:
I call this meeting to order.
Today we have an order in council appointment before us. Elwin Hermanson has been appointed to the position of chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.
Welcome, Elwin. It's good to see you.
This is according to Standing Orders 110 and 111. I just want to read into the record off the start, just so we know what the rules are here today, out of Marleau and Montpetit, starting on page 863 on line 447:
The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their Ministers. The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness' responsibility to the Minister, or which is outside of their own area of responsibility or which might affect business transactions.
Further, when we get to questioning:
...the committee may call the appointee or nominee to appear before it...to answer questions respecting his or her qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
This is on page 876 now:
The scope of a committee's examination of Order-in-Council appointees or nominees is strictly limited to the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post. Questioning by members of the committee may be interrupted by the Chair, if it attempts to deal with matters considered irrelevant to the committee's inquiry. Among the areas usually considered to be outside the scope of the committee's study are the political affiliation of the appointee or nominee, contributions to political parties and the nature of the nomination process itself. Any question may be permitted if it can be shown that it relates directly to the appointee's or nominee's ability to do the job.
A committee has no power to revoke an appointment or nomination and may only report that they have examined the appointee or nominee and give their judgement as to whether the candidate has the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
I just wanted to make sure we have that on the record and we know what rules we are playing by for today.
With that, I invite Mr. Hermanson to provide his opening comments. Please keep it to less than 10 minutes.
On a point of order, Mr. Easter.
:
Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It brings back some memories, and I would say good memories, being back in committee. Not too many times have I sat as a witness, although I have sat as a witness before committee in the past. I have sat in the chairs of the honourable members and I found it a very rewarding experience. I feel honoured that I would be asked to appear before your committee this morning.
I have a statement that I believe is less than 10 minutes. To make sure that it is, I'll undertake it right away.
Honourable members, I am pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food today. I understand that the principal reason you have invited me to appear before you today is to discuss my appointment as chief commissioner to the Canadian Grain Commission. I would first like to make a brief statement and then I would be pleased to answer any questions.
To begin, I would like to underline what an honour it is for me to work on behalf of Canadian farmers and Canadians at large as the chief commissioner of the CGC. As Canada's grain industry regulator, the CGC is responsible for Canada's grain quality and quantity assurance systems, grain research, and producer protection. As chief commissioner to the CGC, I am personally committed to these important objectives and to upholding Canada's world-class brand reputation.
As you know, my appointment comes at a time of change and modernization for the CGC, as reflected in , An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, which was recently introduced in the House of Commons. The CGC needs a strong management and sound guidance to lead it during this period of transformation.
Throughout my career, honourable members, I have displayed strong skills both as a leader and as a manager. I have an extensive background in agribusiness and public service in Canada, with 32 years of farming and elected experience at both the federal and provincial levels. As a farmer, I managed my family farm in Beechy, Saskatchewan, which is a diversified operation producing grains, pulse crops, and oilseeds, and it includes a commercial cow-calf operation. At the federal level, I served as a member of Parliament for the Saskatchewan riding of Kindersley--Lloydminster from 1993 to 1997. During that time I served on the same committee as you represent today, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I also demonstrated my leadership skills participating on the steering subcommittee and working as the leader of the official opposition from 1999 to 2004 in the Saskatchewan legislature.
Throughout my career, one of my priorities was the development and the communication of agricultural policy. I'm proud to say that my political success was founded upon my knowledge of the agriculture sector. In fact, my years spent in public service have depended on strong support from farm communities and farm families. I accepted the position of chief commissioner to the CGC because of my profound desire to serve Canadian farmers and Canadians generally.
As I mentioned earlier, my appointment as chief commissioner comes at a time of change and modernization for the organization. I must say it's an exciting time to be grain farming. I recognize that it's also an equally difficult time in the livestock sector. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is in town. I've run into some of them, and we certainly feel for the economic pressures they're feeling now. But commodity prices are at an all-time high for cereal grains, and oilseed producers are finally beginning to reap the benefits of what they sow.
While Canadian farmers continue to serve traditional export markets, new opportunities are becoming available. Canadian grain is increasingly marketed to niche markets and domestic value-added enterprises such as livestock and biofuels processing. To sustain this growth, both farmers and the grain industry are seeking more opportunities and a more cost-effective grain handling system.
Many grain sector stakeholders, including farmers, have been requesting updates to the Canada Grain Act for many years. In this context the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food introduced , An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, to the House of Commons last December. represents the Government of Canada's vision of a modern CGC, one that is positioned to meet the changing needs of today's grain sector. The government is focused on reducing mandatory regulations and unnecessary costs while maintaining the advantages of Canada's grain quality assurance system.
