Evidence of meeting #30 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I call this meeting to order. I'm sitting in for chairman Larry. My name is Mark Eyking.
I welcome the witnesses here today.
We're hoping to be done at five o'clock, but I'm just letting the witnesses know that we have a little business we have to finish first before we go to the witness list.
If I may, we have a motion brought forward by Mr. Storseth. Could he read the motion, and then we can deal with the motion, debate, and vote on it.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to read my motion into the record. I would also like to say at the start that I have some concerns with the process I had to go through to get this motion on the table, but that's something I think would be best dealt with when we have all the regular members of the full committee here, so I'm willing to leave that until later.
My motion would read:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food would like to commend Sheila Weatherill, the independent investigator into last summer's listeriosis outbreak, for her excellent work and, consequently, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food is of the view that no public inquiry is necessary.
In support of my motion, Mr. Chair, I would like to quote Mr. Easter's own words, in discussion of the avian flu public inquiry, when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food:
All another inquiry would do is rehash what has already been rehashed and for which recommendations have already been made. All it would do is cost more money. All it would do is tie up agency personnel who should be acting on recommendations instead of shuffling paper around.
Those were Mr. Easter's own words. The fact of the matter is that this government has already taken the issue seriously and conducted a lessons learned report. The food safety subcommittee has listened to over 50 hours of testimony from 77 witnesses, which resulted in 878 pages of documentation. As well, an independent investigator interviewed and met with more than 100 people first-hand who had knowledge of the events of last summer and compiled 5.8 million pages of information. In fact, Mr. Chair, the only individual of all of the witnesses we had come forward to ask for a public inquiry was one who clearly had a partisan Liberal affiliation, Mr. Amir Attaran.
From that, I submit my motion to the committee.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Is there discussion on the motion?
Mr. Bellavance, then Mr. Lemieux.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to briefly repeat what I said in the in camera session. I want it to be on the record.
This motion is an absolute contradiction of what is stated in the Agriculture Committee's report. For many weeks, the Subcommittee reviewed the listeriosis issue. Mr. Storseth is well aware of the fact that the majority of the members of this committee specifically recommended that the government hold an open and transparent public inquiry, because of the gaps in Ms. Weatherill's mandate that had been noted.
Congratulating Ms. Weatherill for her work and saying that, because of that, there is no longer any need to hold a public inquiry is a complete non sequitur. We are having trouble understanding why Mr. Storseth has tabled this motion today. I believe the only reason why it is coming forward is the fact that, for once, the Conservatives have a majority on the Committee and will be in a position to win the vote on it. However, that in no way changes the conclusions of the report tabled by the Agriculture Committee in June, before the end of the last parliamentary session, in which the government was again asked to focus on the need to hold a full public inquiry on the listeriosis crisis which, I would remind Committee members, resulted in no less than 22 deaths.
It seems to me there is no room for petty politics on an issue such as this.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to spend too much time on this motion either, but I do want to make a couple of points and strenuously oppose it.
I will say I am disappointed that the government members engineered the committee this way, so that they could get a motion of this nature through. We understand that, but I think it is against democratic principles the way they've engineered this. Clearly, this motion is all about some kind of secretive government at work. They don't want Canadians to know what really happened with the listeriosis issue that caused 22 deaths. What this motion today is about is messaging, not substance, and this is the operating agenda of this Conservative government. It's about messaging, not substance. It goes to the heart, I would say, of the Harper propaganda machine to try to leave the impression that the facts are different from what they really are.
I'll make my point. I can see after this motion goes through, Mr. Chair.... And you've seen the ten percenters coming from Conservative members across this country. I understand ten percenters are propaganda pieces. That's not what they were designed for in the beginning. I get about five in my riding a week from seven or eight different Conservative members, clearly propaganda. What they will do in this propaganda machine they're running over there--at taxpayers' expense, I might say--is they will be quoting this line: “The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food is of the view that no public inquiry is necessary.”
