a bilingual country.

[English]

The Chairman: According to the clerk, the 48-hour notice is not required.

Do you all understand the motion?

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Could you repeat it?

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom is moving a motion that in effect says no in camera meeting shall occur without a vote of the committee at an open meeting. My understanding is that's the requirement under Beauchesne's anyway, but he wants a formal vote on that.

Does everyone understand now the intent of the motion?

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: I don't think you lose anything though, Mr. Hilstrom. It's there.

Now, Mr. Hilstrom, you have one or two motions that you want to move?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Is there a French version of the motion available?

[English]

The Chairman: I think it is, yes. This is simply a notice of motion. This is subject to the 48-hour rule. This is a notice of motion.

Do you have copies of it, Howard?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, and I'll circulate those right now.

The Chairman: We are receiving notice of these motions. We don't have to to anything else in this regard on these motions. He's simply serving notice.

I want to bring up a couple of things, one possibly for your information and then a suggestion from me.

As you know, back in the month of May, I think it was, our committee agreed that it would be important for this committee to meet with some of our counterparts and some important WTO officials in Europe in the fall. As I said, that was unanimously agreed to by the committee. The Board of Internal Economy also thought it was a very good move on our part and provided the funds, but because of the prorogation of the House, it was not possible to do it in the month of October, as was scheduled. Because of prorogation, for any trip, we will have to go back to the Board of Internal Economy and get the money reallocated. I don't see a problem.

The WTO negotiations will start in Seattle in November. If we wanted to go in November, that might be a problem, because I think some of the people we would want to see in Europe would be in Seattle. I have talked to our researchers and suggested that they put together some information as to when some of these people might be available. J.-D. could come back as early as, say, next Tuesday, or at least next week, with information that would help us make a decision as to whether we should go, say, in very late November.

• 1010

The Seattle meeting is at the end of November, so that week wouldn't be possible. I don't think it's possible before that, with how time flies around here. Maybe early December. It depends on what J.-D. comes back with. Or we may have to lay it over until the early part of 2000. I simply provide that—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd like to make a comment.

The Chairman: Yes, Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The only short comment I would make is that when it went to the Board of Internal Economy, it was for six members, and then that was upped to twelve—

The Chairman: No, eight.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: —eight, I'm sorry, and then it was upped to twelve. But I don't think we had asked for additional moneys for that, and I don't know how we could send twelve when we only have money for eight.

The Chairman: No, I think the Board of Internal Economy decided on eight. It's eight.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. That is reasonable. That's fine.

The Chairman: There were eight: four from the opposition parties and four from the government side.

Yes, Odina.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I realize that you are somewhat limited by your agenda, but understand that the meeting scheduled for Seattle in late November will be only the beginning of the negotiating process which could be quite protracted. I've heard people mention two or three years. Even though the WTO meeting is taking place in Seattle and we haven't had this meeting with Europe, there will still be an opportunity to forge some ties. I know you're doing everything you can. Don't worry, because we understand your position.

[English]

The Chairman: I think our researchers will be in a position to give us better information. I simply wanted to bring that forward to you.

Yes, Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Chair, if I could add to that for one second, would there be any chance of the WTO or some of those folks stopping in here on their way to or from Seattle? It's not that far out of their way. Is that an option? That would give more of the committee members access to them rather than just the eight that would be selected.

The Chairman: I'm looking at J.-D.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a good suggestion.

The Chairman: I don't know if that's possible.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: It's just something to check on when they're—

The Chairman: In his preliminary inquiries he may want to—

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Seattle is close to Vancouver.

The Chairman: Mr. Fréchette will speak.

Mr. Jean-Denis Fréchette (Committee Researcher): It depends on what kind of meeting you want and if you want to meet with the officials. In my past experience with committees, most of the time members of committees want to meet with parliamentarians, and they won't be here. So this is the caveat to that. A meeting with officials is a possibility.

I have just one comment on what the chair said about the timing. My past experience shows that the Canadian officials in Canadian embassies in Europe always need more than four weeks to arrange good meetings, particularly with parliamentarians. The European Parliament is a big parliament. It's very difficult to get the right people at the right place at the right time.

Thank you.

The Chairman: My guess—and it's just a guess—is that before Christmas might be problematic. But I think they'll give us more information next week.

