Agriculture Committee on Aug. 19th, 2008

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

Take some anger management training, Carolyn.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Order, Mr. Miller.

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

The opposition doesn't like these questions because they've been embarrassed by them for two days now.

When you reviewed these documents, did you share any of the information or the contents, or did anybody in your office share the contents of these documents, with any of the opposition parties?

[Michèle Demers]

No.

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

No?

[Michèle Demers]

No.

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

When Mr. Easter contacted you to make sure you're available to come, you never took the opportunity to make sure they were aware of any of the--

[Michèle Demers]

Mr. Easter didn't contact me; it was the clerk who contacted my communications person to see if I was available today.

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

Thank you very much.

We'll have to make sure we check our blues with Mr. Easter's blues from yesterday.

Now I want to get back to the whistle-blower protection. So you don't feel this would be a case in which the whistle-blower legislation would come into play?

[Michèle Demers]

Not at all, because this man did not blow the whistle; this man asked his union for advice.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests for appearing today on short notice.

I want to go back to the document in question. I just have to say, as a member of Parliament, how frustrating it is that you're able to read it but not disseminate it, that members of the media have had access to it, yet the people who are responsible for representing the interests of Canadians, for food security, for the path forward, haven't been able to look at this information.

I might add, as you have stated in your opening comments, that this was a document prepared for budget 2008. We established that yesterday, admitted by the government that that's what it was for. The actual implementation apparently has happened. Yesterday I questioned Canadian Food Inspection Agency representatives—and I'll get to that in a second.

So the question, I guess, is, why is the government fearful of releasing the document, which has already apparently been implemented? I just want to share my frustration as a member of Parliament that we are not allowed access to a document that we hear from the government and hear from the officials is something that has already been put in place.

I say that because yesterday, when I asked officials, they confirmed that in the areas that you enumerated there had been changes put in place. The problem for me was when I asked that they show me what those changes in detail are so that as a consumer I can find out from my government exactly what has changed and what processes have been put in place for food security and safety, and they couldn't state anything.

First of all, they said this was just a change in direction, and all the good stuff, that they were just making modernization changes, and so on. But when I asked for details specifically on meat safety, they said, on one hand, “We've made the changes,” and on the other hand, “There's no detail.”

So I ask the government to throw the curtains back and show us what's going on, because from my impression, what we've seen—and all we can do is glean from what we've seen in the media and based on what people have stated—is that we really are going in the direction of putting the fox in charge of the hens. I think Canadians deserve better, and I don't know why this government wants to hide behind a document that has already been apparently implemented.

So I just want to ask you, Madame Demers, if in the document that you read you believe there is anything that would undermine, any breach of secrecy in terms of what has already been implemented as we know, and would it be in the public interest for members of Parliament to have access to this document?

[Michèle Demers]

I certainly think it would be in the public interest for the people around this table to have access to this document in order to have an enlightened discussion and give direction to the Government of Canada.

I just want to qualify some of what you said, Mr. Dewar, in that I don't know that any of the changes that are in the document have been implemented already. Changes have been occurring over the years at CFIA in modifying the way they do their business, and we've been alerted to those changes time after time by veterinarians and by other scientists. These particular changes that were in this document that I read I don't believe have been implemented yet, which is why they are so secretive about it. I find it difficult that a government that is so vocal on accountability, openness, and transparency would not want to have this document made public and people understand the implications and the ramifications of it.

We don't have to go back very far in looking at experiences of governments that have delegated to industry some oversight roles. You only have to look back at Walkerton and see what happened there. We don't want that for Canadians. Nobody wants that. Canadians don't want that. You don't want that as politicians. I'm sure the CFIA doesn't want that, and I wouldn't put the blame on CFIA. They are being tasked and told to find efficiencies and to do business otherwise. That's what they're recommending and the government is approving.

[Chris Roberts]

A lot of euphemisms have been used, such as modernization. Yesterday I heard the expenditure review process referred to as investing in food safety--reallocations instead of cuts. The reason the strategic expenditure review process is such a concern is because of the way in which the cost savings are to be achieved, or proposed to be achieved. The fact is that program areas are being cut in the reallocation process.

