[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 5, 1995
.0936 
[English]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, order.
First I want to thank the staff for preparing things for the meeting today. I also want to thank the committee for the cooperation with all parties in the steering committee. I think the steering committee meetings went well. We have some of the proposed discussions we had in the steering committee completed, so we can deal with those this morning.
A word of introduction on a couple of issues the steering committee dealt with. I think it's important to bring forward to anyone who wasn't at our last meeting that a request came forward to us from the meeting of the federal and provincial ministers asking us to look at input costs - an input study - and that was then placed on the agenda and discussed at the steering committee.
Other things were discussed at the steering committee as well. We'll get into those in a few moments. Right now we are ready to follow the agenda. Are there any questions about what is on the agenda, or additions to the agenda by any member?
That being the case, and since I see we clearly have a quorum, we are ready to go ahead with consideration of the sixth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. The sixth report is on a separate piece of paper.
Your subcommittee met on Thursday, September 28, to discuss future business. The subcommittee agreed to make the following recommendations.
First was that the subcommittee complete its examination of Bill C-61 after committee members have had an opportunity to review the evidence received to date. Second was that the subcommittee investigate the evolution of fertilizer, fuel, and pesticide costs, as requested by the provincial and federal ministers of agriculture. Third was that the committee invite the chairs of the Canada-United States Joint Commission on Grains to appear before the committee in order to discuss the commission's findings.
Does anyone have any comment about any of those three agenda items?
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): The fourth paragraph speaks of the committee investigating the evolution of fertilizer, fuel, and pesticide costs. I think we had also agreed we would be open to looking at other input costs. I wonder if that could be reflected in the report.
The Chairman: Certainly. I have no problem with that.
Mr. Hermanson is quite correct when he states that as the subcommittee met, there were many other issues that could be considered under the agenda of input costs. What was discussed and I think agreed to at the steering committee was that we would approach it on the basis that these are the three focus items we would deal with. Certainly offshoots from those three focus items would come up in discussion. There was concern about leaving open the opportunity in the future to add further discussions and deliberations from the committee on other input cost items. So Mr. Hermanson is possibly suggesting an indication that in the future there may be other considerations.
Mr. Vanclief (Prince Edward - Hastings): Mr. Chairman, in order to recognize that, I would like to recommend we make an amendment to that paragraph and say ``and other input costs as time permits''. To me, that states that the first agenda is to do the fertilizer fuel and pesticide points, and then, as I recall the discussion in the steering committee, we will look at the other issues.
.0940
The Chairman: I think it is directly related to possible discussions in the future, but as time permits, it might cover that.
Mr. Vanclief: As time permits. I suggest that covers that off.
The Chairman: Okay - realizing that when we're talking about this, the potential opening for the future is the point Mr. Hermanson wanted to get across.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Do you have any idea of whether the steering committee considered how long this hearing process is going to take? As I have expressed to you before, Mr. Chairman, I have some reservations about studying input costs. I personally see it as being busy work.
A study was done in 1987. I would ask people to try to get a copy of that and to look at it, and also to look in depth at the government response.
As members of Parliament, we can do very little in terms of high input costs unless we find fixing of prices.
I know that our looking at input costs is a request from the provinces and there's concern in the farm community, but while we're looking at those, major items are happening in the international trade field relative to supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board.
I don't want us to get caught in the trap of looking over here when the real issue that we can do something about is over there. I just put it forward as a reservation. To go through with the input costs is all well and good, but at the end of the day, based on looking at the government response to the 1987 report, which was a very good one - some members who are here today were on that committee - I think we will find that we can actually do very little more than provide information.
There are other areas we can do.
The Chairman: Within some of the discussion, maybe I can deal with that at a later point. Your consideration was taken into account.
Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): I believe we should go forward with the recommendations of the committee to investigate input costs. I say this because it has been requested from the farm community and its my understanding that as a committee we are acting to represent the views of our constituents as much as possible.
