Agriculture Committee on March 13th, 2008

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

I presume that it was submitted and then eventually published. So it seems to me--and correct me if I'm wrong--that you saw doing an op-ed piece and supporting Bill C-39 in a public way as one of your very first tasks. Is that fair to say? It's certainly one of the first things you did.

[Elwin Hermanson]

It's one of the first things I did, and as I mentioned--I can't remember if it was in my statement, I reiterate it if it was--it was a management decision that was recommended to me. And that management decision had been made even before I assumed the position on January 21. The management team thought that the new chief commissioner should be introduced, should clarify some issues around Bill C-39, and should assure producers that grain quality assurance and the Canada Grain Act would be complied with.

That was brought to my attention, and I agreed with that. We made a few changes. Actually, I toned some things down, if you can believe that, and we submitted it.

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

I mean this in an inoffensive fashion, so please don't misunderstand or take personal offence. But when I read the op-ed piece, which is a glowing, almost gushy endorsement of C-39, and when I factor in the timing of it and some of your presentation this morning, I'm concerned, frankly, that you see your role as being almost blindly, unwaveringly supportive of the government, almost to the point where you would see the commission as being something of a lackey or a lapdog to the government.

Tell me why that's not a fair comment.

[Elwin Hermanson]

That's not a fair comment, because as I said previously to Mr. Easter, I am committed to giving honest and sincere and accurate advice to the minister on issues. That is one of the responsibilities I have. Some of you know me. Most of you don't know me, but there are some people who know me and know that's my style. I don't mince words. I'm not a provocative combatant, but a spade is a spade with me, and I will fulfill that role.

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

I understand.

Would you agree that your Bill C-39 op-ed was very supportive of the government?

[Elwin Hermanson]

It wasn't supportive of the government; it supported the objectives of Bill C-39.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This is where the rubber hits the road, Elwin. As I said earlier, qualifications are one thing. I think it's right and proper for you to give information to the minister straight up front, but as you said in your remarks, “loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken”. Bill C-39 is not lawfully taken as yet. It's a ministerial government position; it's not the law under the act that you're to operate under.

My concern is not necessarily about qualifications, but where does your responsibility really lie as chair of the Canadian Grain Commission? I believe the chair said you'd be welcome to come back here as chair of the Canadian Grain Commission. But will you be speaking for the Canadian Grain Commission or the minister? The op-ed piece on Bill C-39 leads me to believe you would be a mouthpiece for the minister, to be blunt about it. That's a serious problem for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller has a point of order.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I believe the witness made it quite clear that the recommendation came from management before he got there, and from his experience as a farmer and a producer of grain he supports the contents of Bill C-39. That is part of his job, and I fail to see the connection.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a point of order, that's debate.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

His job as chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission is to administer the act that was duly passed, not be a spokesman for the minister on proposed legislation. That's my concern.

My original question was, do you see that op-ed piece as a mistake? I think it was a tragic mistake, because it makes you seem to be not independent of the minister, to be the minister's promoter of Grain Commission business. Qualifications set aside, that's my concern.

As a member of Parliament, I respect the work you did previously. You and I might have disagreed on the issues, but you were always honest and up front with me on the issues, and I'm being honest and up front with you. I have concerns about that article, and I've heard lots of complaints. It destroys the independence you need to have as an independent chief commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Easter's time has expired, but I would ask that your response be brief.

[Elwin Hermanson]

I wish I could take more time, but I simply don't accept that conclusion. I have been over this ground before as to the purpose of the op-ed piece. I have made it very clear where my role is to be independent from the minister and where my role is to be supportive of the initiatives lawfully taken by the minister.

I am currently, along with my team, complying with the Canada Grain Act as it now exists. We will continue to do that as long as it is the law. If a new act comes into place, since we are the Canadian Grain Commission, we should be able to comment on it because we are the experts on the Canada Grain Act. We are making those comments in a responsible and non-partisan way, and we will continue to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, Mr. Hermanson, I'm going through your resumé. In a past life I was a public servant, and I know about living under the code of ethics. I also used to teach resumé writing. Contrary to what Mr. Boshcoff says, I want to compliment you on your resumé, because we always taught that you should write a two-page resumé. We've all looked at resumés that are nine pages long, and quite frankly, you're either going to sell yourself in the first 30 seconds or you're not. So I compliment you on an excellent resumé, but I particularly compliment you on the content.