If you believe that the transition from a hands-on inspection model to an audit-based verification system is the way to go, with strong government oversight and penalties attached to inspections and penalties to ensure compliance, then you have to believe there will still be a strong government role to enforce the self-regulation.

It's precisely the concerns around government's ability to even play that role that's an issue.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have a very quick question. I want to ask either of you if you've been able to read the report that was done by Treasury Board, because I don't believe this is a one-off. I think this divesting government from food regulation is something that will be done in other areas.

I simply want to know if you've read the report that was done and released by Treasury Board on June 6, 2008, which was an independent panel of experts looking at how the federal government can transfer its responsibilities, government laboratories, to the private sector. And if you have, what do you think the implications are, in general, for the regulation of not only food safety but for other areas? I don't know if the committee has looked at that report.

[Chris Roberts]

I'll speak to that very quickly.

I think they're extremely serious. The panel heard 56 or 58 proposals to transfer non-regulatory laboratories from the federal government to universities or the private sector, and they said every one of them is worth acting on, or nearly complete. It's clear that there have been five early candidates identified, but this is the beginning.

The important thing for a regulatory agency is that it's well understood in the scientific community and in government that non-regulatory science is critical to the regulatory capacity of government. So divesting and dismantling the government scientific capacity, which our members tell us over and over again is going on in non-regulatory areas, will affect the regulatory capacity.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. Your time has expired.

We're going to start five-minute rounds.

Mr. Boshcoff, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

I hope you would agree that the role of government is to protect people. And recently there was legislation, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, which would protect employees who came forward with information they deemed to be in the public good.

I was part of the group in 2004 and 2005 on government operations and estimates that produced the first whistle-blower act. So my question is, if a person has this protection and then comes forward in good conscience, why would he or she still be fired? Let's deal with that quickly, if you can.

[Michèle Demers]

I don't think the situation that Mr. Pomerleau has faced is covered by the whistle-blower legislation, because he didn't blow the whistle; he asked his union for advice. This was not an attempt at blowing the whistle on CFIA. This was, “Hey guys, look at this. What do we do? What are the impacts of this document, and are there any workforce adjustment potentials here? And how should the institute react to this?”

So what we did was to bring it for consultation at CFIA.

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

In another vein then, by firing and muzzling public servants and keeping them from trying to find out the truth and keeping these documents secret, are we jeopardizing public safety? There is information here, and I guess the question would be, how will the public ever know?

You can start there, but the corollary to that, of course, is why wouldn't the minister simply provide this information, and why is he making us go through such enormous hoops and take so long?

[Michèle Demers]

I'll answer your question with a question. Why would this public service hire subject matter experts to conduct the operations and deliver the programs of the public service if those people are muzzled and can't speak out? What happened to freedom of speech?

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

Your members, and the department itself, have been facing a concern, in growing unanimity, from farmers who are concerned about the regulatory regime they face. They accept that, but they have a great deal of problem with imported products that do not face the same inspections on safety. We have no idea of what types of ground things are grown in, whether they're adding formaldehyde and those types of things.

Without knowing what this document said, the public safety concern is, how will we ever know if our farmers are actually on a level playing field if the stuff they have to compete against doesn't follow the same rules?

[Michèle Demers]

I can't answer that question; I don't have an answer for that.

I think there is a lot that needs to be made public with respect to the proposals of the CFIA that were approved by the Treasury Board. Without all of you having that document in front of you to make a determination on what the next steps are and without hearing witnesses about the implications of the changes that are proposed, you can't do your work on that particular topic.

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

If any of those professionals, specialists, scientists, analysts, or chemists were to come to this committee and answer these questions in terms of the impact of this report--and hopefully we'll have that report in the next couple of hours, as I'm sure the minister will reveal it--would they be subject to dismissal?

[Michèle Demers]

They would never come without the absolute guarantee that they will not be terminated if they speak out and answer your questions honestly, as the professionals they are.