I believe as well that the amendment the parliamentary secretary brought forward, and other input costs as time permits, addresses the concern that Mr. Easter has brought forward.
The Chairman: I shall elaborate on Mr. Easter's concern, because he had mentioned it to me as the chair.
One of the reasons why we as the steering committee tried to limit our work to looking at three areas is that they are manageable and they can be dealt with reasonably quickly if we set our agenda and move ahead.
The strategy in looking at it was discussed, and I believe we had agreed that the way to get the question on the floor would be to have departmental officials fill us in on the background of what has transpired from 1987 to now and then to bring forward a national farm organization, such as the CFA with Jack Wilkinson, and he could explain what the farm issue is. Then we would set it aside for a period, allowing other organizations to prepare briefs, prepare information, giving them adequate warnings of what the concerns are and what input we would be looking for, and then targeting very specific organizations that could bring forward information to make sure the committee has the crux of the discussions. That could be done in a couple of very short meetings. From that point, we could then deliberate on what has come forward and form our recommendations.
.0945
So I think there is a process we had discussed that seems to be reasonable: getting all the information out and handling that without a lot of delay and getting bogged down.
Mr. Hermanson: Because we have members here who weren't at the steering committee, I just want to indicate, particularly to Mr. Easter, that I raised those same concerns, not only about whether we should be looking at input costs but whether we were looking at the right input costs. That's why I asked for that additional remark to be made in the one paragraph. I think it should be clear to the committee - and I stated this to the steering committee - that probably the reason the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture identified input costs as an area they wanted investigated was that they didn't agree in some other areas, particularly safety net reform. I had indicated to the steering committee that I felt safety net reform was a higher priority than input costs. However, it wasn't the will of a majority of the steering committee to repriorize our work.
I still believe safety net reform and some of these other issues should have a higher priority. It was the decision of the steering committee, however, to place Bill C-61 and input costs at the top of the list. Of course majority opinion rules the day.
The Chairman: Yes. I might point out that we did have twelve items in the steering committee, and we did have very extensive discussions on only the first three. As a result, we do have another nine items we have to deal with. I believe it is important that all other nine issues be placed on the agenda and discussed.
I don't know that we said priority number one, priority number two, priority number three, priority number four. We identified what should be discussed and some of the parameters of that discussion. I think that's where we stood as a steering committee. We have several other items that must be dealt with by the steering committee, but we didn't have time.
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Chairman, I agree somewhat with what Mr. Hermanson said. But in reference to safety net reforms, I would suggest if the Province of Alberta - and Mr. Hermanson could maybe influence them to do so - would come to the table with all the other nine provinces in Canada, the issue of safety net reform for farmers and for the industry in Canada would be settled very quickly, if they were not so determined to go their own way, which is somewhat contrary to the wishes of the producers and the rest of the provinces. That's the stumbling-block right now, Mr. Hermanson: the Province of Alberta.
Mr. Hermanson: I have spoken with some of the players.
Mr. Vanclief: Good for you.
Mr. Hermanson: I know what the problems are.
Mr. Vanclief: Thank you very much. If you could influence them - that we want to make sure if at all possible every farmer, no matter where in Canada, has the same safety net envelope available to them, that they could play a major role in making that happen - it would be appreciated.
Mr. Hermanson: Perhaps that's why some dialogue around this table might be helpful in raising the issue to the forefront rather than shoving it aside and reviewing input costs instead. I guess that's the argument I was making.
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Mr. Chairman, it would be nice if we all could have our own agenda and have what we want at the top of the list; but life isn't always that kind to all of us. So I think we have to go with the direction of the committee.
Having said that, I certainly take what Mr. Easter said very seriously, because I think it does really impact on this committee - that they take a look at what those future international features are going to be as we go into the agriculture of the next five years. I'm sure you have that on your agenda. I do know one of the things certainly raised over and over again out west was those input costs. But having said that, I think you have to do your homework, take a look at what was done in the past.
