Evidence of meeting #11 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
My point of order, in all due respect, Mr. Chair, is that we have witnesses from Nova Scotia who travelled to get here. I know we had a vote, but I think we should leave this to the end. We have witnesses here from P.E.I. There are witnesses sitting on deck from Nova Scotia. I think it shows disrespect to them.
If we may, Chair, let's move on with the witnesses and maybe we can deal with this at the end.
Conservative
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
We are debating a motion that we do not even have before us. Perhaps the motion has been amended, but I do not have it, it has not been tabled. I do not understand why the parliamentary secretary is wasting our time and the witnesses' time. They did not come here for that. I would like people to stop wasting our time so that we can move to the real business.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Ms. Bonsant, that is not a point of order. He is speaking to something that happened at the subcommittee yesterday, which is the responsibility of this committee.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair. That's exactly the point I was going to make. The subcommittee is the creature of the parent committee. We are the parent committee. Yesterday, the opposition members, Chair, drove the subcommittee off the rails and tried to change its mandate without submitting a report to the parent committee—all of us here—to change its mandate. This is of grave concern, and this is exactly what I'm addressing today.
I apologize to the witnesses for making them wait, but it's the opposition members who triggered all of this yesterday. If they had just proceeded with the mandate as it had been established here, none of this would be necessary. I say to them that they have to explain to the witnesses why they derailed the food safety subcommittee yesterday.
Let me just finish, Chair. I have a couple of other comments to make.
Mr. Anderson yesterday suggested a compromise to the subcommittee, namely that the subcommittee report back to this parent committee and ask for direction in changing its mandate, which is what it should have done. Unfortunately, the opposition disagreed. Mr. Allen stated his clear intention to introduce a new motion at the subcommittee that would change the mandate of the subcommittee. Clearly, Chair, this is a violation of the mandate that we, the parent committee, gave to the subcommittee.
Additionally, Mr. Chair, the shenanigans of the opposition went further yesterday, against the will of the parent committee and what is clearly stated in Marleau and Montpetit. Once again I quote: “Sub-committees possess only those powers which are conferred on them by the main committee.”
Mr. Chair, clearly Mr. Allen's intent was to expand the powers or change the powers of the subcommittee beyond what was conferred by the main committee. This was clear, because the opposition wished to expand the subcommittee meetings into the fall and winter. Clearly, that is beyond the power of this current committee, as anything may happen after the summer recess concludes. The whips may wish to reconstitute the standing committees of the House and start from scratch. We would have a situation where there is no parent committee, but we have a subcommittee that is suddenly rogue. It would answer to no one and would have no formal powers under the Standing Orders.
Mr. Chair, this is unacceptable. That is why Mr. Anderson made a very reasonable proposal yesterday to the subcommittee. He rightly suggested that the subcommittee prepare a report to this committee—the main committee, the parent committee—asking for clarification and direction on its mandate. Obviously the opposition is too wrapped up in playing their political games to do this.
So, Chair, I would request that as the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, you instruct the members of the Subcommittee on Food Safety that they must come back to this committee for guidance, if they want to seek clarification on their mandate. However, if the subcommittee will not accept such direction from you, Mr. Chair, then at the next committee meeting I will propose a motion that this committee instruct the subcommittee to stay within its mandate as passed by this committee and to come back to this committee for further guidance.
I'm just giving a notice of motion, Chair, that I believe this is the best course of action to put the subcommittee back onto the rails, within its mandate. The opposition took liberties yesterday that derailed that subcommittee, and it's very unfortunate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm going to review the blues and I'll speak to this issue at the next agriculture meeting. You mentioned the subcommittee. We meet later next Tuesday, and that will come up there.
Mr. Easter, I have a list. It's been brought up by Mr. Eyking and Ms. Bonsant to go to our witnesses, but I have five people on the speakers list. The choice is yours; you are the first one on the list.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I want to argue your point, Mr. Chair. Your biases are starting to show as a chair, first of all. Second, you allowed the parliamentary secretary to make his arguments when we wanted to go to the witnesses. You can't change your mind mid-stream, because his point has to be refuted.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Well, don't blame it on us, Mr. Chair. Don't blame it on us, as you're trying to do.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary are clearly wrong. First, he tried to justify Mr. Anderson's points yesterday at the subcommittee meeting, which was nothing more than a filibuster by the government in that it does not want to deal with the food safety issue.
The parliamentary secretary is right on this point—and I don't have the motion before me; I saw it a moment ago. It was that the standing committee would set up a subcommittee on food safety. We did that.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Chair, is that Mr. Anderson's motion was on the table and being debated. The parliamentary secretary said that Mr. Allen had a motion on the floor. He did not. You ruled the amendment he made out of order. So Mr. Allen's motion that the parliamentary secretary is speaking to was not even on the floor. He may have, in fact, seen a copy.
In my view, Malcolm Allen's motion, the NDP motion, was in fact on the topic of the Subcommittee on Food Safety, in that it basically was laying out a schedule for us to deal appropriately with the food safety issue, including the issue of listeriosis.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Just on that point, Mr. Easter, the reason—and the only reason—the motion was ruled out of order, because first of all it was a motion and not an amendment, was the fact that, contrary to what you just said, it eliminated—clearly eliminated—the part about food safety and stuck to listeriosis. So let's be clear on that.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, Mr. Allen's motion wasn't even in fact being debated. You saw a copy of which I'm sure—
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Okay, that's fine. But the committee, the subcommittee, in its own wisdom, could easily have amended Mr. Allen's motion, as we tried to amend the government's motion, that listeriosis be the first part and food safety—we could have amended it that way—was, in fact, included.
I am just making the argument, Mr. Chair, that I believe very firmly that in the subcommittee's discussion of yesterday, which was fillibustered by the parliamentary secretary, the amendment coming forward was in fact on food safety and dealt within the mandate of this committee.
Conservative