Agriculture Committee on March 13th, 2008

[Elwin Hermanson]

Yes, I'm happy to respond.

First of all, I will offer to the committee that when Bill C-39 comes before this committee I would be happy to come back, and I will bring experts with me from the commission, as is deemed appropriate, so that we can answer your questions as deeply as you want to drill down.

In just a general way, I would comment that Bill C-39 accommodates some of the recommendations of the committee. Obviously anyone who can read would recognize that not all of the recommendations of the committee are dealt with in Bill C-39. I'm not sure it's unusual for a government to deal with some and not all.

I could tell you where there is common ground and which recommendations are not dealt with in Bill C-39, but I'm not sure there's benefit in going over what we all are aware of. All I can tell you is that I've read the bill, I've read the committee's report, and I recognize where there is concurrence and where there are issues that aren't dealt with. Perhaps they will be in the future.

That's a political decision; that's not the decision of the chief commissioner. We're in place to advise the minister and to deal with what's on the table.

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

I'll pursue another question.

Some feel that the pressure for the change is coming from those sectors of the grain industry that stand to benefit from the weakening of the regulatory environment. Some organizations, some farmers, are saying that farmers have not been asking for changes. Others are saying that they want the changes. I'm wondering what the feedback has been in your discussions with farmers, in Saskatchewan in particular, in regard to this. What's the feeling that you've been able to discern?

[Elwin Hermanson]

The commission has dialogued with producer groups right across Canada with regard to Bill C-39. We're playing an information role, trying to explain to them what's in the bill. Quite frankly, there are parts of the bill that actually strengthen the role the Canadian Grain Commission would be able to enact. There is the administering of penalties that has increased. There is the “subject to inspection”, which has expanded to processors and to grain dealers, whereas before it was just to primary elevators. So there is some expansion of powers of the Canadian Grain Commission. There is also reduction of mandatory services.

My observation is that while a lot of the industry hasn't cast judgment one way or the other, generally they think the direction is correct. I think this committee in some of its recommendations was moving in the same direction, as I mentioned in my statement. There are disagreements at a party level as to some of the details, but I think generally the reduction in some mandatory services that aren't required any longer is pretty generally accepted by the industry, from producers right through to buyers of Canadian grains and Canadians as a whole.

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

As commissioner, how would you ensure that the proposal to do away with KVD...? There are “for” and “against” people. Some are saying, hold on, let's wait until we put something in place, the bill, and the minister would like to get rid of this right away. How can the Grain Commission ensure--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as Mr. Atamanenko just pointed out, that's not a “for” and “against” position. That's a “for” and a “for later” position. The movement that we've been doing on KVD is something that Canadian farmers, especially across the Prairies, have been moving for, for quite some time, and are very happy to see movement for.

I just want to clarify the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a point of order.

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

I'd just like to say that there are many farmers who are opposed to the change in the KVD. Many, of course, are concerned that it's coming too fast. How can the commission ensure them that the high quality of Canadian grain will be maintained during that interim period?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're going down the policy road again.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We are. I agree with you, Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Atamanenko, I ask that you again get back to the qualifications.

Mr. Hermanson.

[Elwin Hermanson]

I respect the decision of the chair, but just for the member's information, there is an industry group, which includes the Canadian Grain Commission, that is tasked with dealing with the KVD issue. Again, we'd be happy to come back at a subsequent time and discuss this issue with the committee, but my understanding is the industry is working aggressively to be able to deal with the new regime under the removal of KVD as a criterion for the registering of new varieties.

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

I guess my last question will be this. As you know, there's a complaint against you to the Public Service Commission. What's your reaction?

[Elwin Hermanson]

First of all, I would preface my comments by saying the relationship between the management of the CGC and employees across Canada has been very positive and very constructive over the history, even recent history, of the Canadian Grain Commission. That being said, it's never easy if you're looking at a new act or an amended act that would remove some mandatory services and result in some job losses. I'm not happy about that, because we have excellent employees and we have employees who are proud of the Grain Commission. Quite frankly, as chief commissioner, I'm very proud of our employees.

That being said, the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission and certainly the mandate we're given under the Canada Grain Act, both the existing act and the one you are considering, is to look out for the best interests of producers and Canadians as a whole. As you know, input costs for producers is a huge issue right now. If it came to whether or not we'd preserve jobs versus doing what's best for grain producers in Canada, I am charged and the commission is charged under the act with putting producers first.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much.

Of course, we are here to analyze competence and qualifications, and your resumé seems rather thin. Many of my graduate students have longer, more comprehensive resumés than this. A lot of your administrative experience, if this is what the job entails, seems to be of a biblical or religious nature, as opposed to in a corporate organization such as this.

It's hard to determine whether there will be forward thinking or unbiased thinking, that there's no ideological lock here. So my two questions will be to determine whether as a progressive thinker...and I know the Conservatives don't like the word “progressive” anymore.

First, as standing operating procedure, the use of opinion editorial pieces that set a personal agenda outside of the organization but effectively determine its course is an issue we are concerned about here. It means that you'll be operating outside the board or the mandate.

The second question is on policy and procedures. In terms of your own management style, would you continue to muzzle an employee or threaten them with discipline if they spoke about bills such as Bill C-39?

Those are the two questions, and if there's time left over--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We are in a five-minute round.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I understand, Mr. Chair.

[Elwin Hermanson]

I wish I had more than five minutes to answer that. There's a lot of stuff there.

On the op-ed piece, that was not a personal decision; it was a decision of senior management of the Canadian Grain Commission of which I was a part. The recommendation came to me, upon assuming my responsibilities, that an op-ed letter should be written. It was worked upon corporately by me, the other commissioners, and senior management at the Canadian Grain Commission.

There was agreement throughout the management of the organization that the letter was appropriate; it was a way of introducing me; it was a way of assuring producers that grain quality would be maintained in our grain-handling system and that the Canada Grain Act would continue to protect producers. That was the purpose of the letter, and I think it is an indicator of solid management.

What was the second part of your question?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

It was on policy and procedures and administrative capabilities--the muzzling of employees.

[Elwin Hermanson]

I would first point out that the e-mail to employees went out on December 21 and my appointment took place on January 21. When that decision was made, I was not yet appointed as the chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.

However, upon assuming that responsibility I talked to senior management about the memo, and I'm satisfied that they were following proper procedure, as directed by the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service and the result of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the proper relationship between management and employees when dealing with a political issue. Where loyalty to government and freedom of speech seem to clash, there are some set guidelines; there's a prescription in place. It's my understanding that the Canadian Grain Commission followed that to a T.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Hermanson, thank you for being here.

I'm sure you would agree that you are not the only person in Canada who would be a suitable candidate for the position you now have.

[Elwin Hermanson]

We've had some excellent commissioners in the past and we will have some excellent ones in the future. I'm sure excellent people applied for the position. I was confident in my qualifications, and I was pleased to be accepted based on those qualifications.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I don't know if the numbers are in the hundreds or the thousands, but I think you're agreeing that there are many individuals who could as adequately and competently fulfill the tasks you have now been appointed to fulfill.

[Elwin Hermanson]

I would agree with that, but there would be very few people in Canada with the unique background and abilities I bring to the table.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

One of those background factors is your lifelong affiliation with, first, the Reform Party of Canada--