Evidence of meeting #2 for Subcommittee on Food Safety in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll call this meeting to order. Thank you, everybody. I apologize for the lack of chairs in this room.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm wondering whether for the next meeting you'll move us to a closet.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I would like to inform you that a deal was struck last night on a new motion for this subcommittee. I spoke with Pierre Lemieux, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and a representative of the government. They said that the opposition had provided constructive input into this motion. I would appreciate the opposition's commitment to expediting the timeline of this subcommittee. It's crucial that the subcommittee report by June. Ten months have already passed since the outbreak, and Canadians would not appreciate a delay of another nine months.
Mr. Chair, because of the consensus of the subcommittee, I'm going to withdraw my current motion that's on the table. I now ask for unanimous consent from the members of the subcommittee for this new motion, which I now move: that the subcommittee, when studying food safety, which includes the listeriosis crisis of 2008, meet on March 31, April 20, 22, 29, May 6, 13, 27, June 3 and 10; and that the subcommittee establish extra meetings within this time period as necessary; and that the meetings be between 4 p.m. and 10 p.m.; and that the meetings be televised; and that the final report with recommendations be submitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on or before June 11 with the request that it be reported to the House of Commons prior to June 18.
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
We agree with the new motion. I have a little problem, though, and I think all opposition parties have. We were pleased to sit down with the parliamentary secretary to try in an informal way to come to an agreement without being hampered by motions and everything else. We appreciate the negotiations that went on, and especially the input from Malcolm Allen, whose first motion was the one that provoked this result.
I question the initial words of Mr. Anderson, however, because they make it sound as though the opposition was delaying the hearings. That is not the case. The filibuster that occurred was by a government member. We tried to work out the scheduling and the timing for his motion. I don't want the record to be misconstrued.
But I can tell you that we on this side support the motion, and we'll do our best to hear all the witnesses prior to June 10.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
This is a matter of procedure. I tabled a notice of motion prior to this meeting. So that the clerk can do the housekeeping, I am now withdrawing that notice of motion.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Just as a point of clarify, I think Mr. Malcolm is withdrawing the motion regarding the schedule, not the other motion that he set forward.
Is that right? Do you have the motion?
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
It's the notice of motion that I submitted as a notice of motion to the clerk. We supplied it last Thursday, I believe—or perhaps last Friday.
Conservative
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
We divided things into two halves. Just so that the clerk isn't stuck with a notice of motion and wondering what we have done with it, I am asking that it be withdrawn.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
That's fair enough. It is noted and, I would take it, all but done.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to bring up this point of privilege. It has come to my attention that the potential witness list for this committee was provided to individuals outside of this committee and, moreover, to companies and organizations outside of the House of Commons. This is a prima facia case of privilege that I recognize the chair cannot rule on. Therefore it is my hope that this committee will decide to report this matter to the House.
Mr. Chair, I would like to submit to you and members of this committee an e-mail chain that clearly indicates this breach of privilege—and I will provide the e-mail. I am very concerned with this breach of privilege, as it goes beyond privilege to a matter of public trust.
As all members of this committee know, a CFIA biologist lost his job for leaking confidential documents to his union back in July 2008. Now, it seems, a member of this committee has broken the privilege of this committee by leaking confidential documents. That is a double standard that Canadians won't accept. I ask that this committee adopt a report for the chair to present to the House so that the Speaker may rule on this point of privilege.
If I may, I will provide members with an e-mail chain that clearly shows that the draft list was indeed sent to others. I'll allow time for it to circulate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
The clerk has noted that we don't have the power to report to the House, Mr. Allen. We have to report to the main committee. I think that was clear in the initial motion.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Just so that I'm clear, your ruling is that we have to report this to the agriculture committee and request them to then send it to the House. Is that what's being indicated to me?