[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, September 20, 1995
.1535 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2),
[English]
your first item of business is to elect a chairperson. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): I would like to nominate Mr. Pickard.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. McKinnon that Jerry Pickard do take the chair of this committee as chairperson. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: Congratulations. I invite Mr. Pickard to take the chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, everyone, for your confidence.
I would ask that members present nominations for vice-chair. Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter (Malpèque): I move that Denis Paradis be nominated as vice-chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): I move that Jean-Guy Chrétien be elected vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[English]
The Chairman: At this point we can handle nominations for two vice-chair positions. We have a nomination from Mr. Easter for Mr. Paradis.
According to the rules there have to be two vice-chairs, one from the government and one from the opposition. I think the nomination of Mr. Paradis would be in line as a nomination for the government side.
Are there any questions about that? Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hermanson isn't here, but can he be nominated for vice-chair?
The Chairman: We accept nominations for the vice-chairs as they are made. I believe we are dealing with the government nomination at this point.
We have a nomination for Mr. Paradis.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Landry.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I move that Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien be elected vice-chair of this committee.
[English]
The Chairman: I have a motion for the second vice-chair from Mr. Landry to appointMr. Chrétien. Any questions about that motion?
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Now that we have a chair, the first vice-chair and the second vice-chair appointed, I believe the elections are complete.
The next direction is for a subcommittee that would be a steering committee of the agriculture committee. Normally we have the parliamentary secretary to the minister on that steering committee. We would have each member of the executive, which would be the chair and the two vice-chairs, on that committee, and I would recommend that we also have a member of the Reform Party on that committee.
I believe the Reform Party would like to submit a member for the steering committee. Is that correct, Mr. Hermanson?
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Yes.
Mr. Hoeppner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused here. I thought I was recognized as nominating Mr. Hermanson as one of the vice-chairs. Do you only nominate one and then not take the nomination of another?
The Chairman: According to the rules in Beauchesne's, section 782, subsections (3) and (4), under the election of a chair, it's my understanding that we receive the nominations for each member of the executive of a committee.
If the nomination is defeated, then we nominate another person. That process is outlined in Beauchesne's under the election of a chair of a committee in section 782.
.1540
Mr. Hoeppner: I know we had this discussion before, Mr. Chairman. I think we are running into a very dicey situation here.
We're looking at this Parliament as a democracy. We cannot even nominate two people for a vice-chair. How do you justify that? It seems to me we are standing on very thin ice here. We are trying to bind a country together and we're manipulating elections in committees. I object to that and I object to that very strongly.
I was elected to a democratic Parliament and we are ignoring it. I want to register that complaint in opposition to it.
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, I hear your concern being voiced at the committee. I am only stating what the rules of Beauchesne's are, which control the nomination and election of officers of a parliamentary committee. Those rules and regulations are part of Beauchesne's under the election of a chair.
Mr. Hoeppner: We just heard the Speaker say in the House that each committee should iron out these issues. We have brought this up before and it has never been addressed. I'm bringing it up again. We are not running our committees under a democratic form of government. I think it's time that we challenge it and do something about it, because we have the right to do it.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting then that we not follow Beauchesne's rules of order?
Mr. Hoeppner: I would say that Beauchesne's rules of order are not democratic if we cannot nominate two vice-chairmen and have an election.
The Chairman: Each person is entitled to an opinion. There is no question about that.
Mr. Hoeppner: I have registered it. It's on the record.
It's up to you. If you want to disobey that and follow your rules, you're privileged to do so, but I want it on record that I object to this type of democracy and the election of vice-chairs in the committees.
The Chairman: Your objection is recorded. I would reiterate that these are not my rules; they are the rules of Beauchesne's.
Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could just get an opinion from the clerk. I believe under the Standing Orders it is quite common for multiple nominations for a position and a recorded vote for those. Would you check with the clerk to find out if that's not correct?
The Chairman: Certainly, I would allow the clerk to comment, if the clerk sees fit to comment on that issue.
