Agriculture Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

My motion is that we allow Darrin Qualman to be here for at least a 30-minute presentation, and that we round this off with at least two or three more producers on the ground, and then we have an hour of questions. That's my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Discussion?

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm trying to understand, Mr. Chairman, why we would ever do that, what the benefit is when we have the written report, not only the summary but the extended report, and then have someone come in and give us a half-hour power point to tell us what's in the report, without his coming--or whoever's going to make that presentation--in the 10 minutes that are allotted to everyone. That's not to take away from this report or, quite honestly, other reports that those individuals will see are just as important as this.

You have to remember that this is one organization's report. If we wanted to have any of the other farm organizations--and I'm sure the cattlemen or the dairy producers or whoever we're studying at the time would say they have a half-hour presentation, because this has WTO implications; it has implications not only across Canada but across the United States and Europe. I guess that report then...maybe it should get three-quarters of an hour. Quite honestly, I think that any organization--and there may be some I would like to have come in and spend longer--but for the three years I've been on committees we've had some pretty significant reports done by professional people--and I'm not talking about lobbyists but professional people in their business. They can do it in 10 minutes, and then the best benefit comes in taking those reports and having the questions that come from all of us.

If we're going to take half an hour, by the time we've run through it, the only ones we're going to get, the ranchers or whoever's going to come, the one or two... And I agree with Mr. Storseth. I don't like having six or seven or eight, because you really don't get what this committee can benefit from if you have that many. I certainly couldn't support having an organization, regardless of who it is, come in and give us a 30-minute overview when we already have the executive summary in front of us now and the full report in our offices. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

One thing I should point out is that the chair does have discretion on allowing the witnesses to continue, if I could say. If you have this in a hard and fast motion, you've tied my hands in the future, big-time.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I disagree with you strenuously. I don't think we've tied your hands by this motion. I think we've given you a way out.

The rule is 10 minutes. It is what the committee has established. Alex's motion is allowing an exception to that rule. I agree with Alex's motion. Whether you like or don't like the NFU, if there ever was a professional researcher, Darrin Qualman is a very professional researcher.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

This has nothing to do with the--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, no, I have the floor, Mr. Chair.

I think this is in-depth work that challenges the current theory in terms of the cattle industry. I've read the report. I haven't seen the presentation, but I think we would all benefit from the presentation in terms of a better understanding, and maybe we would leave with fewer questions as a result of that rather than more. Whether or not at the end of the day we agree with this, I don't think we can question the reality of the research, but whatever direction the industry wants to go, that's a different matter.

I would support this exception at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hoback.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

If there are others down the road, we'll have other motions.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, Mr. Chair, the issue I have with giving them longer time is that the committee members don't get the proper time to evaluate or ask questions. I cannot understand why they need 45 minutes to explain something that they've given to us in advance--or even 30 minutes. I can't understand why they need that, regardless. If we have the information in front of us, we should allow them to give their 10-minute presentation and then allow them to have the full benefit of the period to be asked questions and to explore the report.

What we're going to have is a presentation with no time to explore it. What kind of information are we going to garner from that? We read it, but can't explore it. That's what I'm concerned with, Alex. They'll come in and do their presentation, but then we'll have no ability to question them on it. Again, subject to peer review, I don't know if it's a qualified report or not. Mr. Easter has his interpretation, but that's his own interpretation. It's not the interpretation of the industry as a whole, for example.

That's what I'm concerned about. How do we make sure we have enough time to do proper questioning? In the seven minutes, then the five, five, and five, how do we get through so that all committee members can actually participate? By adding length onto their testimony, we take away everybody else's ability as committee members to ask questions.

I'm sorry, I can't support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There are two questions I'd ask Alex to consider.

One, in his motion would he consider moving the entire report and, in moving the report, include the motion that you've just moved, so we can move it as one and get this over with? I think we have consensus around the table on all of it.

Two, in your motion in regard to Mr. Qualman's presentation, would the committee be interested in perhaps putting their money where their mouth is in providing for that particular meeting to be extended by half an hour if we can get the room? If we want to have extra time to question the witnesses on the report, it would be available. It's not to say we'd have to use that time up, but if members so chose, we could do that.

If Alex could do those two things--move the entire thing, as Larry said, with your addition with the half hour--and then add on half an hour to the meeting, I could for vote that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Following through on the discussions we've had today, not just in terms of this report but in particular this report, we talked about the red meat industry, and I'm wondering why this is targeted only to the beef and not the pork. We've talked about our next meeting, and it's been recognized by everyone that we need to talk not just about beef and pork but maybe also the rest of the red meat industry.

Another report will come, maybe by this researcher, on the pork or sheep industry. Then an executive summary will come forward, and that will be, in my mind, incomplete because it will deal with only one issue, when our concern in this committee and in this country is broader than just the cattle industry. I think as a committee we've agreed that it is the livestock industry, the red meat industry, but we keep talking about the cattle industry. I've been listening to our comments. I still believe that this is being structured towards one sector of the red meat industry that is struggling. I don't think the intent of this committee is to deal with just one. I think we all recognize that we have a red meat industry that is struggling.

I will still go back to the point that we should have a 10-minute presentation, because we're coming in the day before with the cattlemen and the pork congress--hopefully--and that will be a part of it.

I think we're doing an injustice to the total industry that we're talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I think there was general consensus in regard to the report--which we're not really dealing with right now, we're dealing with the motion--to include the red meat sector in general.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

With this report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

That's what we're talking about. It's about the time for them to come in and talk about this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

If you want to change “cattle industry” to “livestock industry”, I think there was consensus around the table, so to speak.

I'm going to call the motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you. I am ready to vote, so I will not take too much time. I simply wanted to say that I do not see what the problem is for the committee. It is entirely free to decide whether it wants to hear one witness a bit longer than another one. It is up to us to make that decision.

I agree with Brian. We always have to allow enough time for questions. I would also like all the members of the committee, including the Conservatives, to be of the same opinion when we have the minister appear for an hour. We always hope he will be with us for two hours, which would give us more time to ask him questions, but that never works.

Here we are asking to hear for 30 minutes someone who has prepared a report. This is not a whim on the part of someone who claims that 10 minutes is not enough for him. He has prepared a specific report on a file that we wish to discuss. Witnesses like that cannot be found on every street corner. Not all the witnesses who will appear will have done such an exhaustive job on the file we will be discussing. For some of them, 10 minutes will be plenty. Here we have an exception, no more nor less. Someone has prepared a report dealing specifically with a particular file. Obviously we want to talk about the pork sector and other red meat sectors. It is not because this report is about the beef sector in particular that these issues do not apply to the other sectors. We will talk about livestock in general.

I hope we will have the time to ask all our questions. This is half an hour out of a two-hour session. Do not tell me that it is impossible.

I will vote this way. Then, I would like us to settle the matter of the schedule, so that we can get down to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, Alex, you're second to last.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I thank Brian for his comments.

I think we should just get this motion out of the way; otherwise we're going to be tied in with other things. I agree with what he's saying. We should just vote on this and get on with the rest of the stuff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth, you're on the list. Is that to discuss the motion?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Yes.

I hate to be difficult about this, but in order for me to support it, I will actually move an amendment, Mr. Chair. Perhaps you could read the actual motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I believe the motion would say--and correct me if I'm wrong, Alex--that the NFU presentation be allowed for 30 minutes, or something to that effect.