Agriculture Committee on Aug. 19th, 2008

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

Is it yes or no, ma'am?

[Michèle Demers]

I'm not going to answer your question.

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

Okay, very good.

Did you see a document that was going to cabinet for approval or coming back from cabinet approved?

[Michèle Demers]

Yes.

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

It is my understanding that documents going to cabinet are approved by Treasury Board before they're sent to cabinet, so even though you saw a cover page from Mr. Wouters at Treasury Board, cabinet still had to make up it's mind, and it did by giving $60 million more to CFIA. Is that a bad thing?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Let me interrupt for a minute, because this came up in the point of order raised by Mr. Easter.

I'm going back to chapter 20 of Marleau and Montpetit. This is quite different from when we have public servants appearing before the committee, which we had yesterday. It reads:

There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee. Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them. A witness may object to a question asked by an individual committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, he or she is obliged to reply. Members have been urged to display the “appropriate courtesy and fairness” when questioning witnesses. Nevertheless, a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House.

So that is the rule applying to witnesses other than public servants.

Mr. Dewar, on this point of order.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, on a point of clarification, is it also—and I haven't had a chance to read up on my Marleau and Montpetit on this point—that we should have committee members pose their own questions, that no questions should be submitted from another source? In other words, did Mr. Miller write that question, and is this a question coming from Mr. Miller or is this from someone else?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I don't think that is relevant. Often we have a committee put together their own list from the researcher, and analysts as well.

On a point of order, Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much.

That is absolutely insulting. If Mr. Dewar didn't have the NFU's talking points, the NDP wouldn't know what to say when it comes to agriculture issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's the National Farmers Union, for your information, Mr. Dewar.

Regardless of the source of questions, we always want the appropriate decorum here. I do demand that we have decorum at this meeting, unlike some other committees, and sometimes with what happens in the House of Commons. I do ask that everybody respect that.

Mr. Miller, I'm going to give you 30 seconds to finish off your round.

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

I do take offence to Mr. Dewar's comments. But if I got spanked as bad as he and the rest of the opposition did yesterday, I'd have been putting a lot of Ozonol on last night. I guess he's still stinging from that.

Ms. Demers, if you couldn't answer whether putting $60 more million into CFIA was a good thing, can you respond as to whether putting it in and increasing inspectors by 200 was a bad thing?

[Michèle Demers]

Do I have to answer with a yes or no?

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

No, no. Give some detail, if you'd care to.

[Michèle Demers]

Thank you very much.

I believe that adding money and positions to CFIA is a good thing. What is questionable is where that money is going and what types of functions are being done away with that are critical to the mandate of CFIA versus other functions or tasks that CFIA may want to prioritize.

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

I thought you were in union management as a representative for the unions--

[Michèle Demers]

I'm a quick learner.

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

--not in a place to make decisions on where money is allocated in CFIA. That was something I just learned. I didn't realize that.

[Michèle Demers]

Well, you asked my opinion, and I gave you my opinion.

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

I didn't ask for your opinion at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller, your time has expired.

Madame Thi Lac, cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good morning. Thank you for coming to testify this morning despite the lack of time you have had to prepare. It's very much appreciated.

You've largely answered the questions that concerned me. I'm talking here about the consequences and effects that the implementation of certain measures you saw in the secret document would have had on the public. My colleague Mr. Bellavance summed up my thinking well, that the climate of terror established by the government is not necessarily the one he describes, but rather the one that the employees of your agency have to suffer if they think they have to comply with a rule of silence and fear losing their jobs should they happen across a document. Incidentally, the document in question here was filed in a negligent manner. Mr. Bellavance emphasized the fact that the document was not stolen, taken. That's an important fact. I also want to emphasize that I think your role is very important and that you're doing a good job with the members of your institute.

You know that there are agency offices in my riding. Yesterday, I saw in the brief that there would be no job losses. I asked whether job losses could consist of position cuts at certain locations or of relocations, in the case of certain employees. In my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, if there were position cuts or those positions were offered to unionized workers from another province, for example, there would be consequences. It's been said that there will be no job losses. Do you believe that position relocations can take place or rather that every person working at the agency can expect to see his or her job maintained in its present form?

[Michèle Demers]

I can't give a categorical answer to the kind of question you're asking, but I can tell you, by consulting the document as it is written, that it is impossible for that not to have an impact on jobs. Will the people be assigned to other duties? Will they be relocated? As no details on the implementation of the changes were made public, everything is possible, but we can't comment on the specific impact that will have.

What we're asking of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is that it tell us what impact this will have on the members we represent. The new Public Service Modernization Act requires that the bargaining agents be consulted in the case of any reorganization, restructuring or measure that can affect the day-to-day work of the employees we represent. That's the only thing we ask of the agency, but, as everything is being done in secret, in the context of this matter in particular, the doors are closed and nothing is getting out.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I'm going to share my time with Mr. Bellavance. He has other questions.

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

It's quite ironic to hear committee members, since yesterday, blame an employee who, as I said earlier, stole nothing and committed no computer offence to disclose secrets. He simply informed his union of what might happen to his colleagues, that is to the members of your institute, and of the major impact that this plan could have on people's safety and health. It is ironic to think that the people of this government have dismissed the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the President of the Canadian Wheat Board because they did not think like they do, but that, in the case of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who lost documents and displayed utter negligence, they said those matters concerned his private life. It is quite ironic to hear that a scientist should be blamed and singled out, when, on the contrary, he should be congratulated for doing what he did.

What I'm asking of this government is that it reinstate Mr. Pomerleau in his duties as soon as possible because he did absolutely nothing wrong. He displayed transparency toward his union and his colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired.

Madam Demers, do you wish to respond at all to that? I'll give you time for a brief response.