One of the questions a group asked me is, if you're going to look at those costs in relation to what they did in 1987, is it going to be busy work? If at the end of the day your impact is zero, then you've just shuffled papers. I just caution the committee that you have to be careful that you time-line yourselves so you're not just having people coming to regurgitate what they said in the past.
.0950
Over and above that, there has to be some semblance of the direction of the committee. You have set that goal and you have to get on with it. People have to understand that from time to time priorities will shift.
Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): I hear what is being said and I know that the provinces are probably pushing for this study of input costs, but I would also like to have some of the provincial ministers come before this committee as witnesses, because one of the real problems with input costs is rules and regulations between Canada and the U.S.
One example is that in 1993, when we had a crisis in the grain-drying industry because of propane costs, we could have bought our propane, which was manufactured in Brandon, in the U.S. for about half the price, but we weren't allowed to bring it in.
These are issues that the provinces sometimes try to shove onto us, thereby making a smoke-screen, because they can do a lot to reduce input costs, especially in fertilizer and fuel.
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, your comment is very relevant.
I think everyone on the steering committee recognized that there are myriad questions in regard to input costs, but a bit of caution was taken at the steering committee to make sure we keep it encapsulated in a bite-sized area that we can deal with and not get totally bogged down, because it is an area in which we could be bogged down for months if we tried to investigate all input costs.
So the door is open and, time permitting, we can go on and look at other input costs, but we've zeroed in on what we shall take as an achievable thing within a short period of time. So we're not losing sight of all of these other very important issues. As I said, we have twelve issues on the agenda, and I think they're all significant for the farm community.
I think one of the things the steering committee felt generally was that at this time it wouldn't be a wise choice to dive into this thing and be bogged down week after week. However, if we deal with most of the issues on the agenda - the blue-ribbon committee on grains and some of the other issues that are there - we will then see where our time is and be able to follow.
I think you're dead right in saying that there are so many issues there that it would be impossible to get all of them on the table at this time. It might not be impossible to do it later, though.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, on input costs, I feel very -
Mrs. Cowling: When we're debating the recommendations, I suggest that we should call the question.
Mr. Hoeppner: This is important. If we're going to do a good job, then we'd better make sure we do it from the right perspective.
When I look back at that 1987 report - you cannot get the figures and facts from corporations, because they will not give them to you. If we do not go to provincial governments and get their cooperation and start from the top, where the problem is addressable, then we will not get anything done at this committee. That is my concern.
The Chairman: Your point is well taken and recorded. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Cowling has asked us to pose the question. Is that all right with all members?
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): On a point of clarification, talking about time lines, did the steering committee feel that this would be the focus for the entire life of this session?
The Chairman: Absolutely not. We're all cognizant of the fact that we can deal with issues that are pertinent at this point in time. However, there must be flexibility, and the committee must in fact be in charge of its own destiny. As a result, myriad issues will be coming up with which we're going to have to deal as time goes on. Certainly this committee should always be open to dealing with critical issues when they arise, and this means that our staff, our steering committee, and all of our members are responsible for raising concerns and making sure that they'll be heard here. That is very important.
.0955
All in favour of the approval? I'll stress again that the steering committee, in all its deliberations, had time to deal with only three items out of twelve. So many other items potentially are going to be raised. But rather than leave our staff in the lurch and not have approval from the committee - the approval of this gets our staff on the go working on these issues and getting them structured.
All in favour of the proposed agenda?
I'm sorry, I stand corrected. There was a proposed amendment by Mr. Vanclief that would allow the time-permitting extension to the input study.
Amendment agreed to
Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Maybe I could just ask if any member has something they would bring forward at this point.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, do we have some indication of when the agriculture minister will appear before this committee, so we will have some warning of it so we can be sure to be here?
The Chairman: Yes. To try to get as much of our direction settled early in the game is very important, Mr. Hoeppner, because once we do that we can set out an agenda that would carry from now at least through December or into the early stages of next year. If we are able to get the staff working and set the agenda, look at where we're going, I'm hopeful we'll not only be able to notify witnesses several weeks ahead, so they will have written briefs in and you will have copies of those written briefs before you come to meetings - I think that's very important - but we'll notify them well enough ahead that they could have the translation service done, so we're not coming through this door receiving copies of the brief and trying to read them while witnesses are presenting information.