The Clerk: It's really up to the committee to decide the way it wishes to proceed. My understanding of what has transpired is that there were two nominations put forward and then a third one. The first nomination was moved by Mr. Easter to nominate Mr. Paradis as first vice-chair. Secondly, Mr. Landry moved a motion to nominate Mr. Chrétien as second vice-chair.Mr. Hoeppner indicated his intention to move a motion that Mr. Hermanson be designated as vice-chair.
Again, my understanding of what has transpired is that the chairman decided to put forward the motions in which they were received. The first motion was put to the committee for a vote and it carried on majority. The second motion was put forward and carried on majority. So it was the expression of the majority of the committee that those two individuals, Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Paradis, be the two vice-chairs of the committee. At that time the third motion was not put forward, since the others had carried.
Having said that, what could have been suggested - and perhaps there was some misunderstanding - is that the two nominations for the opposition vice-chairs be put forward together. That would have been a distinct proposal, but I do not recall having heard it. That could have been considered, if the committee saw fit.
Mr. Hoeppner: I was under the impression that my nomination was for the second vice-chair, that there would be two people and it would be called on election.
The Chairman: If you'd direct your questions through me, I would appreciate it,Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
.1545
Mr. Hermanson: Given the fact, then, that Mr. Hoeppner made his nomination prior to the nomination of Mr. Chrétien, would it not have been proper for the...?
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner asked if he could put forth a nomination.
Mr. Hoeppner: And it wasn't answered.
The Chairman: Yes, it was answered. I said we had a nomination on the floor and I would accept nominations after the nomination on the floor. The next nomination came from Mr. Landry. In fact, there were only two nominations made. I believe that's accurate and I think the record will show that.
I believe we have followed the rules of Beauchesne's, which are the operating rules of the House. I can understand Mr. Hoeppner registering his concern about the rules of Beauchesne's. I think if we are going to change the rules of operation in the House, that's fine. I don't have a problem with changing the rules. I don't have a problem with a committee being autonomous and directing itself in many disputes.
You have recorded your concern. It is on the record.
I would suggest that the nominations and elections have been completed. I believe we've had a full discussion on this issue and possibly we can move on to the steering committee issue at this point.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Chairman, there's just one point. It seems to me that you actually cut off nominations.
The Chairman: There is a process and the process is designed so that as you get a nomination, you vote on that nomination. If the positions are filled after a vote and there was a vote on each of the vice-chair nominations, therefore it is a fait accompli; it is the election. After the nominations are made, duly recorded and voted on, yes, that is the end of the process.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a bit of confusion here. When I asked whether Mr. Hermanson could be nominated as a vice-chair, I distinctly remember you saying we had a nomination on the floor and we would proceed. You didn't answer my question after that,Mr. Chairman. You asked for a nomination for vice-chair. That confused me totally, whether or not I was in order. I think I was misled a bit, maybe by accident, but that is the way it.... I think if you check the record, that's what it should say.
The Chairman: There was no attempt to mislead you in any way.
The reason I was a touch later than I might have been at this meeting.... I listened very carefully to what happened in the House because it had to do with this very point.
Mr. Hoeppner: I sat and listened too. That's why I was a little late.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, did you ask for nominations to be closed?
The Chairman: That is not the process. The process is that a nomination comes forward and we vote on the nomination. That is the process outlined in Beauchesne's.
Mr. Breitkreuz: So it's really a matter of who gets their nominations in first; otherwise it's just a crock.
The Chairman: If a nomination comes in, it could be defeated. Then another person would be nominated. That is the way the process is structured.
Mr. Breitkreuz: But the usual process, in the democratic principle, is that you have your nominations and then you have an election.
The Chairman: The process outlined is the process that is generally used for committees here. It is outlined in the rules of order for the House. That is the process that I believe I followed and that is the process Mr. Hoeppner heard outlined and read in the House not 20 minutes ago. He is well aware of that process because he and I both sat and listened very carefully.
Mr. Hoeppner: Yes. That's why I'm a little confused, Mr. Chairman, because the Speaker very definitely outlined that the problems in the committees should be addressed by the committees themselves. We should not go to Beauchesne's or to what it said. If there is a dispute, if there is a concern that things aren't being run properly, we should more or less deal with them ourselves.
