Agriculture Committee on Aug. 18th, 2008

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay. Well, I'm clarifying that part of the reason for the motion that is on the table is so that you get to a report dealing with the consequences of the secret report. Once you've decided that, you're going to do a report that will eventually get to the House of Commons, and then you call witnesses. It seems appropriate to me to first deal with the motion, and then the committee is dealing with the report of substance, of which the first two witnesses would be the CFIA and PIPSC.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We don't want to debate this. We have a dilatory motion on the floor, which is not debatable, and the clarification is that we're simply breaking to hear the witnesses who are here now, and we'll come back to this after the witnesses present. At that point in time we can decide about future business of the committee and how we move forward from there.

We'll have a recorded vote on this.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're back to discussing the motion, and I have Mr. Easter in the line-up.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

One point that I would agree with Mr. Storseth on is that we do have one of the safest food inspection systems in the world. There's no question about it; bar none, we do now.

Walkerton and Aylmer were mentioned earlier. No question, they were the responsibility of provincial inspection systems. Who do you think was in the cabinet when those incidents happened? One was John Baird, two was Jim Flaherty, and three was Tony Clement. I believe those three are in the current cabinet, a cabinet and a government that operates in secret.

We're fortunate that a scientist managed to find it. Somebody in senior management slipped up and they put on a website what the government's intention really is, which is to cut our inspection system.

Did they never learn a lesson when they were at the provincial level? We know the Prime Minister wants to decentralize the national government, that's for sure. We know Flaherty has driven us pretty nearly to the brink of deficit again, and to do cost savings for that area....

The fact of the matter is that we do have one of the safest systems in the world, and I can tell you that everyone on this opposition bench is certainly going to do everything they can to not allow this secretive government to put at risk Canadians' food supply and our international reputation. That's why we've called this meeting. That's why we want to see the secret report. It's so that we can see what the government is really up to in the light of day.

Once we decide on that, that we're going to do a report, then we can hear from the CFIA and PIPSC. If we get the document, we have all that information to research and work through over the next few weeks, as we start up again and hold the government to account on what they're really trying to do, not only to our food inspection system but to this country.

So I can't emphasize enough the need to support this motion, because we need to get the document that the government is trying to cover up.

I might mention, if Mr. Lauzon wants to get into it—he talked about carbon tax—that there's one difference between Stéphane Dion and Stephen Harper. Stéphane Dion put it all out there where everyone can see it. You know that Environment Canada has a document called Turning the Corner that talks about a $65 per tonne carbon tax that the Conservatives would impose, but the tax is in secret, not telling Canadians what you're going pose on them down the line. At least Stéphane is up front and puts it out there so people can debate and discuss it. If you want to debate that issue at any time, I'm willing to debate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not the debate we're having right now, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

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

I'd like to clarify that there's more than one thing different between Stéphane Dion and the Prime Minister of Canada. There are many things different, thank God.

The truth of the matter is that there's an awful air of desperation. I know the opposition wants to change the channel on this carbon tax, but boy, you're going over the top to try to change it. The truth of the matter is that what's embarrassing is the carbon tax. If you want to talk about things that are going to ruin food safety and agriculture, that's a carbon tax.

However, Mr. St. Amand wanted to know what happened, what our reaction was to November. I'll tell you what our reaction was, Mr. St. Amand: $113 million announced for food safety by the Prime Minister. You folks are fear-mongering about $25 million cuts, all kinds of wonderful cuts, but the truth of the matter is that in December 2007 the Prime Minister of Canada announced $113 million for food safety. That was the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Komarnicki, you have the floor.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it absolutely remarkable that this committee is called today to discuss issues with respect to funding with CFIA. We have officials here who are prepared to testify and discuss the issues that are very pertinent to what this member has raised, and he chooses not to hear them. Why is that? Simply because they're trying to get political hay made and they're politicking on this issue when they should be getting down to the facts.

We have the officials here to present the facts, but they're not prepared to hear them today because they don't want to. They're playing games, and I think the member from Malpeque is just blowing a lot of smoke.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Finally we get to the bottom it; Mr. Easter is just happy to get out of his riding.

Mr. Chair, we brought CFIA officials here today to tell the truth and get to the bottom of this story. We have officials here to talk about the modernization and innovation this government has brought to food inspection. This committee knows full well about the movement we've made on food labelling after 13 years of non-action. These are the kinds of things our government has led, and we've been up front and honest every step of the way. As a matter of fact, the Liberal committee members complained we were doing it too quickly and taking away their political hay.

What we should be doing today, Mr. Chair, is getting to the truth, and the truth lies in hearing witnesses and testimony from people in the know. The opposition seems hesitant to do that. They're scared to hear anything other than their fear-mongering.

