Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on March 25th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Order, please, colleagues.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We're back to the original motion here. I think the original motion is fairly straightforward. I think what the opposition should do is go back to the agriculture committee. If they want to do something different from what has been proposed by the agriculture committee, I would think the responsible thing is for them to go back to the agriculture committee, take their change to the directions and the mandate for the subcommittee to the main agriculture committee, and have that discussion there. They should have their votes there and then bring that back to this committee. This committee has already spent an hour talking about this issue when it should have been moving ahead on the hearings.

I don't know if they're going to make the offer that they'll take it back to the main committee and come back next week with an amended motion that we're familiar with, but that would certainly go a long way toward beginning to make this committee work the way it should.

I'm sure I'll have some other things to say, but it looks like Mr. Easter is actually anxious to speak as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Before we carry on, in regard to how this motion came about, I did speak to Mr. Bellavance and Mr. Atamanenko originally, because they were the two who brought the subcommittee idea forward. Then, of course, Mr. Allen is sitting in for the NDP, so he got involved in the discussion. It was simply to try to set out a direction and gain some kind of efficiency and timelines so that we could move along. That's what this is all about.

I'm not going to speak to any other part of the motion. That was how this came about. I perceived it as the idea being to get a report out by the end of Parliament. That's how these details came out from there.

I would also point out that even with this guideline here and this motion passed, if at some point any member of the opposition or any one else on the committee feels he or she knows more, this doesn't stop you from doing that. But I would urge the committee to try to deal something here today so that we could at least have a direction to go in.

Further on that, I have Mr. Shipley next and then Mr. Easter.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just preface my comments a little bit by what my colleague talked about in terms of the subcommittee. Ms. Bennett, all those things that you talked about, we spent the better part of a full meeting talking about that at the ag committee. All of us were present at those meetings. If there's going to be a change, then it needs to go back to the full committee for that discussion, which I suspect again we will take up in our agenda. We've set a very strict agenda at our ag committee about how we need to keep moving. Whether it's on potatoes, the industry of grains and oilseeds, the red meat industry, policies and procedures, we have a strict agenda to follow. What's going to happen is this will go back to the ag committee and we'll go through the same discussions that we've just had a few weeks ago.

Let me just preface again: “Sub-committees receive their mandate in the order of reference adopted by the main committee. By practice, certain sub-committees are struck in every session”—which means the session we're in—“and continue in operation until the end of the session”. That session will come to an end in June. “Sub-committees possess only those powers which are conferred on them by the main committee.”

The main committee spent almost a whole meeting talking about how we were going to set up the subcommittee. The full committee gave unanimous support that we move ahead and understood at that time, quite honestly, that there was a clear connection between what we're talking about in listeriosis and food safety. You cannot have one issue without having the other.

Right now, I'm not sure whether the opposition, between Mr. Easter and Ms. Bennett, actually wants to wait until after Ms. Weatherill has a report, because one is saying one thing and one is saying the other. That may come in July. Maybe we should not be duplicating what she's doing. On the other hand, we also had that discussion at the committee, and one of the things was why wouldn't we have her likely as a witness so that we can actually find out who she's been talking to, who she's going to be talking to, and what her mandate is in terms of her success in getting to the bottom of the issue around listeriosis? But the other part of it is, you can't have one without food safety, because that's what listeriosis is about.

So I'm not supporting taking this meeting and likely a meeting at the ag committee, where we actually have another full agenda to get through, to have the debate around a word of whether we're going to narrow the focus of this committee so that we actually can't deal with the issues around food safety, which include listeriosis.

Mr. Chairman, if we get to that stage and that amendment needs to happen, to actually move this back to the full committee for that discussion, if that's what the opposition wants, to delay this process.... As my colleague said, we were ready to go to work. The opposition knew we were ready to go to work. Mr. Easter said we have a list of witnesses ready to go. The time is going to start ticking away, because now if it has to go back to the ag committee, we'll likely lose a meeting here. All of us have other committees to be at. I'm assuming we do; on this side we certainly do. I'm committed to spending the time at those also, but having three committees full time is going to be a challenge if we're not going to get moving on this one.

Mr. Chair, why couldn't we have had this discussion informally ahead so that at least we would have been prepared for it? I don't think that was my intention of how this committee should work.

