Evidence of meeting #44 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was confidential.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Mr. Roberts, you've clearly indicated that your view of this November 7 document led you to believe, beyond any doubt, that there are cuts to specific program areas. Is that correct?
Research Officer, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Yes.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
And you've also indicated that your review of the document led you to believe that the Government of Canada, through CFIA, was going to lead the agency down a path commensurate with what the United States had done a while ago, a path that the United States is now directly shunning and has deliberately ended.
Is that fair to say?
Research Officer, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
As a non-physical scientist, but someone who works with physical scientists in the federal government and who reads about the public policy circumstances and the consequences of science and technology decisions, it is my assessment that what is set out in that proposal for strategic expenditure review is in line with the experience that we've seen in other jurisdictions, including the United States—and I say so within the context of my overall understanding of regulatory policy in Canada and where that's headed.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
With the ultimate concern being that the result could potentially be the compromising of Canada's food safety?
Research Officer, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Based on my discussions with the professional regulators and the scientists working at CFIA, and based on my readings, I think that was a legitimate concern I had.
Liberal
Research Officer, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Obviously.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
All right, he just gave us the 15 seconds.
You mentioned in the beginning, Ms. Demers, that there are other witnesses. As I think Lloyd was the last questioner, I wonder if you could table a list of names, either with us or the clerk, of who you would suggest as witnesses. We do have to find a way, whether it's in camera or other means, of protecting these people from the fear of losing their jobs. We recognize that. But if we could have a list of witnesses from you, it would be helpful for our further elaborations on this issue.
President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
We certainly can do that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
As is the practice of this committee, we have gone around and every committee member has had a chance to ask questions.
Madam Bennett.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I'm wondering if it would be possible for the clerk or someone to get for the committee the written protocol on “confidential”, “classified”, “secret”, “top secret”, and also what the rules are around these things. In my experience, the difference between a letter marked “confidential” and a document attached to it that is not marked “confidential” is really whether it's a classified document or not, in that all of us can send letters to one another and mark them confidential. So I would just like to have the Government of Canada's rules on this. To my mind, it is the health of Canadians I'm most worried about; but I think for the sake of Mr. Pomerleau's career, it would be important for this committee to know these rules.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The analyst said that he can put that together for us and that it will be part of our briefing materials.
I have Mr. Dewar, Mr. Del Mastro, and then Mr. Komarnicki.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to come back to the question I put, and it was actually Mr. Roberts who responded. That was on the Treasury Board report that we established was made public. I think it was made public June 6, 2008. I wonder if the committee has had a chance to look at that document. As I established in questions to Mr. Roberts, this is a part of the direction of the government to divest itself, it seems, of regulations.
In terms of this expert panel's report, there were 56 proposals received and considered to be potential candidates for having the government divest itself of regulations, so I'm wondering if the committee has had a chance to look at it. I'll talk to my colleague about that.
The other question I had, Mr. Chair, is one that I want to establish.... I apologize in advance if this has already been confirmed, but we've requested as a committee to see the document. Is that correct?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That was the motion yesterday, and as chair of the committee, to concentrate on the time that we'll have, I will forward that letter ASAP to the ministry asking for that document.
NDP
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Perhaps I will table a motion to ask that the committee ask for that report as soon as possible--I was going to say 24 hours would be reasonable since it's electronic, and I think people are in their offices today--that the committee ask that the report be sent to all committee members within 24 hours. It's a matter of a couple of keystrokes in an e-mail.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I've have a motion on the floor.
On a point of order, I have Mr. Storseth. It had better be a point of order.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, I believe this is a new motion that requires 48 hours' notice, as we've already passed and moved on with the former motion.
I'd also like to know if Mr. Dewar has a written copy of his motion as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It is the practice of this committee that all motions will be given 48 hours' notice, regardless of whether they're relevant to the subject matter at hand, unless there is unanimous consent.
I'm asking if there is unanimous consent for Mr. Dewar's motion. Is there consent?