If Mr. Easter and Mrs. Bennett want to talk about downloading to farmers, I can tell you that I come from rural Canada and I haven't been Ottawashed yet, Mr. Easter. I still represent my riding. You and I both know, and so does Mr. Boshcoff, because he was quoted as saying it this year, that your green tax is going to be a $15 billion redistribution from rural Canada to Stéphane Dion and his priorities.

You're unhappy with tax cuts. You're unhappy with looking after the middle class. This green shift, this so-called green tax you talk about, has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with increasing costs on rural Canadians.

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

You know that the price of diesel was $1.12 per litre for farmers last year. You know that your tax--and it's been proven in British Columbia--is only going to increase that. How can you possibly support that?

I'll be more than happy to have that discussion with you all through the fall.

The other thing you wanted to talk about, Mr. Easter, was hidden agendas. The Canadian Wheat Board has been one of your greatest hidden agendas for the last 13 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Let's get back on topic here.

I have Mr. Boshcoff.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unless there are other speakers who want to speak to this, I'd like to put the question so that we can--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I still have speakers on the list, Mr. Boshcoff.

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

If we could pass the motion and then call the witnesses, I think that would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I still have people on the speakers list.

I've got Monsieur Bellavance, Mr. Dewar, and then Mr. Miller.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The members say they want to get to the bottom of this matter. I believe we all agree on that. The ideal would be to vote in favour of the motion put before us. Getting to the bottom of the matter does not just mean hearing the version of people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That's only one version, part of the story.

Earlier Mr. Lauzon talked about a regime of terror. I don't think that an agency employee would publicly say that he is opposed to a plan to make $24 million in cuts solely because one person was dismissed for disclosing the plan, not to the public, but to his union. That was the right action to take, when he learned that the government was intending to cut the food inspection budget, the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The people who come to testify before the committee will be somewhat afraid to speak. With all due respect for the people who will appear, and whom I trust, this should not stop here. If we want to examine the entire matter, we should also hear from the union people and the minister, and the sooner the better. On the government side, we can get to the bottom of things. If we manage to obtain this report, that will give us a good indication of the government's intentions.

Before moving on to the vote, we must pay attention to what Mr. Lauzon has said. He seems to want us to believe that the $113 million constitutes an increase in the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The committee had a breakdown done of that $113 million figure, which was spread over two years. The agency didn't receive the entire $113 million. In fact, they received $23 million in the first year and $39 million in the second, a total of $62 million. No one was talking about an increase.

This summer, we learned that an employee discovered a plan for $24 million in cuts. Make any calculations you want; there is no $113 million increase, as Mr. Lauzon would have us believe. We're indeed talking about cuts. The proof is that no one in the government—and it's the minister who should have done this—when this came out in the media, denied the fact that a plan had been put forward. If he had said there wouldn't $24 million in cuts, the problem would have been solved and the gentleman would not have lost his job.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have a couple of quick points on this motion, Mr. Chair, and the importance of dealing with this promptly.

This is not only about what's happening in this particular agency. It's also the road map of this government to divest itself of what has been our standard for generations. Essentially, Mr. Chair, that is to have government scientists involved in the business of food inspection.

We also know there have been plans put forward to government--there has been a panel that has looked at this--that this would be the first step. We're looking at food inspection today, but we're also hearing that the government is talking about a vast range of other areas of which it wants to divest itself to save a couple of bucks, which will cost us many more dollars in the end, of course--everything from horticulture, fisheries, environment, ocean systems, health, biological sciences, medical devices, and so on. And I think when you--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

On a point of order, Mr. Miller.

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

On a point of order, I believe we're here at the agriculture committee, not the fisheries committee or the environment committee, so I'm wondering what the relevance is.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Certainly, I'd be happy to answer. I was saying that this is the first step and that your own government has a panel looking at how to divest itself, and I'd be happy to share this with you. But it is something the government has asked for, and you've had a panel look at this, how to divest itself with “partnerships”, which is code for getting the government out of doing the business of regulation.

I simply underline the importance of dealing with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and what the government has reportedly been doing already.

The final point I want to make, which is really important to my mind, Mr. Chair, is that this goes back to Treasury Board wanting to have all agencies and boards and ministries save money. That's not news; that's a fact. Why was the Canadian Food Inspection Agency engaged in this? They were directed by Treasury Board. Every ministry was. Everyone knows that in this town. So what's the motivation here?

We saw program review in this city with the previous government. It wasn't pretty. And we thought we were out of that and into rebuilding government structures and agencies again, and now we have a new gang in town and they think they can do a better job of taking government apart. I say that as something that should be stated from the beginning, that this was Treasury Board driven.

This government is trying to save $2 billion in its operating. We all know that. Mr. Baird told me that personally, publicly, and everyone knows it. As Treasury Board president, he asked all agencies, boards, and ministries to come forward and provide savings. So it's about the money.

I think Canadians would rather have investments in their Food Inspection Agency than try to save a couple of dollars for a government to look better, and that's the bottom line on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller.