I don't have a problem with adding the words “food safety”, Mr. Chair. I would support the amendment because I think the intention of the subcommittee is to use the case of listeriosis. I think it's a wake-up call to show us that there's something wrong in the system. That's not just looking back. We are looking ahead. The reason we have to do this, to be quite blunt about it, is the Prime Minister's investigation. Our understanding, when the Prime Minister first talked about an inquiry was that it would be an inquiry that had some teeth in it. Well, Ms. Weatherill has no teeth. She has no power to subpoena witnesses, no power to get documents, and no power to investigate the PMO or the office of the minister who was in charge. So that's why it becomes necessary for this committee.
I have a question on it as well. Maybe Alex can clarify this.
As I see it, this would be a committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with all the powers outlined here. But calling it a subcommittee means it might be fully the same committee or it might be based on whip decisions. Some people also subbed into this committee from health, but both committees would operate...I don't want to say in parallel exactly, but I think the intent here is to do the work on food safety but also not slow down the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in all the other things it has to do. If we have people doing both, it means they're going to be having a heck of a lot more meetings. That's fine with me, because I think it's an important issue.
I think the agriculture committee needs to be in control of the committee, because CFIA is under agriculture. Members from the health committee could be subbed into this committee to assist. Am I right on that?