Honourable members, I understand that while your respective parties have agreed on the need for modernization of the act, they may not all completely agree on the details of that change. The final outcome of a bill must be decided by members of Parliament, and it is the role of the chief commissioner to administer the Canada Grain Act as passed by Parliament. While it is the duty of the CGC to support the government's agenda and policy direction, I will not, nor will the CGC, prejudge the outcome of Parliament's deliberations.
I want to clearly state the commission's principal responsibility is to administer the Canada Grain Act.
The chief commissioner must lead the organization to ensure ongoing protection for producers and Canada's reputation for high-quality grains and must be supportive of the government's agenda. This leads me to discuss recent criticism of an op-ed article I produced for two different western Canadian publications.
First, I would like to clarify that the op-ed article was intended as a personal introduction to farmers and the grain industry in my new role as the chief commissioner of the CGC. Second, my objective was to reassure producers, grain industry stakeholders, and customers of Canadian grain that will not weaken the grain quality assurance system. Third, farmers need to be reassured that producers will continue to be protected under the Canada Grain Act.
Honourable members, before I respond to your questions, I also wish to address one final issue, the CGC memo to employees. The CGC memo has been referred to as a government gag order in both the media and in the House of Commons. There is no government gag order, and the allegations of political involvement are unfounded.
No one in the office of the or in the Prime Minister's Office requested that CGC management issue this memo. It is an internal document that was produced by the CGC senior management on its own in response to employee questions about political activities regarding .
The CGC directive to employees regarding their political activities is based on the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. It states that public servants are free to express their views about the amendments to their members of Parliament as long as they don't publicly criticize the government. The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service also clearly states that public servants must loyally implement ministerial decisions lawfully taken. I would also like to clarify that this code has been in effect since 2003.
In closing, honourable members, it is clear that the CGC is facing an exciting period of modernization and change. I also wish to reiterate that it is the CGC's duty to support the government's agenda and policy direction. I am confident that the integrity of the grain quality assurance system and the reliability of Canadian grain exports will be maintained; in fact, I'm committed to that outcome.
Finally, it's with a deep sense of pride in this 96-year-old institution that I assume the position of chief commissioner to the CGC. I look forward to serving farmers and all Canadians in my new position.
Thank you very much.
:
There are couple things that I don't mind putting on the record, and I hope I'm not breaking any rules of the committee.
First, years ago Minister Ritz and I were colleagues. But this had no bearing—from either my perspective or his—on my decision to let my name stand for the chief commissioner's position.
Second, with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, the board is a client of the Canadian Grain Commission. It is my intention as chief commissioner to have a positive relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board, as we would hope to have with all our clients. Beyond that, I don't believe it is the role of the chief commissioner to speak on Wheat Board issues. I haven't and I won't.
You talked about the op-ed piece. When I assumed the position of chief commissioner on January 21 of this year, senior management from the commission, including the other two commissioners, approached me about writing an introductory letter. We worked on the op-ed piece with three purposes in mind.
The primary purpose was to identify me with the Canadian Grain Commission. That is why I was signatory to the letter. I wanted the industry, from producers to customers abroad, to know that the new chief commissioner for the Canadian Grain Commission was Elwin Hermanson.
The second reason we wrote the op-ed piece was to reassure farmers, the industry, and customers of the Canadian Grain Commission that would not weaken Canada's grain quality assurance system. That's the raison d'être for the Canadian Grain Commission. That's the reason for the Canada Grain Act—to ensure that Canada's grain quality assurance system is second to none in the world, which I believe it is. It's my commitment to maintain that quality. We discussed the impact of .
Finally, I wanted to state that farmers will continue to be protected under the Canada Grain Act. I wanted to make it known that the Canada Grain Act would remain in existence under , and that it would continue to provide farmers with the protection they had experienced in the past.
Those were the three purposes for writing the op-ed article. I concurred with that decision then and I concur with it now. Those objectives were correct. I think it's unfortunate that it's become a political football, because it was never intended to be that.
Thanks very much. It's been a pleasure meeting you, Mr. Hermanson.
Let's look at some of the policy that this bill is proposing. Our committee, as you know, did a study on the Grain Commission. Some of us feel that perhaps we went too fast, that there are things in the recommendations that maybe should have been looked at again.
The committee recommended, for example, increasing funding for the Grain Commission to ensure long-term sustainability. The bill doesn't address this.
The committee recommended that the Grain Commission receive adequate funding to be able to properly benchmark other options through a cost-benefit analysis in a three-year pilot. The bill supersedes these recommendations by aggressively cutting regulatory responsibilities and services immediately.
How would you comment on that?
:
Yes, I'm happy to respond.
First of all, I will offer to the committee that when comes before this committee I would be happy to come back, and I will bring experts with me from the commission, as is deemed appropriate, so that we can answer your questions as deeply as you want to drill down.
