It's too bad that it took an unfortunate event, the dismissal of a Canadian Food Inspection Agency employee, for the government to reveal its plan for cuts. I don't know where Mr. Lauzon learned that no cuts were in the offing, since all the media talked throughout the summer about the plan for cuts at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Perhaps he was on vacation.
Even if the media hadn't talked about it, our committee had already expressed its concerns over the matter. Mr. Lauzon can't convince us that he wasn't aware of what had happened since the committee held a meeting on May 15 at which some committee members, including the one speaking to you, expressed their concern about the budget cuts between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.
Obviously, the fact that there is less money means a cut in services and in the possibility of conducting adequate inspections. And yet, every time we ask the people at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency whether there will be fewer inspectors and inspections, they reassure us by saying that there won't be fewer inspections. They even claim there will be more inspections and that they will manage to do better, even though they haven't yet found a way to do that in view of the cuts to their budget.
Considering all the cuts that have been made in other sectors—no need to tell you what's going on in the area of culture, Mr. Chairman—we realize this government has a plan for cuts at each department. It isn't pleasant to see cuts in the field of culture or elsewhere. Only the armed forces are not subject to budget cuts. However, in the case of food inspection, we're playing with people's health.
In the United States, it's the industry that handles food inspection. What is strange is that all the foods that have been subject to recalls in Canada, including one case that dates back to August 10, come from the United States. Ground beef from the United States, which is also an organic product, contained the E. coli bacterium. Tomatoes—a recent case—cantaloupes and spinach, were also recalled. The public is aware of these recalls of products, most of which come from the United States. So that's not a model we should follow. And yet that's precisely what the government is still doing: it's following the Bush model. It's a very, very bad idea.
I don't think anyone has cried "Wolf!" And yet this matter is urgent. We must prevent this at all costs. This matter has come out in the media, and it's important for us to meet immediately to hear not only the people from the agency, but also the union representatives. I moreover agree on Mr. Easter's motion that the union people be summoned before the committee. One employee disclosed what happened, particularly since this supposedly secret document was on the website or was accessible to employees. That employee acted correctly. Perhaps the secret was invented after the fact, but it would be important to say that that employee should be congratulated and protected. Parliament has a number of measures it can use to protect public servants who engage in this kind of whistle-blowing. This is a good example in which a person was right to take action.
Our duty is to examine this matter. If the agency people are available right now, let's proceed. If the union people were available tomorrow morning, that would be perfect. We'll at least have managed to conduct a summary of the question before Parliament resumes. If we could obtain the document, that would enable us to continue this study as soon as Parliament returns.