Evidence of meeting #1 for Subcommittee on Food Safety in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Just to correct the record, the motion that will eventually be proposed by Mr. Allen does not go away from the mandate. In fact, it strengthens it specifically with the witnesses we would be meeting with and the timeframes in which we'd be meeting with them. So it in fact strengthens the mandate of that committee, and to say otherwise is misinformation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Easter, you're speaking to a proposed, or possibly proposed, motion. We're dealing with Mr. Anderson's--
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back.
In response to Mr. Easter's comments about the proposed motion, it doesn't matter what he says. It says that the subcommittees possess only the powers that are conferred on them by the main committee. So this motion, which has been ruled out of order as an amendment, I would suggest, must also then be ruled out of order as a full motion. I would also suggest that the schedule we have presented is one that is in motion and that is actually entirely reasonable.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe you had said earlier that one should conduct oneself to the motion. My honourable colleague is now addressing himself to a possible motion and suggesting how you may indeed rule on some possible motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I think what he was doing, Mr. Allen—and I'm only going by what he said—was trying to point out that his motion had the intent of the main committee's intent and nothing else.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
I think what I'm saying under the point of order is that he is actually speaking to a motion that's not before us, because what he's suggesting is how you should rule on a motion that isn't now before us and isn't comparing the motion that's not before us to the motion that is.
But then again, of course, if he really wants to deal with the motion before us, let him put it to a vote and let the committee get on with its work. It's very apparent that the honourable member is very concerned about it and really wants to get at this very quickly. I would suggest that we get on with it, have the vote on the motion, and carry forward with the work that he wants us to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Exactly, and if we allow him to get back to it, he can get on with it.
Mr. Anderson, you have the floor.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I think it's important, because the opposition has made it clear that they are going to be bringing this back, so it's appropriate to compare it to what we have in front of us. Mr. Easter has made it clear that there was a trick to bringing it here the first time, and I would expect that we could see probably another one trying to get it back here again. So I think it's reasonable to say that we've got a schedule on here that is very good; it's very solid. The one that's been proposed, and likely will be proposed again, is not of that nature.
I don't know why the opposition would object to us comparing what they've already presented when they made it clear that they're going to bring it back another time. The idea that we should be doing fall meetings out into October, into November, and into December on an issue that we've been given charge of by the agriculture committee itself I think is unreasonable. The subcommittee is meant to operate within the limits the committee has given it. Actually, the powers of the committee are given to it by the standing committee by special order. Obviously, some powers have been given to this subcommittee, but it's a much more restricted list of powers than the committee itself has. That's why we brought forward this schedule, to try to work within the restrictions that we've been given as a subcommittee, to try to put something in place that is appropriate, that deals with the subject, that will bring us to a conclusion of a study dealing with this subject.
This idea that this thing should go on forever does no justice to those folks who were affected by listeria last summer. They don't want to see this thing dragged out. The opposition has said that we're already slowing things down. It will certainly slow things down a lot more if we go until next December before we have any kind of a final report. We're saying let's get this thing done. We can do the equivalent of 14 meetings, if the opposition wants to do that, in the next three months. That's a serious commitment to this issue, and we need to do that.
As Mr. Shipley points out, I don't think they're committed. I think that's a fair assessment of what's going on here. They're more interested in playing games for the next eight or nine months on this issue than they are of doing a serious study on it and coming to some serious conclusions with some serious recommendations.
As I've said, we can have the equivalent of 14 meetings prior to June 10. Certainly, we can have a report that's done up by June 17. Why would the opposition not want to do that? Either because they're not taking the issue seriously or because they want to play games with it.
This is a year after the events have taken place, Mr. Chair. Certainly, it's timely, and the schedule that we've put in place is an appropriate schedule to try to get things done quickly here. Maybe it's because they don't like working any more than two hours at meetings, because in spite of what was put in the amendment that was ruled out of order, the fact remains that it seems like they are not interested in working overtime to try to get this done in a timely fashion.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
On a point of order, who's poisoning the atmosphere? It's appalling.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
You put him in order. He can't attribute motivation or any of that. It's unparliamentary.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm trying not to be bitter myself, Mr. Chair, because we feel that we've come forward with a very reasonable proposition here, and we're just being dealt with unreasonably. It's actually a travesty that the opposition is not even willing to come over here and say....
I see Mr. Easter has left. He's not even staying around until the end of the meeting, yet he'll probably be back here to harangue us about how we're not doing things right on this issue. We at least, Mr. Shipley and I, have enough interest to at least stay here and see this through.
Conservative