We had the same problem in the former committee when we tried to do it. I know one of the Liberals even voted with us because he felt the procedure wasn't democratic. If you want to check back in the record, you will find that one of your members did....
.1550
I think that's what I want to try to bring to your attention, that I do not believe we are handling our elections democratically. It's recorded and that is where I will finish.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hoeppner.
Can we then move on to steering committee appointments? As I suggested earlier, normally the chair and the vice-chairs are represented on the steering committee. The parliamentary secretary is normally represented on the steering committee and a member from the Reform Party should be represented on the steering committee. I understand that Mr. Hermanson would be the Reform Party's candidate on the steering committee.
I would like a motion to appoint to the steering committee the chair, the vice-chairs,Mr. Vanclief and Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): So moved.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: I think that as we're starting out in our committee work, it may be important for all individuals on the committee to have some input into some of the directions of the committee. I know that all of us have varying concerns about agriculture. Being such a wide country...each of us certainly has some very specific interests that we would like to come forward in the agriculture committee in the next several months.
I would invite all members of the committee to attempt to at least bring forth some of the issues that they feel will be high priority items for them and present them to the committee, the steering committee in particular, as soon as possible, so that as the steering committee meets, we can deal with issues that all members have brought forward and try to set out an agenda relatively early so that we know where we're going and we can do a fair amount of planning in how to implement that. I believe it's important to have that grassroots input very early in the process so that we can have our concerns met.
It doesn't mean the steering committee will naturally adopt the direction right away, but I think we will try our best to make sure that as a group we can all have our concerns dealt with and move forward.
I believe the function of this agriculture committee is basically to make certain that we have better agricultural services throughout the country and at the same time take in the vast majority of concerns for this country's most important industry, in my mind, to function well. We're all here with the same thought in mind, and that is to create the best agricultural community in this country that we can possibly create. Despite political differences, party differences, I believe we all have one goal in mind, and that is to voice the concerns of the people we represent and to make sure those concerns are placed in front of those they need to be placed in front of, to make sure that we are part of that decision-making process, and to make sure that we can scrutinize decision-making processes that are going to be critical for that industry we represent.
So I would ask anyone who has specific concerns to give them to the committee, either through one of the members on the steering committee or through Marc. You can communicate with me or anyone else. That way we can carry forward an agenda that is relatively important for all of us.
Second, there is a bill on the floor of this committee that has to be dealt with. It's Bill C-61. Probably early in our time line we should try to pick up Bill C-61, probably do a review, because it hasn't been touched since last spring, and then go forward with that bill. It was discussed and debated in committee on several dates. So it's something we should move forward.
.1555
Third, I believe we have an extreme interest in making contact with the Department of Agriculture to look at some of their policies, what may be on tap with the department. I think it would be important for us to make arrangements with the department to brief us as a committee on the directions the department is planning to take or what measures they may be coming out with in legislation, so we can prepare well in advance for what we may be facing from the department.
It has been suggested there is another item on the agenda. That is input costs for the agriculture community in general. I think it would be important for us to realize that is another request from the minister and the provincial ministers, that we deal with that at some time in our fall mandate.
Those are items I would share early in time today. They're items we will be pursuing, hopefully within the short term.
At that point the steering committee will be deciding how we'll pursue those, what the process will be. I hope we can make certain the input of every member is clearly heard. You have opportunity to show some direction with this committee and help us move forward at the same time.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Right off, Mr. Chairman, a couple of other important issues are going on that I think the committee has to be on top of. Certainly on the transportation side some of the issues that will be taking place under the transport committee are related to agriculture and we need to look at those. There's the blue ribbon commission, which had an interim report, and I think the final report is in preparation. Also, there is the task force on the Canadian Wheat Board. They are issues we should be looking at rather quickly, before decisions are made.
I want to make one comment on input costs. Maybe the information could be gleaned for our next meeting, or as soon as possible. I do know a previous Parliament did an input costs hearing as an agriculture committee, I believe in 1987. I've read the report. It's a very good report.
Before we revisit input costs...because I believe we'll find out at the end of the day there's very little government can do about input costs. While we're reviewing input costs, we may be missing the opportunity to deal with some of the questions about international trade and transport that we can in fact deal with as a government.
