Agriculture Committee on Aug. 18th, 2008

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thanks very much.

I would just like us to be clear about the process of program review. We went through the 2005 experience, and if you google “program review”, you'll find at CMHC, posted on its website: these are our contributions for program review; we've found $6 million here and we're going to put it there.

In terms of finding 5% cuts in a regulatory agency, how do you go about that? And did you, at the beginning, have the reassurance that you would get to keep the money you found in order to reallocate it in a professional and scientific way within your own agency? It's a bit concerning that a regulatory agency would be cut because of what we're here today to look at.

So from a discussion document, presenting the discussion document to the minister, to the minister saying, “Oh, we can't do that”--like cutting the Snowbirds or something--to the minister preparing the memorandum to cabinet with you, to it going to cabinet and the cabinet saying, “No, you can't do that”; to this rumour that apparently this secret report was approved by Treasury Board; to again, whether or not you can look us in the eye now and say there have been no cuts, but there's an idea floating around that, come 2009, 2010, or 2011, there might be reductions in what were planned to be increases.... So I don't think the people of Canada want any fooling around, that there were no cuts; they want to know, were there actual reductions in what had been planned to be an increase, as opposed to there being no cuts and our just saying how that works?

I'm worried that we don't have the full story, and we won't until we have the report. In that process, from a discussion document to implementing a change in a budget, at some point did the minister or somebody say, “No, you can't do that”? And is there a second report that's reversing this plan? Where are we actually in these very specific rumours about cuts that the people of Canada want to know about?

I think we did hear, Dr. Evans, that the report does exist and that you've pleaded the fifth amendment, or whatever we do in Canada. So how do we deal with the significant communication risk, that somebody in the minister's office or somebody in PMO decided that this report of last November is too hot for public consumption? What are we to do now, in your job, to reassure Canadians when this is out there and Canadians are concerned?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I think your first question was, did we have any assurance as we started down the process that any opportunities to reallocate money to internal priorities would be supported? The short answer to that is no. The very nature--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I forgot to ask, has CFIA always been included in program review?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Yes. Since we were created--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

It's never been exempt from program review?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No.

The ERC stands for...?

[Gordon White, Vice-President, Finance, Administration and Information Technology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

The expenditure review committee reductions that were put into place over the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 reduced our budget by about $24 million, so we were not exempt from ERC.

In program review prior to that, it was around the time the agency was created, so there was a different perspective there. But we have never been exempted from any of the reviews.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

With respect to the process that you asked about, the expenditure management system, as I've indicated, requires all government departments and agencies. All of them are covered over a four-year cycle. It's our understanding that we will go through this process again in three or four years. Under that, based on our A-base allocation, it was determined that we should identify up to 5% of program activities where it was felt that either the programs were not delivering to the standards that they should be delivering to in order to protect Canadians, or that there was an opportunity to reallocate those resources to areas of higher priority, the effort--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Dr. Evans, my question was this. In reviewing your testimony at priority and planning, you did say: “And we'll be working with industry to minimize food safety risks, so that we can adjust our program to be less prescriptive and have less oversight“. I guess we want to know exactly what that means: to have less oversight. Were you telegraphing at that time that there were going to be these kinds of cuts or harmonization with industry to put more responsibility to industry, which, as my colleague has said, will go back to the farmers, no question? I would simply like to know what you mean by having less oversight.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Dr. Bennett, that's your last question.

Dr. Evans, do you want to respond?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.

Less prescriptive, again, in previous testimony relates back to the recommendations from this committee and the fact that there are elements of our program that have been viewed as having created a non-competitive sector--for example, issues of record retention on the part of producers at the farm level, or other programming activity in terms of the frequency of our inspection activities that are viewed by some as having negatively impacted the competitiveness of the Canadian sector.

There were two initiatives. One was a Canadian Federation of Independent Business report card on CFIA. We undertook to work with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to look at how we could regulate and deliver our activities in a way that still achieved the regulatory outcome but was less intrusive and less costly for industry to meet. Those were undertaken, as were the government's paperwork burden reduction Initiative to look at, again in terms of regulatory issues, the number of documents that have to be demonstrated to us in order for us to provide a document, for example. Could those be streamlined? Could they be brought together? Could the reporting frequency be reduced? Those are the sorts of initiatives that we undertook to do in terms of being less prescriptive.

Less oversight refers to those areas where in certain circumstances...for example, when we introduced the enhanced feed ban that we referred to with Mr. Dewar. Removing SRM at the top end of the feed system requires us to have less oversight further down the system, at the level of the producer. We don't have to go onto the farm to verify that the feeds they are receiving have had the specified risk materials taken away at that point. The oversight has shifted to the top end of the spectrum, if you will, to make sure that it never enters the system in the first place. The less oversight doesn't mean that overall the program is less effective or that we're reducing our commitment to the program; it simply means we're shifting the point at which we provide that level of verification.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Dr. Evans.

As is the practice of the committee, we've gone around and asked questions from each member of the committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm not going to debate the issue, but I do believe that the committee televised rooms are available tomorrow. Mr. Lauzon can't be here, but maybe a taped recording of the meeting would be good for him. I think if we have the opportunity, as a committee, for the public to see the witnesses tomorrow, then we should gain consensus around the room and utilize the televised facilities that are available to us for the next witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have a request for a televised meeting tomorrow in Centre Block.

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

From our side's point of view, we've been open and transparent, as we have been for the entire time we've been in government. We have no problem with the general public seeing Mr. Easter continually debunked, with the myths he's putting forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller.

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

I think something should be cleared up. Some of Ms. Bennett's comments a couple of minutes ago insinuated that Dr. Evans was pleading the fifth amendment. I think we all know what that means. In defence of him, I think Mr. Evans has nothing to hide here; he is simply complying and answering under the rules. I think it was uncalled for.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. St. Amand, if you're talking about the same point of order, or the suggestion that we have a televised meeting, I'll entertain it.

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

It's not quite on that point. I want to talk about when we can expect compliance with the motion that passed a couple of hours ago now.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

When we see the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

There was no timeline tied to the report; it requests that we get a report.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Let's have a new motion, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have the motion in front of you, and that was struck out. We'll see when we can get one. We'll put in the request, as per usual for committee. I will be contacting the ministry through the clerk and request the report.

The motion demands that the government provide the committee with the plan to ban critical food safety inspections as reportedly approved by Treasury Board in November 2007. There is no timeline tied to it. In due time we will, as quickly as we can with the workload we have in front of us right now, get that over to the ministry.

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

On that point, the very senior responsible officials of CFIA are before us. Whether they can admit that they have the report or not, they surely do have the report, and I will be asking these officials to provide the report to us tomorrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As I have read out of Marleau and Montpetit, and as was already said by Dr. Evans, that was a confidential memorandum submitted to cabinet, and they're obligated by the rules to avoid putting themselves in a situation of turning over these confidential discussions between government and public servants. That has been practised in Parliament since its inception. It has gone through many governments, including Liberal and Conservative governments. It is something we all abide by.

With that, I think I'll leave it up to the ministry to decide what they wish to do with it.

Was that a recommendation or a motion?