Agriculture Committee on March 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I call the meeting to order.

Thanks very much to the witnesses today. We did have one witness unable to attend at the last minute. But we do have Mr. Morrison and Mr. MacDonald here from the Prince Edward Island Cattle Producers. Thank you for coming here to Ottawa to meet with the committee.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, but perhaps I'll just finish. I'll come back to you.

Some witnesses are going to join us by video. I guess they took a brief rest while we were voting. I do apologize for starting late, but when the votes come, there's nothing members can do about it.

Over to your point of order.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses who are here; however, it's an important point of order.

Yesterday the Subcommittee on Food Safety held its first meeting, and this committee needs to address what happened there. Let me start by reading a letter from a subcommittee member, David Anderson, who was at the committee yesterday.

I'd like this read into the record. That's why I'm going to read it. He says:

As a member of the food safety subcommittee, I am very concerned over the activities of the first meeting of the subcommittee on March 25.

The opposition proposed an unproductive amendment, which was ruled out of order. The amendment seemed to expand the activities of the subcommittee outside of the mandate given it by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

What is your point of order?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have the floor on a point of order, Mr. Chair. He can wait.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's not a point of order--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It is a point of order. I'm going to be getting to it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Ask the clerk to rule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You are just reading your point of order; it's just what you're leading to.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm going to be getting into it. Marleau and Montpetit will be coming.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Why don't you just table the document?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It's not in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Continue. I want to hear a little more before--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you.

He says:

The opposition then indicated that they were likely to bring a similar, if not identical, motion to the subcommittee in the future. It seems that this motion would take the subcommittee outside its mandate. This is not allowed by House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

This is where we're getting into the point of order.

The opposition proposal would also divide hearings into two sections, with meetings dragging on until December 2009. It was not the standing committee's intent that the subcommittee go on throughout the entire year before completing its report. The timeframe proposed by the opposition would have the final report delayed until December of 2009. Clearly this is too serious an issue to be left incomplete and unresolved.

He goes on:

I understand that often committee activity is meant to generate partisan results, but this deliberate attempt to hijack the agenda by the opposition disrespects the families who have been impacted by food safety issues. The conduct by the opposition disrespects members of Parliament and it ensures that the issue of food safety will not be dealt with seriously, but rather in a strictly partisan manner, and I'm asking that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food review its intent and clarify the subcommittee's mandate.

Sincerely, David Anderson.

Chair, let me just explain some of this. Marleau and Montpetit is very clear that subcommittees are creatures of the parent committee. Let me quote:

Sub-committees are to committees what committees are to the House; the parent body is relieved of a portion of its workload by delegating some part of its mandate or a particular task to a smaller group. Committees may establish sub-committees only if they have been empowered to do so. The House has, on occasion, established a sub-committee directly or ordered that a particular study be carried out by a sub-committee.

This explanation is clear. The subcommittee was established to do a task that this committee did not have time to do, namely examine food safety issues. When the government members arrived at the subcommittee yesterday, they expected that this is what they would do: establish a timeline for the subcommittee to study food safety. Mr. Anderson proposed a motion establishing dates for witnesses to testify, which is exactly the purpose of establishing the subcommittee.

Marleau and Montpetit goes on to say, and I quote:

Proceedings in sub-committees are of an informal, collegial nature.

Unfortunately, Chair, the opposition members immediately introduced a poisoned pill amendment, which they admitted during debate was a trick meant to poison the well and destroy goodwill.

Surely, this was not the intention of the committee. In fact, in reading the section on the mandate of subcommittees, Marleau and Montpetit gives further clarification, and Mr. Chair, I quote:

Sub-committees receive their mandate in the order of reference adopted by the main committee. By practice, certain sub-committees are struck in every session and continue in operation until the end of the session: for example, the sub-committee on agenda and procedure and sub-committees charged with the responsibility for a specific aspect of the committee's overall mandate. Sub-committees may also be formed to carry out a specific study; such sub-committees cease to exist once they have made their final report to the main committee. If their work is interrupted by prorogation, the main committee may decide to revive the sub-committee in the subsequent session.

This is an important point.

Sub-committees possess only those powers which are conferred on them by the main committee. Sub-committees to which part of a committee’s permanent mandate is delegated, or those undertaking special studies, are usually given the full powers of the main committee. Where the House accords additional powers to a standing committee by special order, these powers may be accorded to sub-committees by the main committee. Special committees may delegate to a sub-committee any of the powers granted to them in the order of reference, including the power to travel or special broadcasting powers. However, sub-committees are restricted from reporting directly to the House.

--which we discussed earlier--

Depending on the purpose for which it is established, a sub-committee may be given a more restricted list of powers than that possessed by the main committee. Sub-committees on agenda and procedure, as their function is only to plan the work of the main committee, are not ordinarily given powers with respect to the summoning of witnesses or sending for documents.

Where a sub-committee requires additional powers, it may put its request in the form of a report to the main committee.

That would be us.

If the powers sought are beyond those that the main committee can delegate, the main committee may request them in a report to the House, or the House may adopt a motion granting them directly.

Mr. Chair, the section I just read from Marleau and Montpetit raises several questions that this committee, as the parent committee, must consider in light of what the opposition members did yesterday.

Firstly, it is clear that the mandate of the subcommittee is established by the parent committee, this committee. We did that, Mr. Chair, when we passed the motion to create the subcommittee. Let me just read that motion into the record to remind everyone of what we passed here at the parent committee:

That, given the Listeriosis crisis that occurred last summer, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food establish a Subcommittee on Food Safety; and that the members of the subcommittee be named after the usual consultations with the Whips; the composition of the Sub-Committee be proportionally the same as that of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with the Chair being a member of the government, and that the subcommittee be granted all of the powers of the Committee pursuant to Standing Order 108(1) except the power to report directly to the House.

Chair, this motion clearly states that the mandate of the subcommittee is food safety. We had a motion and it was passed.

However, Mr. Allen introduced an amendment that would clearly change the mandate of the subcommittee from a study on food safety to a political, partisan witch hunt on listeria, and obviously that is not the intent of this committee because that is not the motion we passed.

Mr. Anderson challenged that point and the chair correctly ruled it was out of order. However, Mr. Anderson did suggest a compromise to the subcommittee, namely—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

A point of order. This information—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

What is your point of order?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

My point of order is this. The chair first ruled the motion was in order and then he changed his mind and ruled it was out of order. We will be questioning that ruling at some point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I just want to put—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I just don't want the parliamentary secretary to put too much more misinformation on the record. He already has enough misinformation in his initial statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I just want to point out that if anyone will read the blues from yesterday's meeting, they will find you're right, Mr. Easter, that I did rule it in order at the start until I had the main motion, which I didn't have for information. Once I got that, it was very clear.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Are you sure the PMO never contacted you in the meantime?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Am I sure of what?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That the Prime Minister's Office never contacted you to give you directions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm just going to disregard that remark.

Do you have a point of order?