Setting that longer-range agenda is very important. You bring a very excellent point. That is one of the concerns I've had in the past, and I know every member of the committee has had similar concerns. It may take a little more organizing up front, but it will produce much better information down the line.
Yes, we will make every endeavour to make sure that agenda is clear and witnesses who are coming forth will be dealt with.
That does bring us to the second point we should be dealing with at this point, that the first witnesses to be called before the committee doing the input studies are the Federation of Agriculture and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. That is what I did explain to you earlier in the proposal of the steering committee. If we could adopt that motion, then we could invite them in at an early opportunity for them to put forth their opinions and concerns.
From that point, then, we'll rest it as I suggested and give others an opportunity to formulate their responses before we come back to a meeting. Giving that space of time gives the other organizations that would be involved a chance to prepare proper briefs knowing what the concerns are. I think that was the strategy.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chair, on the input cost business, somehow we have to get input from the American side of the border. I know their farm bill's been looked at. Their input costs are different down there. I think we have to get a feeling for where their industry is going and why their input costs may be cheaper, what other programs they may have in the United States relative to input costs. I know Marlene was just down to Washington, but - We need to find out what's happening there. I really don't have in my mind how we can pull that in relative to input costs, but we have to, because they are going to be there. In fact, they're major competitors.
.1000
The Chairman: You have a good point. The way we could possibly handle that, if I might make the suggestion, is that we could still proceed with the Federation of Agriculture and the ministry to get the Canadian concerns out, and then, when we're inviting the industry that would effectively respond to those concerns that are raised, we also may invite someone who can bring the American perspective into it. If you wish to do that, then I would think that once the concerns have been raised and the issues have been brought out by the federation and the ministry, we could get a response from some American source. I'll make that recommendation and we'll follow that process.
Are there any other comments with regard to witnesses coming forth? If we all agree to that structure, then we're all set.
The only item we have left on the agenda is other concerns.
Mr. Easter: If you look across the provinces, there are substantial differences in provincial policies. As far as I'm concerned, outside of Quebec the province in Canada that is the most highly subsidized in terms of farm programs is Alberta. I don't know if you should pull provincial representation in to find out what's happening in terms of provincial policy. There is a split jurisdiction here. There's only so much we can do federally.
Among the provinces there is no semblance of a level playing field. If you look at fuel prices in B.C. and Alberta, neighbours are paying substantially different prices because one happens to live in Alberta and the other happens to live in B.C. In your steering committee you might look at that as well in order to try to pull those in.
The Chairman: Early in this process we well might, rather than have groups in, ask for some written concerns and written briefs on those issues within the province. Possibly we could go directly to the province and request that it forward written briefs to us. That could be done without having them in at the time. We could then decide later whether we wish to get further information or not. Our staff could start on that today, as a matter of fact, and notify the provinces and ask them for their written briefs, because the provincial ministers are the ones who raise the question.
Jake, would you make that a motion?
Mr. Hoeppner: I'll make that a motion, because I think it's very important. We have to have a level playing field if we're going to look at input costs. As we all know, it isn't there.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: I might talk about our steering committee and suggest that we were scheduled to meet on Tuesday past; however, it turned out that several members of the steering committee were unable to attend. I'll voice my opinion and then get feedback with regard to that.
As the chair, I am of the opinion that the steering committee should try to be as consistent as possible. It is extremely difficult to call a steering committee meeting when the steering committee member for the Reform Party or for the Bloc is not there. Early in the process, I hesitate to have steering committee meetings with substitutes. I will bend over backwards to make sure the same people are there all the time so that we can go through and everybody understands all the discussions that have occurred and it doesn't leave somebody in the lurch, trying to figure out what's happening and to fill in. Often when you're doing that you don't know the background, and it puts you in a difficult position.
