Agriculture Committee on March 13th, 2008

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

In order to assess your qualifications, we must determine, as my colleague Ève-Mary said, the quality of your judgment. By writing this letter, I believe that you infringed on the privilege of Parliament to decide whether any given bill is good or not. This is interference. You are now a senior official. You have been appointed to a senior public service position. You have been a member of Parliament, which is not a blemish. We would be crazy around this table to say the contrary. Nothing prevents an MP from getting another job once they are no longer elected, we all agree. However, it is no longer the same job, it is no longer a partisan job.

As I quoted your own words when you talked about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in 1996, no one has been appointed by the conservative government unless having references as a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. At that time, you were a Reform member so you knew what you were talking about. Today, you had barely been appointed when you immediately took position in support of a bill that is dear to the government. You are doing the government's job. The members, the parliamentary secretary, everybody says this is a very good bill. But you have just been appointed as a senior official and it is not your job to say wether a policy is good or not. Your job is to implement legislation once it is passed.

Did you not act hastily by stating your views while the bill had not gone through all parliamentary stages?

[Elwin Hermanson]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, one of my responsibilities as the chief commissioner is to communicate to stakeholders. The purpose of the op-ed piece was to communicate, not to parliamentarians--although we're happy that they read the piece--but to producers in a way that would assure them that grain quality assurance could be maintained under the bill and that the Canada Grain Act would place the interest of producers as a primary importance. That was the purpose of the communication, and in my opinion the communication accomplished what it set out to achieve. I fulfilled my role as a communicator in that regard.

Other than that, I can repeat myself, but I think that's about the only new perspective I can bring to the member's question.

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

Mr. Hermanson, I will tell you the difference. If Bill C-39 had become law, I would never had faulted you for having written such an op-ed article stating that the legislation had to be implemented, because that would have been your job. It does not matter whether the bill had been passed unanimously or on division, Parliament would have enacted legislation and it would have been your job as chief commissioner of the Canadian Grains Commission to implement whatever law Parliament passes. This is normal. The problem is that you commented on a bill before it was passed.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've tried to delay this as long as I can out of respect for Mr. Bellavance this time, but I have two points, Mr. Chair.

First of all, the Canadian Grain Commission needs to have a position on this. When we bring them before the committee, it will be before the law is enacted. It happens all the time, in the transport committee and everywhere else. We ask the experts their opinion on it before the law is enacted. It's critical for farmers to know that.

The second point is that it was the Conservative government that actually wanted to implement an appointments commission, and it was the opposition that stopped it. The opposition trashed Gwyn Morgan, a respected individual, businessman of the year in Calgary--

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

Is this a point of order? It is not a point of order.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chairman, is this a point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Brian, if you have a point of order, make a point of order. Otherwise, it's just debate.

Your time was expired about a minute and a half ago, so if you can get to the point of your final question, Mr. Bellavance, please do.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, this is what I tried to explain. There is a difference between supporting a government legislation once it has been passed and doing so before. You have been able to express your views in this open letter but the employees of the Canadian Grains Commission did not get the right to do the same.

Could you have made a mistake or lacked judgment by publishing this letter in The Western Producer on February 7?

[Elwin Hermanson]

I'll try to keep it very short.

I do not believe it was a mistake. The bill that was tabled was not hypothetical. We weren't talking about a hypothetical piece of legislation. We were talking about actual tabled legislation upon which we have had input. These issues were discussed, and the commission was providing input back. I know that as early as 2002—because I have the independent report that was received in 2002—the commission has had input on these very issues through the evolution of what is now Bill C-39.

Producers and stakeholders wanted to know what the impact of Bill C-39 would be, and we tried as honestly as we could to communicate that. I think that's a proper role for the Canadian Grain Commission to play. It would be irresponsible not to communicate to producers what the impact of the bill would be.

I don't think that as members you would argue that eliminating mandatory procedures at the commission that I think most members feel are unnecessary is an unwise thing. Our mandate under the existing Canada Grain Act is to work to the benefit of producers. That is our mandate, and in the communication of the impact of Bill C-39, I believe we were fulfilling that mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Right now, at the government operations committee, they're listening to Justice Gomery tell them how this government has not followed through on recommendations, one of which was to make merit-based appointments.