Everybody is taken up with the so-called farm crisis. I know some people would like us to do something in that regard. I think it's well known that the government is working on a number of fronts, including trying to make some changes to AIDA. One of my suggestions would be that we first of all bring in the top AIDA officials and find out their take on the program. I've made a preliminary inquiry, and I think we could do that next week. That's number one.

Number two, I'm just wondering, members, what you think of this. I read in the newspapers that the premiers from both Saskatchewan and Manitoba are coming to the Hill. Is it on Thursday, Mr. Proctor?

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I believe so.

The Chairman: That's a week from today. What do you think of our possibly inviting those two premiers? Maybe it can only be for half an hour for each. They have rural constituencies, and they speak for a lot of people. I certainly think it would be a good idea, even if it's just a half hour for each premier. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Hey, we have a good idea. I will suggest—

• 1015

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the premiers and Minister Lyle Vanclief have signed an agreement under the agricultural disaster assistance program. Might it not be a good idea for the Minister to be present to hear from the two premiers, given his extensive involvement in the farm crisis? I think it would be a good idea for him to be on hand to hear the two premiers voice their grievances.

[English]

The Chairman: I see nothing wrong with that suggestion, Mr. Desrochers.

It's anticipated that we're going to be hearing from Mr. Vanclief in the very near future anyway. The premiers are coming here, and they will be meeting with Mr. Vanclief. I think they're even hoping to meet the Prime Minister; I don't know whether that's possible. Let's take that into consideration.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: My only comment is that I'll certainly be asking, under the performance review report, to have the minister attend here, and I'm sure you will be also. So we will have him here in the proper sequence; we'll get this done first and then have the minister here after that, not at the same meeting.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with you more with respect to the two issues: first of all, the AIDA status report, and then the premiers. Do you plan on having a steering committee meeting in the not-too-distant future to deal with other issues?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have tabled with the committee items that I feel are very important, and we should be looking at some sort of a timeline as to when those issues can be dealt with as well. When will the steering committee be meeting? Do you know?

The Chairman: I'll consult with George. It can be at the beginning of next week.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perfect, and I'm sure the members of the steering committee would certainly make their time available outside of a Tuesday or Thursday in order to just set the agendas.

The Chairman: Yes, but I'm hoping—and this may not be realistic—that we could have the AIDA officials here as early as next Tuesday. I don't know if that's possible.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that—

The Chairman: If we're going to have the premiers here, it will definitely be Thursday.

The other thing is, in a crisis of this kind—I'm just throwing this out as an idea, and maybe this is sounding more like a steering committee meeting—what do you think of the idea of bringing in a couple of people, so-called experts, people who really have studied the agricultural situation, who know it in and out? I have absolutely no idea who, but they don't come from any particular partisan camp, shall I say, whether it's KAP or the CFA, and they are people who have a good understanding of the crisis and can just explain to us the genesis of this, the cause or causes of this.

In a crisis of this kind, we hear so many things, and it might just be a good idea to somewhere—I certainly don't consider it up there at the same level as the premiers and so on, or as AIDA—have so-called experts come in here and tell us what the hell is going on and why we have this crisis.

Odina, then Howard.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, we're all here this morning. I don't know what my colleagues have on their agenda, but in view of the crisis and the possibility of hearing from important witnesses like the premiers, would it be possible for the steering committee to meet this afternoon to set out the committee's schedule and arrange it so that we can start working on this as early as next week? I'm available this afternoon.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, Odina. I just wanted to throw that out. I was just giving it some thought.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, I don't think you're getting ahead with this. This is a great idea and I—

The Chairman: No. I'm getting ahead of myself and in terms of the steering committee.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think it is worth just having a couple of quick conversations so that we know when we go to the steering committee on Monday or Tuesday just what we'll be dealing with.

I would just like to make sure everyone understands that there is only one expert in regard to the farm income crisis, and that's the farmer who is in the financial problem as a result of the export commodities being at such low prices. When we talk about this, everyone should be prepared to have an actual number of farmers here from the various provinces, farmers who are in a financial situation. They can explain how they got there and what their input costs and transportation costs are, in both Quebec and Ontario and right from coast to coast. Those are the experts I would like to see added to the ones that you're talking about. I think we'd find agreement for that.

The Chairman: Is there any other business today? If not, I move that this meeting adjourn.