For those who know me, I try to be open, and I try to let people know ahead of time so that there are no surprises. This committee will not do its job well, Mr. Chair, if we're going to start off by pulling surprises on each other.

When we get to the discussion on witnesses, we should each know who the witnesses are put forward by, when they will come in, and the timeline during which they'll have to do it.

We shouldn't be putting motions out that don't go through the proper process. We have a motion that actually changes the whole intent of what we are doing. If it didn't change it, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Shipley, we are on Mr. Anderson's motion. That's what we're debating.

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

Actually, the point is that when you go to that motion, it takes me back to the powers of the subcommittee. And the powers of the subcommittee are conferred by the main committee.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm speaking against the original motion, because the original motion limits the work of the committee to, at the most, seven meetings. With the amendment, it has more meetings than that, which we can extend into the fall so that we can do the comprehensive job that needs to be done on the broader food safety issue.

If we can get our work done in total by spring, that's not a problem with me. But given the number of witnesses and the growing public interest in this issue, I just don't think we can do it in seven meetings, as proposed in Mr. Anderson's motion.

I would oppose the motion, and I'd call the question, seeing as you've ruled the amendment out of order. I'm sure a new motion will come forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You can't call the question.

I have two speakers. We'll go to Mr. Bellavance.

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

Mr. Chair, earlier, you briefly referred to a meeting I had with you about the timeline that essentially reflected Mr. Anderson's motion. That leads me to believe that members of the governing party are keen on controlling what comes next. However, I need to say one thing. For me, that meeting was informal, and we discussed the possibility of adopting a timeline of that kind. The only thing that I agreed to was the importance of acting quickly and tabling a report before Ms. Weatherhill tables hers in July. I do not know if you felt that I was agreeing to anything other than that. Please forgive my English, but you know very well that it is by no means my first language. To my mind, during that discussion, I did not say that I would be approving, or signing, anything. We were simply talking about possible dates.

I also had a meeting with Mr. Allen, as I mentioned earlier. Some of my questions were addressed, the ones I raised in committee when I said that I was afraid of avoiding the issue if we were to talk exclusively, or more widely, about the whole issue of food safety.

I simply want to dispel any impression that I had agreed to any timeline when you and I met. I reserve the right to take the time I need before reaching a definitive decision. That is what I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, and just to clarify that, Mr. Bellavance, I never insinuated that it was anything more than a casual meeting. I was just stating that the reason I approached you and Mr. Atamanenko was that you had brought it forth originally. I was just trying, looking down the road, to get something in place and to kind of get an idea. And you gave me kind of an idea that day. No, it wasn't binding, but we did have that. My intent was only to try to make the committee productive sooner.

I am a little disappointed. I know that we didn't talk about specific dates; it was just general dates. But we did talk about timelines. I think this motion represents that, for the most part.

Mr. Allen, you have the floor next.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for clarification, you are talking about the original motion by Mr. Anderson. Is that what's on the floor at the moment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, it is.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

All right, call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is there further discussion?

I have Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

Mr. Shipley and others have said that the main agriculture committee spent at least one full meeting discussing the mandate of the food safety subcommittee. Now, I'm confused as to what was unclear for the opposition. They had an entire two-hour meeting to lay out their positions and their suggestions about what they wanted to have included as the content of the mandate of this subcommittee. When the two hours were over, it was agreed--I understand that the motion was unanimous at the committee--that it would be used to discuss issues relating to food safety.

If I can find it here, I can read the original motion. Mr. Shipley may have it. Here it is:

That, given the Listeriosis crisis that occurred last summer, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food establish a Subcommittee on Food Safety;

Now, the opposition was sitting there for two hours, Mr. Chair, to discuss this, and this is what they agreed to. So at the end of two hours they said yes, we want to establish a subcommittee on food safety, given the listeriosis crisis. The government was in full agreement with that.

It goes on:

and that the members of the subcommittee be named after the usual consultations with the Whips;

--which has been done, and that:

the composition of the Sub-Committee be proportionally the same as that of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food....

I'm not sure that's actually happened, but I understand agreement was reached about the composition of the committee.

...and that the subcommittee be granted all of the powers of the Committee pursuant to Standing Order 108(1) except the power to report directly to the House.