I believe you are a sincere person and I respect your qualifications and your background. I do believe I could say that you are a victim of circumstance. I think we're here looking at your appointment as grain commissioner as another partisan appointment. I'm wondering how this government can defend making an appointment based on—I'll say it—party credentials and on ties with the minister.

I'd like your comment on that, please.

[Elwin Hermanson]

My appointment was not made on the basis of my relationship with the minister. It was based on the qualifications that I was required to have, and I have a list of them here.

Quite frankly, I think I rate pretty highly on all those qualifications. It was on that basis that I agreed to put my name forward for the position, and I at no point in the process sensed that I was receiving any special attention, nor were any shortcuts taken. I went through the same hoops as everyone who would apply for any position would go through. The result was that I won, and I accepted that I won based on my qualifications. If it were any other way, I wouldn't have accepted the position.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

We're not allowed to talk politics and we're not allowed to be partisan, but we can talk philosophy. There is a philosophy in our country that many subscribe to that talks about less government, deregulation, and privatization. Those who often believe this philosophy believe we should be downsizing various agencies. In this case, we have the possibility of a loss of 200 jobs at the Grain Commission. You mention that you value the workers, yet you're saying some will have to go. How can we do that and maintain the quality of the Grain Commission as we move forward?

[Elwin Hermanson]

If the chairman will indulge me, let me give you an illustration. I hope this is a relevant illustration, and if it isn't, I apologize.

If I purchase an automobile in one province and want to move it to another province, it has to undergo an inspection, as a rule, to ensure that it's safe. But if I move that vehicle from one point to another point within the same province, I am not required to have an inspection done on that vehicle. What we were finding increasingly in the grain industry is that we were inspecting grain that, for lack of better terminology, was staying within the same jurisdiction. It was a cost that most people—maybe not 100%, but most stakeholders—would agree was not a necessary cost. Does it mean that in the case of your vehicle, if you thought there was a problem with it, you wouldn't have it inspected, if it were your choice, and that you wouldn't incur that cost if you felt it was required?

Does that help you to understand why the commission and, I think, stakeholders feel that some of the mandatory costs, as they occur under the current Canada Grain Act, need to be made optional and to be determined by those within the same jurisdiction? To me, that illustration made sense.

This doesn't mean that the inspections can't take place. Under the new act, those inspections can take place; they just won't be done by the Canadian Grain Commission. Those who inspect the grain would have to be approved by the Canadian Grain Commission. It doesn't mean that the Canadian Grain Commission can't monitor the quality of grain that moves; we still have the ability to monitor, to ensure that the quality is there and that registered varieties are involved. We have all of the powers that producers need to ensure that the grain quality assurance is there.

It's on that basis that we put this as the priority ahead of what you said were 200 job losses—though we don't know exactly how many there will be. It's not that we're happy about the jobs; but again, our primary responsibility is to work on behalf of producers in the grain industry and to the benefit of Canada. That's what we're trying to do.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, is it appropriate for me to make a motion at this point in time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It is.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I would like to make a motion that—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We've gone through four rounds, and the time has just about expired. It's the appropriate time in committee to—

[Elwin Hermanson]

Can I say thank you?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Hermanson. We really do appreciate your appearance.

[Elwin Hermanson]

I want to thank the committee for asking me to appear. I feel very honoured that you would take a couple of hours out of a very busy schedule to hear about my appointment to, and the work of, the Canadian Grain Commission.

I wish you well in your future deliberations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm sure we'll see you here again, as we often call the Canadian Grain Commission before committee for their expert witness on various issues, and will do so for the upcoming Bill C-39 when it gets to committee.

Mr. Atamanenko, the floor is yours.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

The motion I would like to propose is the following: that in the judgment of the committee we disagree with the appointment of Mr. Hermanson as chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have a motion on the table.

Do you want to expand upon that?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Very briefly, and it's not to question Mr. Hermanson's integrity. I believe he is a victim of circumstances. I believe that his ties with the minister are too close, and I believe his background would make it very difficult for him to be non-partisan in his dealings with the government on behalf of the farmers.

I'll leave it at that.