.1005
So I will try my very best. If at the particular time we call the meeting we cannot get representation from one of the opposition parties, we'll try to reschedule rather than have that. We will try to notify everybody about that scheduling meeting as well, so that doesn't exclude it in future times. But initially, when we start this agenda off, if the steering committee has to meet six or ten or fifteen times to get the agendas and all the issues discussed, I'm more than happy to do it, and I'll try to make sure we get consistent input so everybody's concerns are on the table.
Two, I still invite any member who has concerns they would like to put forward to the steering committee to put them forward at any time. If you wish to raise them at any one of our regular meetings, please raise them. I'm more than happy to receive them at any time. You're the directors of where we're going in this committee. It should be a working together for the improvement of the farm community, as I mentioned before, and we all have that goal in mind in reality.
We'll try to keep our communication up as much as possible. We'll try to get the steering committee to set out what we're going to talk about. Inevitably, every one of you has to be very aware. The steering committee doesn't go on its own; it comes back to you to get approval. So those issues that are coming back can all be discussed. Time permitting, we will deal with every issue, so everyone is reasonably happy with where we're going. That's our goal, at least.
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, when and where are you planning to have your steering committee meetings?
The Chairman: Steering committee meetings - I believe we were going to try to go ahead the following Tuesday. It will be the following Tuesday that we're going to try to have our next steering committee meeting.
I mentioned there are nine items on the agenda. I think it was the feeling of the steering committee that they may move along a little quicker than the initial discussion, because we did really get a great deal of discussion about the input costs. We had quite a long discussion, trying to come to a resolution.
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Chairman, my suggestion to you as chair is that we might want to suggest to the members that even though there may be a steering committee meeting that day, we may also have something for the whole committee on the Tuesday and Thursday. So we should try to keep that Tuesday and Thursday morning on our calendars blocked out for the standing committee meetings, as you suggested at the last meeting. We have approved sufficient agenda this morning if we want to move on with some of that agenda. We don't need another steering committee to give us something to do for the next two or three weeks.
The Chairman: Certainly. I think as the agriculture committee we have to get under way with our regular Tuesday and Thursday meetings. When I suggested a Tuesday meeting - that's what the steering committee had talked about as the next meeting.
Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I'm filling in, but I do have some concerns from the west and I hope the committee continues to review them. In light of what's going to come down in Bill C-101, I ask that you certainly stay abreast of how that's going to impact on us in the west, from shippers to short lines to the whole business, even though it's through transportation.
The other one I would ask is for you to continue to monitor the pay-outs as we see the $1.6 billion and the $300 million, so at the end of the day at least we have a comfort level that we know the farmers, whether they're owners or renters or whatever, have all been looked after fairly in the process, because once that pay-out's gone, it's gone, and there's no turning that wheel.
I just ask. I'm sure you will, but I just say that as you meet in the committee - and you can't do everything.
The Chairman: Just so everyone knows what has been discussed to this point, Mr. Easter and myself have tried to take a close look at what will happen with Bill C-101.
.1010
I think Mr. Easter, with his subcommittee, is going to attempt to review all of the briefs coming in. Mrs. Cowling will be on the committee that is reviewing it in transport, so you have direct linkage into the transport committee through her. You also have yourself, Mr. Easter, Mr. Hermanson, and Mr. Chrétien. You really have a good representation from all parties here that would be able to review those briefs and put in recommendations. It could be done either through their own party or through that subcommittee. So we will have extension into that transport committee, which is a very positive step. I think that both ministers have been supportive of that.
You mentioned the monitoring of the $1.6 billion as well. That is a good suggestion, and I will ask our research staff to stay on top of that. If there are issues with which we should be able to deal on that, then they could bring them forward.
As members of Parliament, you certainly have an opportunity to get as much information as you can there, too, and to bring those concerns back directly.
Thank you very much for your cooperation during the meeting. I appreciate it.
This meeting stands adjourned.