Mr. Chair, it's just strange to me that the opposition seems to have been confused about what it is they agreed to and what it is they had discussed for those two hours. It's clear that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has given direction to this subcommittee to discuss food safety. That is actually why we put this motion forward, because it says exactly the same thing, to call witnesses to discuss issues relating to food safety.

Certainly, Mr. Chair, those issues of food safety are going to deal with listeriosis. That's obvious because that's part of the mandate that was given by the original committee.

The opposition knew full well what they had agreed to. The motion was unanimous, as I mentioned, and I'm just not sure if the opposition then realized they didn't get what they wanted or if they just felt they needed to create some mischief at this committee in order to start the committee off on an antagonistic footing where there is conflict. We've lost a lot of ground today just because of this motion and the fact that these folks didn't bring this thing forward for any discussion ahead of time before attempting, as you pointed out, to completely change the direction of the subcommittee.

It seems they were supporting one thing and now they're trying to talk people into supporting something completely different. They bring another issue forward after having agreed to one of these things. I wonder how often that's going to happen as this committee goes forward. They had the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to reformulate, if you want to call it that, the motion from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Obviously, they chose not to do that. This is what they wanted. They outnumber us on the committee. They got the motion they wanted. It's been brought here. Then once it got here, through some tricks or whatever, they thought they were going to completely change the focus on this.

I assume what happened at the committee is that they did enough to get the government on side and to say we wanted to go ahead with this and deal seriously with this subject--which we do--and then they've come here and they think they're not going to get enough politically out of this, so they're going to try to play some tricks on the opposition and on the Canadian public and try to redirect the direction of this subcommittee.

That's not how subcommittees work, as Mr. Shipley pointed out earlier. Mr. Chair, it says that “Sub-committees are to committees what committees are to the House; the parent body is relieved of a portion of its workload by delegating some part of its mandate or a particular task to a smaller group”.

There is a very particular task that has been given to this group, and that is to take a look at food safety in the context of listeriosis and the outbreak last summer.

We would like to get to that as soon as possible. It's unfortunate that the opposition seems to be interested in playing games rather than in getting ahead.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We would too, Mr. Chair, but I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

What's your point of order?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

My point of order is on Mr. Anderson's filibustering. We want to get to the issue, have the hearings, and bring in witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's not a point of order. He is speaking to the motion.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think that's an example, Mr. Chair, of the fact that the opposition is not very interested in working constructively with us. They'd sooner interrupt on points of order to try to disrupt what's going on here before the rest of us are able to make our points.

I'm probably more surprised by the NDP and the fact that they were the ones who were involved in the original motion and in putting it together. It sounds as if Mr. Atamanenko had a major influence on the motion that was brought forward to the standing committee and he got what he wanted. When he presented his motion, the committee went along with him. I'm sure it may have been a surprise to him and he realized that he could have asked for more. He's going to try to push the limits here and see how much further he can go before the government refuses to cooperate.

Our concern is that we actually get to this study and start to understand what happened last summer. We need to take a look at the food safety system in this country in terms of the things that are good about it and some of the things that we can improve.

I again come back: that is what the motion is about. That's where our motion is. It addresses the meetings that would relate to it. I actually think the interesting thing is that if they pass our motion as it is, I'm sure additional meetings could be added, if Mr. Easter insists that we need to hear extra witnesses before June 17 or before June 10. If we could schedule them and fit them in, I'm sure all of us here would be interested in hearing from as broad a group of witnesses as possible.

I have a few other things I want to talk about. I would mention that our interest is really in doing a good job on this report. It's unfortunate that the opposition has taken this approach today to really try to change things in a negative direction.

I want to actually go back to this issue of the subcommittees and talk a little more about them. I think it is important to reiterate that the subcommittees receive their mandates in the order of reference adopted by the main committees.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have a point of order, Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe you can help me with this, of course, since I am a new member of Parliament. But my understanding is that the member is simply going back over the same material again, which the honourable member said he would do. He said he was going to do this and tell us again. He's simply repeating himself and not making a fresh point.

I truly believe that what we're seeing here, Mr. Chair, is an attempt to filibuster this committee, when the serious issue of the 20 Canadians who died of listeriosis is on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't believe that's a point of order.