So I would want the members of the committee to receive copies of the report of the last standing committee, dealing with input costs. I would want to know what the government's response to that report was, and I would want to know what Agriculture Canada has done to date in meeting the recommendations of that committee on input costs.
Secondly on input costs, I understand the department itself is doing a review of them. I would like to know where the department is at in that area, so we don't revisit what's already been done. We may find it is more useful to call the department before us and find out where their review is and then analyse where we go from there.
The Chairman: Very good, Mr. Easter. You've brought out several important issues.
Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the issues you have mentioned are issues this committee can certainly deal with. Of course the legislation that falls to this committee we'll have to deal with. There are several points I want to make, and you might want to take note and clarify these for us.
First of all, I'm wondering if you've had any indication whether the government plans to withdraw Bill C-66, which may be redundant in light of the elimination of the WGTA. If you will recall, it deals with eliminating backtracking from Thunder Bay. So I'd like to know what the status of that legislation is, whether or not that is a dead issue or not. I expect it very well may be.
.1600
If we are charged with reviewing input costs, we would certainly partake of that debate, but I'm wondering how high a priority that is. It is something that should take some time, but perhaps not too much.
I believe far more important is the fact that this committee deal with the disarray that our agricultural safety nets are in, particularly NISA as well as crop insurance, and also GRIP, which is all but dead. I think this committee has extensive work to do in that area as well as reviewing the results of several of these panels and commissions that have been struck, including the results of the west coast ports inquiry once that is tabled. I think our committee should review that and decide whether their report is in fact satisfactory to agriculture, particularly western Canadian agriculture, which is so significantly impacted by labour disruptions on the west coast.
The reason I bring up the concerns of western Canada particularly, which include the safety nets and west coast ports, is that I fear that this committee, just the way things are unfolding, may be struck in such a way as to prevent criticism of an agriculture minister from western Canada who's in a bit of trouble now.
I say that partly because of the way the elections have been handled. I've nothing against people on this committee, but with the chair from Ontario, yourself - there's certainly no problem with that - with the parliamentary secretary from Ontario, two vice-chairs from the province of Quebec, and the chairman of the subcommittee on transportation from Atlantic Canada, it almost seems like a fairly deliberate attempt to shut out opinion, particularly on the government side, expressing the concerns of western Canada.
I think these are high priorities that we mustn't duck or this committee may come in for a great deal of criticism.
The Chairman: Certainly I could comment. It's my understanding that Bill C-66 may well be redundant presently. I'm not speaking for the government - I can't speak for the government - but I believe your comment about it may be reasonably accurate.
I think it is important that we deal with the western grain transportation in all facets, be it the Pacific ports or be it any other issue. Mr. Easter, we brought forth the concern with regard to transportation and the subcommittee that is dealing with it at present. There's no question that this should be an ongoing concern and one that we bring to finalization.
As far as our safety net programs go, I think it would be great to have them on the agenda; there's absolutely no problem. Putting them on the agenda as soon as possible is just fine with me. I think that as a group, rather than moving in different directions, we have to pull together, as I said earlier, to try to bring out the best policy we can have in agriculture for agriculture, for all the different areas in the country.
I have absolutely no problem with all of the issues you brought forth as being upfront on the agenda and being dealt with as soon and as decisively as we can in this committee. Thank you very much for bringing them forward. Certainly at the steering committee meeting we'll have a chance to identify exactly timeframes and how we can deal with those issues.
Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I would first like to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. We would also like to assure you that we will participate in a very active and positive way, our purpose being to always improve the services that the federal government delivers to all farmers in Canada and in Quebec. There's an issue that comes to my mind and I do not know whether you will be able to answer me. It deals with the elimination of the government subsidy to western grain transportation, the famous Crow rate. Could you tell me today whether cheques have been sent out to grain farmers in Western Canada for the next crop? How are farmers getting organized to ship their crops at reasonable rates?
.1605
[English]
The Chairman: I believe when we're dealing with specific questions at this point in time it would be incumbent upon this committee to try to open up discussions.
