Agriculture Committee on Aug. 26th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Is there any more comment on the amendment?

On the amendment, we'll go to Mr. Shipley and then to Mr. Bellavance.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can hardly believe what I'm hearing. Mr. Easter is actually saying to our witnesses here from the CFIA and the union, and to all the other witnesses we had, that actually....

And I would ask them, has your testimony been altered?

Mr. Easter is making a statement that Ms. Weatherill actually went ahead and altered the statements of our witnesses.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

You did so.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it says right in the terms of reference for Ms. Weatherill that she is to...and this was my question to the parliamentary secretary. I didn't say they were edited, but she was to provide copies.

[An hon. member]

You just did.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, I didn't say they were edited. She was to provide copies to those witnesses to see if they wanted them edited. That's the case, and it's right in the directions to Ms. Weatherill.

Did she or did she not? Is what we're getting the original or is it not? The parliamentary secretary should be able to answer that. That was what she was allowed to do.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Chair, I'll answer the question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Sorry, Mr. Shipley has the floor.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

All I'm saying is that basically you've put a cloud over the witnesses, without a doubt, and I find that reprehensible.

She also said in her report that she's been able to conduct her investigation independently and impartially, that there's been no interference from any party whatsoever, including all the witnesses. And it's important to point out that everyone who was asked to participate agreed to be interviewed, and they were. That's in the final report.

I find that those comments that are coming to discredit not only Ms. Weatherill but also the witnesses are something that I guess you have to expect from the opposition and how they operate, because the editing of the witnesses' report would be a serious offence, if that were the case.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Bellavance, on the amendment.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

With or without the amendment, I still believe that this motion is out of order. Now that you have been talking with the clerks, are you able to announce your ruling as to whether Mr. Storseth's motion is in order or not? We could then put it to a vote and hear from our witnesses, in the little time remaining.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. I think the timing is right.

If you don't mind speaking on the....

You go ahead. You're doing a good job.

[Jean-François Lafleur, Procedural Clerk]

Mr. Bellavance, as regards Mr. Storseth's motion on the public inquiry, we are aware of the fact that the Committee report contained a recommendation in that regard. The report also contains a number of other recommendations and, in that sense, it is much broader than just the question of the public inquiry, if I may put it that way.

Furthermore, it does happen on occasion that, as a result of certain facts, a committee or some of its members change their mind. From that perspective, the motion can also be considered to be in order. For example, a private member's bill introduced very early on in a parliamentary session could be defeated, but then reintroduced subsequently with the same wording. In other words, an initial decision is made during the course of the parliamentary session and, subsequently, the same bill with the exact same wording is introduced a second time. In that case, we are talking about a situation where members are voting twice on the same motion or wording; there is no problem under that scenario.

I realize that, in this case, the motion is a little different and is not worded in exactly the same way. However, the Committee report has not yet been passed by the House. I want to come back to the explanation I gave earlier. Certain events or other arguments may arise that prompt the Committee to propose something different. Far be it from me to make such an assumption here. But that is what is on the table at this time. In that respect, it cannot be said that the question to be decided is exactly the same. As a result, the motion per se is in order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Bellavance, are you clear on that? Were you finished, Mr. Bellavance? You had the floor.

So we're voting on the amendment.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Chair, if I could just add to what the clerk said, this is why the amendment I'm making is actually important.

When the committee finalized its report, it had not seen Sheila Weatherill's report. Her report had not been delivered. A piece of the puzzle was missing, information was missing. That follows right in line with what the clerk was saying in that not all the information was available at the time. Because Sheila Weatherill has now published her report, we now have access to more information than we had before. So my amendment draws attention to that fact, to the excellent report that she did, that it was a thorough investigation, that she made several very important recommendations to improve food safety, and in that context there is no need for a public inquiry.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Let's have a vote on the amendment. It's the same procedure. Those in favour of the amendment?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chairman, could we please have a recorded vote?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Yes, sure.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

This brings us back to the main motion. I think Mr. Storseth will say the final words on the motion so we can bring it to a vote.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to clarify a couple of things as I wrap this up. I listened intently to Mr. Easter's comments, and he talks about this being all about messaging. I don't know about his side, but our side is here to talk about food safety, and that's why we have shown up at every one of the food safety committee meetings. The Conservatives have had representatives throughout the entirety of those meetings, unlike the Liberal Party, who couldn't even be bothered to stay for all the witnesses of those meetings.

He talks about the ten percenters. We've got proof right here of Liberal ten percenters from Newfoundland being sent in to Barrie. Canadians are tired of all this talk out of one side of your mouth and then not walking it on the other side.

The other point, Mr. Chair, is that the last time the minister came to the subcommittee to talk about food safety, Mr. Easter ceded his questions. He didn't even fulfill his last round of questions. He gave them up. What were you going to do with the second hour, if you had it? We need to make sure we clarify for Canadians what has really happened in these committee meetings, and that's why I wish every single one of those committee meetings was televised so it could be seen how the opposition sometimes treated our witnesses in those meetings.

I think it's very important, now that we have the report from Ms. Weatherill, that the Standing Committee on Agriculture gives its opinion on this report. When we submitted our report, because the opposition treated it as a partisan football and wanted to get it out before we broke from the spring session, we didn't have a chance to see Ms. Weatherill's report. We're trying to have due diligence here; we're trying to do the right thing. That's why I think it's important that we have this conversation. I think this motion is very important.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I forgot you, Mr. Christopherson, so if you want to say a few words, go ahead, and then we'll cut it off there.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I will not belabour the point, but I'll just put three very quick points on the record.

First of all, I'm not a member of this committee--I'm here subbing for my colleague--but I have been here for the entire meeting--in camera and in public--and I can tell you, in my opinion, there's clearly a whole set of political gymnastics happening on the part of the government. In my opinion, they clearly did contrive to have the permanent chair absent, requiring a member of the--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, that is not true.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's not a point of order.

Then, by virtue of--