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.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
They've just said it will be five to ten minutes. Is it the will of the committee that we do that?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, I think we can continue. I have my comments to make as a speaker while the clerk is investigating.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. I'd like to make a few comments related to what Mr. Easter said.
I did smile somewhat when he spoke about us, the Conservatives, having orchestrated this meeting. This meeting wasn't called by the Conservatives; it was called by Mr. Easter himself, or by four members of the opposition, actually. So I think that needs to be brought to light. We have agreed to have this meeting. We have nothing to hide. We are in this meeting right now.
I'd like to address the point regarding the motion. There are actually a few things.
First, it's important to note that the food safety committee listened to over 50 hours of testimony from 77 witnesses and that this resulted in 878 pages of documentation. So a thorough review was done by the food safety subcommittee.
In addition to that, four lessons learned reports have been written. There was also, of course, the study done by the independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, who interviewed and met first-hand with more than 100 people who had knowledge of the events of last summer, and she compiled 5.8 million pages of information.
In all of that, no one asked for a full public inquiry except one single person, only one witness. Out of everything I just listed—the lessons learned report, the report issued by the food safety subcommittee, and Sheila Weatherill's report—only one person even mentioned a full public inquiry, and it was a partisan, a Liberal supporter, who has given financially: Mr. Amir Attaran.
Mr. Bellavance is smiling now, because he knows. He takes exception to the fact that we've inserted that we don't feel that a public inquiry is necessary. He's saying, well, certainly the committee felt that at the time. They simply outvoted the Conservatives at that time. So I think it's a bit unfair to say, or to give the assertion or the view, perhaps, that the entire committee supported that recommendation, because clearly they didn't. That's why we ended up submitting our own report, to contrast the report submitted by the full committee.
I want to go on to mention why we feel a public inquiry is not necessary, and it's somewhat linked to Mr. Storseth's motion.
The motion that is in front of us today is not the full motion that he submitted to the clerk. So I would like to make an amendment to Mr. Storseth's motion—you can consider it a friendly amendment—simply to reinsert what he originally had in his motion.
The original part of the motion stands:
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
My amendment is to add the next sentence:
Ms. Weatherill's in-depth examination has provided Canadians with a complete and comprehensive review of the events of last summer and recommendations that will improve Canada's food safety system. Due to this extensive review,
That would end my amendment, and then we'd go to the main motion:
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is of the view that no public inquiry is necessary.
It was the original motion. The clerk should have a copy of it.
The key point I want to make is that not only did Ms. Weatherill do a full and comprehensive review of this situation, of the food safety issues within Canada, but there were many other reviews and reports, lessons learned reports, done as well.
When you look at all of this, when you look at the big picture, definitely it has been reviewed to its full extent. As I mentioned, that's why no full public inquiry is necessary, because a thorough review on many different levels, involving many different levels of government, has already been done.
I will end there, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I have my amendment to the motion, on which, hopefully, we will eventually vote.
Thank you.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
A voice
It's the original motion.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
So I guess we'll be reading how the motion is going to look with this amendment. Right? And then we'll have a discussion on the amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Yes, perhaps you could read the new version and how it's going to be.
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The original motion 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
Then the amendment begins:
Ms. Weatherill's in-depth examination has provided Canadians with a complete and comprehensive review of the events of last summer and recommendations that will improve Canada's food safety system. Due to this extensive review
—and then we go back to the original motion—
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is of the view that no public inquiry is necessary.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay, you have read the amendment with the new motion. What I'm going to do, if there's discussion on that....
Mr. Christopherson, you're on the list. So if you want to speak first, you may.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, I don't want to speak to the amendment, but to the main motion, Mr. Chair. I'll wait until it's amended.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay.
Does anybody else want to speak on the amendment?
Mr. Easter.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair. Maybe the parliamentary secretary could tell us this.
The amendment just adds a few words; I disagree with them, and we'll be voting against them.
The original mandate for Ms. Weatherill was basically that after she had written her initial report, she would run it by certain witnesses for editing in terms of their testimony. And I think we should all understand at this committee that these hearings that Ms. Weatherill held were not transparent, in the typical fashion of this government. They were not transparent; they were held in secret.
We don't know who the witnesses were. We don't know what they said. But we do believe they had the opportunity to edit their remarks prior to their being made public. And we do know—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it's one thing for Mr. Easter to constantly attack, to come out here and attack the PMO and the Conservatives and all of that. But when he constantly goes after Ms. Weatherill, an independent investigator and one of the most highly respected women in Canada year after year, constantly calling her into question throughout every committee meeting we've had—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Here's why it is a point of order, Mr. Chair, if you would just bear with me for one more second.
Ms. Weatherill said, regarding her investigation: “I have been able to conduct my investigation independently and impartially. There has been no interference from any party whatsoever.”
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I'll remind the committee, if we can move along here, just to speak on the amendment. Make it quick so we can get the motion done, because the clock is ticking.
Is there anybody else on the amendment?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It goes to my point that we do not know who the witnesses were. All we've seen is a report, which, at the end of the day, supposedly could have been edited by those witnesses.
Again, it goes to the heart of this government: secrecy and cover-up. That's why I oppose this motion. We don't know what happened.
I think her report is very good in terms of some of its recommendations. But we really don't know in full context what the witnesses said. We don't know if 20 of them maybe called for a public inquiry and she just didn't put that in, because she was under pressure to report to the minister, who would make the decision whether or not the report would be made public.
So again, it goes to the heart of this government: secrecy, lack of transparency—and, I would submit, a cover-up.