Evidence of meeting #4 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Atamanenko, they're going to be getting us a hard copy of the report in advance, correct? Does everybody have a copy of that report now?
Noon
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
They should have. I think we all should have it.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. I would urge everybody to do it.
I brought this up before. You're really tying my hands in the future, as chair, by moving from the traditional 10-minute presentation. It's nothing against the report. I'm sure it's good. But what do I say, or what does the clerk say, the next time somebody says, “Well, you gave them 45 minutes”--or half an hour or whatever it is--“Where's mine?” I'll tell you it's going to create problems. I just put that out there.
It doesn't mean that we don't want to listen to it. We have that report. Read through it. I'm only speaking for myself, but I don't need a 45-minute PowerPoint to tell me what's in that report if I've done my homework in advance. That's all I'm going to say on it.
Mr. Hoback.
Noon
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to agree with what you just said. I was going to bring that point up exactly. Historically 10 minutes is more than enough time. This is an organization that goes down in the States pledging allegiance to RCAP. Their historical perspective that Mr. Easter talks about is one person's opinion of an historical perspective. I think we need to include more people in that meeting.
I know Mr. Bellavance talked about some producers he'd like to bring in for witnesses. I would suggest that he bring them in that same day. We give them the 10 minutes to do their presentation. We can allow enough time to substantially do our rounds of questioning for the NFU. Then Mr. Bellavance would have the opportunity to bring in some of his witnesses, and maybe some other people have other witnesses they'd like to bring in. I think we want to get many perspectives, not just one perspective on the cattle industry or the beef industry.
Noon
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Although I equally disdain what RCAP and the NFU are doing, I do have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Hoback. I'm not sure. I've read the report. It is a very extensive report.
I like a lot of what Alex is talking about when he talks about bringing in...and I think we ought to keep it to three. If we have to have more meetings where we bring in other people, then that's fine. But I hate these meetings where we have six and seven. I was in one just last night where we had six witnesses. You don't get anything out of any of them, you spend your entire meeting on the witnesses giving their presentations. If we on this side disagree ideologically with the report that the NFU brings forward, then we can have people here. If we have a couple of ranchers or somebody who will put the other side of the story, I have no problem with that. But having a good vigorous, wholesome debate on it and fleshing out the pluses and minuses, I don't have a problem with that.
As for how long you allow them, Mr. Chair, that to me is at your discretion. But I do think what Alex is suggesting with having three witnesses here and having a good intense conversation with the three witnesses...as long as it's balanced, that it's not just the NFU and then an NFU supporter. We've had that in the past too, and that doesn't create a balanced dialogue. I think it's important that we have a little bit of back and forth on it and have open discussion. I like a lot of what Alex is saying to that.
Noon
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you.
I still am adamant that we give at least 30 minutes to the report, and if a motion is necessary, I'll make that motion. I would then leave it to my colleagues, if that passes and we allow 30 minutes, then to choose a rancher on the ground. I know people, but I would leave it to my colleagues to choose someone on the ground who's struggling, who's a cattle rancher, who can comment on the positive and negative aspects of what's going on in the industry.
Sometimes we don't hear that when we listen to the associations, and I think that's why it's important to zero in. You and I talked about it, Larry. There are some aspects in that report that maybe as a government we can advance. I believe that we need at least 30 minutes. If we need a motion to that effect, I'll make a motion.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, going back to the amount of time that witnesses have, when we discussed the routine motions, as a committee, we settled on 10 minutes. I think you're quite right that when we start to make exceptions, people who are outside those exceptions then start asking questions. What's wrong with them? They have important things to say. How come they don't have 30 minutes? Why don't they have 45 minutes? They have a PowerPoint deck or a thick briefing that they'd like to personally brief you on.
I'd bring up two points, Chair.
The first point is the one that you mentioned. As members of Parliament, we're expected to be prepared for committee, and that means reading briefing material. We have this report--thank you, Mr. Atamanenko, for distributing it to us earlier--and we have to read it and understand it. Ten minutes is ample time for a witness to highlight the key elements of a report or a presentation. I think it allows more time for dialogue, which is really what the committee is all about. It's us having a dialogue with the witnesses and having fruitful communication.
There is nothing to prevent a member such as Mr. Atamanenko saying to the chair that he has seven minutes and would like the witness to run through a section of the report. The committee would benefit from a better personal explanation from the witness, and the witness would have seven minutes of elaborating on a particular aspect of the report. Other members could follow suit, if that's what they want to do. But if another member would rather enter into a dialogue and have questions back and forth, the format is there.
I have a concern that some of the topics we want to discuss are difficult subject matters. Witnesses will have strong opinions and will want 45 minutes. It's not what we decided on as a committee. There is nothing to prevent members from asking for elaboration on any segment of any presentation, if that's how they want to use their time, but I am very much against making exceptions. Why are we giving a special nod to this witness and not to the 10 witnesses over here? I think it's a bad precedent. I understand there'll be a presentation.
Let's keep them to 10 minutes like everybody else. It's fair and it's equal. The important part is that it's equal. All witnesses should be treated in the same way when they arrive here in front of this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
Okay, we're back to the report. I think everybody wants everything that's in this report. It's only a matter of the meetings.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's a move here to move up the cattle industry, which COOL is attached to, and in some ways, the competitive part of it is right on its tail. I think they're all potentially tied in. But we'll work on what we've talked about here. We'll get the cattlemen in, the NFU, the Canadian Pork Council, and some of the others. The lamb industry is another one that's affected by the COOL labelling just as much as the beef and pork industries. It's maybe not to the same dollar extent, but it certainly is in numbers.
Mr. Storseth.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, we've all discussed that we want to see this. I think you have exactly nailed the order in which we want to do it.
The committee has also shown a consensus that we not tie into, for instance, two meetings for COOL. If it comes out that Monsieur Bellavance or Alex or Monsieur Lemieux decide they would like to have a few more witnesses to flesh it out a little more on COOL, we may end up having three or four meetings on that.
This is going to be a very important report. I didn't see Wayne hiding in the back. He might want to bring somebody else forward too. I think we should leave a little flexibility in your hands in terms of scheduling. Committees always work better when we give you a little flexibility, because we may want to have more witnesses on a couple of these issues.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I appreciate that. I know the clerk needs that flexibility maybe more than I do.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
This is a very important issue right now. As you said earlier, I don't want us having six or seven witnesses so that we can say we had all of these witnesses, but we then don't have enough time with each one of the witnesses.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
As long as we have that, as I said a few minutes ago, technically we're almost at a point in the discussion where we could entertain a motion to adopt the report.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
No, there isn't. But I think we're pretty near that point, Mark.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I want to make sure, and I think we had better get a consensus around this table.
I understand what Pierre is saying. I understand the precedent setting. As a committee we sometimes make tough decisions, and I think the decision to have an extended period of time for Darrin Qualman is in all our best interests. I would like to ensure, whether it's a vote around this table or a motion, that we do it. I'm not going to leave it until we at least decide one way or another.
If you need a motion for that particular aspect, I'll make a motion.
