Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony. It must not have been easy to come and testify on such short notice, but the situation demands that you assist us at least in understanding this matter which has arisen in recent months.
If there had not been any controversy following what was discussed in the context of the inspection system review, the document in question would very soon have been made public, no one would have been dismissed and we would not be here today to discuss it. There is probably something fishy here since the agency and the government feel compelled to say that people from the opposition are trying to establish a regime of terror.
It is an old reflex of governments, particularly of the Conservative government—Mr. Easter mentioned this—to shoot the messenger the moment a controversy arises. Yesterday, the agency people said that what came out in the media was full of falsehoods and that an employee had been dismissed for informing not the public, but his union, that a document was circulating, to which he moreover had access. He didn't break open a filing cabinet or safe to take the documentation and make it public. He had access to a document and he informed his union that changes might be occurring within the agency. In dismissing him, it was the government that introduced a regime of terror.
You are right to say that we were unable to obtain all the information yesterday because the people who testified were employees. Obviously, from the moment they say something, they have a sword of Damocles over their heads. They know the fate that was reserved for one of their co-workers. The best way to muzzle people is to make them lose their jobs. That's what's being done. To mitigate all these consequences, Mr. Pomerleau should first be reinstated in his duties, then the review of the plan and priorities should be disclosed.
Ms. Demers, you said you had examined the document and heard the testimony of Mr. Evans. I asked Mr. Evans what parts of the plan had circulated in the media, enumerating a few of them for him. We then witnessed some figure skating, even though it's the summer Olympic Games that are currently taking place.
I don't know what you can tell us. Whatever the case may be, feel free to tell us what you can. Based on what you read in the plan, even though you are not a scientist, was there any question of delegating responsibilities to the industry, of recovering 5% of the agency's operating budget and cancelling assistance to producers for BSE, mad cow disease? We're talking about recovering $24 million over three years. It was also apparently mentioned that inspectors would henceforth play a general oversight role and that the industry would verify everything pertaining to food safety. These are points that were reported over the summer. Are we right to be concerned? Do these points appear in the plan that was tabled in November 2007?