That will be in their ten percenters, to try to leave the impression that the committee's subcommittee, which Carolyn and I sit on, didn't call for that, when in fact they did. Actually, the full committee--and I'll read it into the record--after months and hours of hearings, passed a motion, recommendation one, as follows:
The subcommittee recommends that the government call for a fully transparent and independent public inquiry, with all the powers provided under the Inquiries Act, into the actions of the federal government, its agencies, and departments in relation to the events leading up to, during, and subsequent to the listeriosis crisis of the summer 2008.
The reason that motion is there, based on the evidence we heard, Mr. Chair, is that the investigator--who did a very good job in terms of her investigation, was critical of the government on a number of points--didn't have the authority to investigate the Prime Minister's Office or the Minister of Agriculture's office or the political people pulling the strings, like some of these minions sitting behind the Conservative members over there from the PMO who are pulling their strings.
So that's the reason for the public inquiry.
I'd just say, Mr. Chair, that this is all about the messaging, and the reason it was set up this way today.... I understand the parliamentary secretary is next on the list; maybe he could answer the question. Did the Prime Minister order Larry Miller to stay away today so that we'd have to put the Liberal in the chair, so they'd have the majority? Is that the way you manipulated the public again? Because that's what you're doing. You're messaging. This is what it's all about. To message and confuse the Canadian people, they set up this committee. Where's the chair? It didn't happen at other committees. At other committees, the normal chair chaired.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'm just addressing a comment that Mr. Easter made. Mr. Easter knows that committees are responsible unto themselves. No one was involved in Mr. Miller's being away; it was his schedule. He is far away from here right now and he was unable to get back, Chair, and Mr. Easter knew that. He knew that early on.
Thank you, Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I have to say a few things. We can continue with this debate if that's the will of the committee, but just so you know, Mrs. Swan came here to speak today but she has to leave at 4:45 p.m. She has an international flight to catch. I want the committee to know that. If it's the will of the committee to keep debating this motion, at the end of the day we're going to hear less from witnesses.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Just to conclude, Mr. Chair.... I wasn't finished with my remarks; that was a point of order.
Just to conclude, we recognized that. It's why we wanted the witnesses first. But as you see, the government members put this motion first to try to limit our debate on it, because as I said, it is manipulating the message to confuse the Canadian mind when in fact the full hearing called for a public inquiry.
The last couple of points I would make is that under subsection 106(4) of the Standing Orders, when four members of this committee asked for this hearing today, that set the timeframe. For whatever reason, the chair is missing. And now, the government members—I would imagine at the behest of the PMO—have managed to try to manipulate the message.
The bottom line for me is, what has the government to hide? What have they got to hide? Why do they not want a public inquiry into government responsibility on this issue? The full report is in the House of Commons. Maybe some day we'll get the opportunity to debate it there. We'll have to see the government's response to it.
So with those remarks, Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the games the Conservative members are playing and the motion as proposed.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
We now have a list of four.
I think, Mr. Lemieux, you're next.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Then we have Mr. Christopherson, Mr. Shipley, and Mr. Bellavance.
There's a point of order.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier about how this contradicts the report passed by the Committee before the end of the last parliamentary session. I would like to put a question to the Clerk in that regard. I am wondering whether Mr. Storseth's motion is actually in order. Decisions made by the House must be in keeping with what is decided in committee. The first recommendation of the report which was tabled in the House of Commons calls for a fully transparent public inquiry.
Once a report such as this has been tabled in the House of Commons, can the very same Agriculture Committee then turn around and say exactly the opposite?
In my opinion, this motion should be declared out of order, because the Committee already decided to call for a public inquiry. How can we now come along and say that there should not be one?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. I understand that clearly.
Does the clerk want to make a comment?
My understanding from the clerk is that the report, even though it was presented, has not been adopted in the House.
4 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
It was passed by the Committee and tabled in the House. We considered it in committee and it was passed, not only by the Subcommittee, but by the full committee as well.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
The clerks are not sure on this ruling; they're going to check. So we'll hold that and maybe they can check on it, and we'll continue with some of the discussion.
4 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Would it be possible to suspend debate on this motion and introduce it at a subsequent meeting, once the ruling is known? That way, we could hear our witnesses and continue our work.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
You're suggesting that we suspend until they come back, and then we go right back into it? How long do you think...?
4 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
We will be discussing something about which we do not yet…