Evidence of meeting #3 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Order, please. We are now in public.
As you know, the purpose of this meeting is to discuss our future committee business and to discuss what was discussed at our subcommittee on agenda last Thursday. We also have some notices of motions that have been put forth, and after that we'll be discussing the motions.
Are there any questions on the agenda?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, does the clerk have copies of these motions that he can hand around to us?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
He does, and he also has the letter I indicated I had received last time. I believe that has also been circulated to the members.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I guess you weren't here, Mr. Lemieux. There was a letter I had received from the Library of Parliament in response to the concerns that Mr. Easter had raised at our first meeting about researchers and analysts. There's a letter that I believe answers those concerns. We can also discuss that as well as anything else someone wants to discuss. You should have a copy of it somewhere there.
J-F has assured me that it was sent to your offices by mail.
Mr. Storseth.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
It was sent to our offices. I noticed that at the last committee meeting Mr. Easter had a new staff member sitting behind him, so maybe Mr. Wilson just hasn't quite figured out the new position that you gave him.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I know we did notices of motion in the last meeting, but aren't they supposed to be distributed amongst the committee members beforehand? I'm not sure, but I don't believe I received a paper copy of Mr. Atamanenko's motion here. So the tabling is good enough?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Maybe I could have J-F speak to that.
When Mr. Atamanenko's motion came in to the clerk last Friday, it was circulated by e-mail, which basically--
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I just talked to my staffer. He said he did get it, and he did forward it to me. I must have missed it somewhere, so I apologize.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
No problem.
Okay, we'll get into the report and open up for discussion the results of the discussion at the subcommittee last week. Who's up?
Mr. Atamanenko.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
We have the first report, which says the first two meetings of our committee will be on listeriosis. I think this depends on what happens with my motion. If my motion passes, then obviously my understanding is we just move the agenda up, because then there would be a separate group dealing with that.
That's my first question. Is that correct?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I guess that's at least partially correct. Are you suggesting that we should deal with the motions?
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
No, I'm just saying that if in fact we deal with them and the motions go through, then it would be my understanding that the subject of listeriosis would be dealt with by a separate committee, and we wouldn't have to have it as number one on our agenda here. Is that right?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm not going to pre-empt the motion, so once we deal with it, we will be able to answer that better.
Mr. Eyking.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I think to make this meeting go smoothly, Chair, if it's proper to do so, perhaps you could just give us the overall intentions from the meeting with the clerk, including some of the scenarios on listeriosis, and then maybe we could open it up. The way I see this, these are the priorities as we agreed to them, in order from one down to the bottom, and then we also had a bit of an agreement on how to deal with the motions, but I know that's for the latter part.
I think if we get to some of the scenarios for listeriosis, then that could change and set us on the right track. That's my suggestion.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Just so I'm clear on what you're suggesting, Mr. Eyking, are you wanting me to read what's in this?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
No, I think it's self-explanatory. It doesn't have the number, but I guess everybody realizes that was numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. Those were our priorities and these are the meetings, but this could change, depending on the clerk's findings. But some of the people at this meeting do not know what we are talking about—the health committee and things like that--so I think that should be dealt with first and then we can go on. That's my suggestion.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Chair, is it possible to deal with Alex's motion? If listeriosis is in item two, let's deal with it at the same time.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm at the disposal of the committee, if that's how you want to deal with it.
Mr. Easter.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I think the steering committee's report is before us, and listeriosis is the first item up before the committee--two meetings generally.
On Alex's resolution—and Alex, you can correct me if I'm wrong—that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food establish a subcommittee, I understand that's the full committee operating as a subcommittee. Anyway, not to get into the detail at this point in time, I would agree with Randy that while the recommendation of the subcommittee is to deal with listeriosis, I think Alex's motion is basically saying that we have to be broader than that, that two meetings may not be enough. Alex will have to explain how he wants the subcommittee set up. I take it from Alex's motion that it's a bigger hearing process than just two meetings. The structure of the committee he can explain, but I'd suggest that we should deal with Alex's motion first, because it is the first item that even the steering committee has recommended. And we might as well deal with the two at once.