As you well know since you sit on the subcommittee for grain transportation, we have a subcommittee that is trying to deal with that very question and come up with reasonable answers there...as well as future, down the line, beyond this year's crop.
I think we have an extreme number of opportunities that deal with that. All of us know right now that the transportation committee of the House of Commons is also dealing with a similar problem. It's my hope that we will be able to combine the efforts of our agricultural subcommittee here with the efforts of the transportation committee to make sure the voice of agriculture is heard not only at this committee and this subcommittee's workings but also at the transportation committee hearings that are going on.
I think one of our first steps is to look at what the other committee, transportation, is doing in dealing with that very issue and attempt to form a coalition with them, as far as the agriculture community goes, in order to come up with a reasonable response and a proper hearing for our western farm community.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Chrétien's question, as you know from the subcommittee on transportation, we did table a report in June and we're awaiting the government's response.
I know Mr. Chrétien is aware that in that report we have asked for a number of impact studies. We have asked from which direction the government is going to handle some of the issues you have just raised.
As well, there is a committee under the authorization of the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans, Fernand Robichaud, that is looking at the feed freight assistance issue. They have issued an interim report - I don't know if it has been made available to the committee or not; if not, it should be - and are working towards a final report.
So that's where that is.
The Chairman: Mr. Calder.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow input costs from an Ontario perspective.
As has been reported in the newspapers, I think there are negotiations going on right now to amalgamate the PST and GST in Ontario. One of the things I am wondering is if maybe the subcommittee and this committee can be kept abreast of the rebate system that is within those two tax structures, one being different from the other one, so that the farmer ultimately does not become an end-user on this tax.
The Chairman: That's another item we can add to the agenda to deal with in the future.
Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: It looks as if we are beginning to deal with the agenda already, Mr. Chairman, so I would simply like to throw my oar in here in terms of new frontiers, in terms of opportunity for agriculture.
This committee has never dealt with the reality that in 1925 27% of agriculture was non-food production and that by 1990 it had shrunk to 1%. I think it behooves us to know what happened to that 26% and what might be done to encourage its recreation, if we are talking about economic opportunity on the farm. That would also include, in my view, the value-added aspect of processing at home, especially in light of the abandonment of the Crow rate and so on.
The Chairman: We have several issues brought forward. I would reiterate to the committee that any concerns you have you can forward to any of the members of the steering committee or you can forward them to Marc. It would be easier if those concerns were somehow in a written form so they could be passed on to Marc and put on an agenda for the steering committee. That would really be a lot easier to handle, to make certain your concerns then get voiced in an agenda very soon, as quickly as possible.
.1610
At this point in time, if there is no further business, I would ask for the steering committee to get together early next week.
Now, I think the times that have been allocated to our committee for regular meetings are Tuesday mornings from 9 o'clock until 11 o'clock and Thursday mornings from 9 o'clock until 11 o'clock. I hope those times are convenient, that is, the times designated by the House. We were attempting to get rooms available for the committee to meet, and hopefully we will meet on a regular schedule. So I think through the fall session you can put on your agenda Tuesday and Thursday mornings at 9 o'clock for agriculture on a regular basis.
On Wednesday after Question Period we have a designated time as well. That time is normally structured for subcommittees, and since we do have at this point in time a subcommittee on grain transportation chaired by Mr. Easter, I would hope that would be a structured time for that subcommittee to carry on its work and try to complete what Mr. Hermanson and Mr. Chrétien have brought forward as concerns. That's the direction in which I would expect things to go.
As for the first meeting on Tuesday, I think maybe we could, because we're just beginning, have a steering committee meeting during that time period to start organizing and bringing forward those issues setting an agenda for us. I would hope that by Thursday we would have opportunity to strike at least some time to meet with ministry officials.
So next week I'm hoping the steering committee can meet on Tuesday, and we might follow that up on Thursday with a meeting with ministry officials to discuss our concerns and the future direction of the committee.
If that is satisfactory to everyone, I'll go ahead and make plans for that. But I would like your approval to go ahead.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I very much appreciate it, and I look forward to working with all of you.
The meeting is adjourned.