Before I go there, I want to apologize for my colleagues on this side of the table and for all farmers. I have farmers throughout my whole riding, and I want to apologize on their behalf for the comments that were made this morning that farming isn't a credible experience. The farms in my riding are multi-million-dollar operations, and I'm sure—

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

Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Do you have a point of order?

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

Mr. Chairman, that quote does not exist. It will not show in Hansard. No one even came close to saying anything like that. The gross distortion that Mr. Lauzon is making is absolutely fraudulent. No one said that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

And I agree, I never heard that particular comment.

Mr. Lauzon, I ask that you retract that statement.

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

Point taken.

Mr. Hermanson, I have hundreds and maybe thousands of farmers in my riding, as you probably know. All of these people on certainly this side of the House have lots of farmers in their ridings. On their behalf, I do apologize for the comments that were made. These are multi-million dollar operations. When it comes to running a farm today, I have so much respect for farmers. Theirs is a much more complicated business than the average small business throughout the country.

So I just wanted to clear that up. That's certainly not the way I feel, and I probably speak for every farmer in the country.

The other thing I want to say is that I actually respect the fact that you graduated from the Full Gospel Bible Institute. I think that education is.... I'm sure that is a good school, and I compliment you for that.

Getting back to the role of a public servant, after 23 years of being a public servant, it seems to me you would understand the role of a public servant. Maybe you could expound on that. You were talking about the responsibility of the people who work for you and about your responsibility. I'd like you to reiterate that for the committee, please.

[Elwin Hermanson]

First of all, thank you for your very warm comments.

With regard to my college education, one input I got from that experience was that I was taught it was important to be a good citizen. That was one of the most valuable components I received from that education, that it's important to serve, and I have tried. As I say, I don't want to blow my own horn, so I won't go beyond that, but that training helped me in my public service.

Perhaps my more practical, hands-on involvement with understanding public service came from the four years I chaired the public accounts committee in Saskatchewan. That may not be shown on my resumé. At times on a weekly basis I would have deputy ministers and key officials from departments come before our committee. They would explain the work of their department. They would deal with the problems as pointed out by the provincial auditor in Saskatchewan. We would make recommendations. They would report on how they had been able to comply with those recommendations.

It was almost like being at the highest level of academic training in a very practical sense. I would see departments that were run well by public servants, where the opposition was hard pressed to find fault with them. I was part of the opposition chairing that committee. I would find other departments that had recurring or habitual problems. They had problems with senior management, problems with their employees.

So I was able to draw some conclusions as to what made a good public servant and where problems and potential pitfalls lay. I saw that over a four-year period.

Maybe I'm preaching to the converted here, but if anyone ever gets a chance to serve on a public accounts committee, by all means take it. Some people think it's boring, but I think it's fascinating. You understand the public service, you understand what public service is, and you see what's good and what can be improved upon. I also had the benefit of hearing from the provincial auditor, an unbiased third party who provided me with invaluable lessons and training.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bellavance.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Hermanson, the least one could say is that you are luckier than Adrian Measner and Linda Keen. Do you think these people would have lost their job if they had done what you did?

You were barely appointed when you staked a position by writing this open letter on Bill C-39 published in The Western Producer. All the colleagues around the table here have mentioned this op-ed piece of February 7. You were appointed on January 21.

Personally, I religiously read The Western Producer just as I read La Terre de chez nous, because I want to also know what is happening out West. When I read this piece, my feeling was that a senior official who had just been appointed, you were carrying the minister's and the government's message and that this was pure partisanship since Parliament has not even finished considering this bill. You must have known that it is controversial. A memo was even sent to employees to tell them that they had no right to speak about it if their comments were critical of the government. You will not admit that this is a gag order, but I call this censorship. People only have a right to speak if they will not criticize. You knew then that the bill was attracting criticism and that it was in the government pipeline, but you nevertheless went ahead with this open letter saying that you support Bill C-39 as is. In my view, this was a partisan comment.

You did what Mr. Measner and Ms. Keen refused to do. They lost their job and you kept yours.

[Elwin Hermanson]

Mr. Chair, I cannot and would not comment on what has happened in other areas of government. I simply have no knowledge of what occurred in those areas.

With regard to the op-ed piece and with regard to the memo that went out to employees, I think I've been over that two or three times. I'm not sure if there's anything I can add. I would just reiterate that in both cases our objectives were, I believe, correct and according to the codes that we're required to follow.