In just a general way, I would comment that accommodates some of the recommendations of the committee. Obviously anyone who can read would recognize that not all of the recommendations of the committee are dealt with in Bill C-39. I'm not sure it's unusual for a government to deal with some and not all.
I could tell you where there is common ground and which recommendations are not dealt with in , but I'm not sure there's benefit in going over what we all are aware of. All I can tell you is that I've read the bill, I've read the committee's report, and I recognize where there is concurrence and where there are issues that aren't dealt with. Perhaps they will be in the future.
That's a political decision; that's not the decision of the chief commissioner. We're in place to advise the minister and to deal with what's on the table.
Of course, we are here to analyze competence and qualifications, and your resumé seems rather thin. Many of my graduate students have longer, more comprehensive resumés than this. A lot of your administrative experience, if this is what the job entails, seems to be of a biblical or religious nature, as opposed to in a corporate organization such as this.
It's hard to determine whether there will be forward thinking or unbiased thinking, that there's no ideological lock here. So my two questions will be to determine whether as a progressive thinker...and I know the Conservatives don't like the word “progressive” anymore.
First, as standing operating procedure, the use of opinion editorial pieces that set a personal agenda outside of the organization but effectively determine its course is an issue we are concerned about here. It means that you'll be operating outside the board or the mandate.
The second question is on policy and procedures. In terms of your own management style, would you continue to muzzle an employee or threaten them with discipline if they spoke about bills such as Bill ?
Those are the two questions, and if there's time left over--
:
No. I think what is important are the skills and qualifications a candidate brings to the position. Let me just paint the picture for you of the three commissioners of the Canadian Grain Commission.
I mentioned that all three of us have farm backgrounds. One of the commissioners, the one who is called “the commissioner”, has a background on the industry side. He was involved, among other things, with Agricore United. Of the three of us, he is probably the best expert at technical issues.
The assistant chief commissioner's background, other than being a producer himself, which is very important, is in producer organizations. He was the president of the Grain Growers of Canada and has been involved with B.C. producer organizations, so he brings that perspective to our management team.
My background is in many leadership and management positions and in communication. I've got business experience plus experience as an elected person. Those of you sitting around the table would know the skills required in that regard.
The three of us, by the way, work very well together. Based on my almost two months of experience now, I'd say we work well together. We're a good team. We have some common background and skills and we have some diversity. That makes us a strong team. I don't know if there was an architect behind all this, but I'm quite excited about the commissioners who are in place and the backgrounds, skills, and history that we bring to the table.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witness for coming here today.
Mr. Hermanson, after reading your resumé and hearing some of the questioning around the table, there's no doubt in my mind about your qualifications. The only argument that somebody would give, and certainly not a valid one, is anything based on partisanship. I think that argument will go on forever. When somebody gets a role such as what you have ahead of you here, that argument will always come from the opposition people, if they think so. So that's irrelevant in the whole thing.
The fact that you have some political experience and the fact that you have been involved in agriculture actually hits home very closely. I married my good wife in 1975 and started farming full time, albeit with my father, for a number of years. So I can relate to that, and I've been through a lot of the same experiences.
In your role here, Mr. Hermanson, one of the things I'd like to hear you talk about is that things have changed and are changing still, as we speak, in the grain industry, and through the ethanol and biofuels industry, and through some of the recent trade agreements that have been reached by this government and some that are still being negotiated, which definitely are going to benefit agriculture as much or more than any other sector of Canadian business. I'd like to hear your ideas on how you're going to use your position here and direct the grain industry to deal with those.
I think another one that's really positive is that Canadian farmers, especially western farmers, have made it quite clear how happy they are to be able to have a choice in barley sales. There could possibly be a large increase in barley acreage across the country.
So I'd like to hear you speak a bit about those three things, the challenges and how your role will help direct them and help the industry come out of it in the best shape at the end.
:
Thank you for the question.
First of all, the agriculture sector is a large one, and the Canadian Grain Commission deals with the grains component of that sector. Whatever we do has to be within the mandate of the Canada Grain Act, either the current one or future acts as determined by Parliament. So anything I do, anything the commissioners do, anything the Grain Commission does has to be under the auspices of the Canada Grain Act. I want to make that very clear.
That said, under the Canada Grain Act as it currently exists and as it would exist under Bill , we are a player in the registering of new varieties to meet the challenges of current and future market opportunities. You mentioned biofuels. There are also feed grains, agronomic principles, and disease resistance. The work we do at the Canada Grain Commission equips producers or gives producers the seed, if I can be really blunt, to help them prosper in the agriculture economy that they are in and will face into the future.
I consider that role to be very important. Anything to do with food I think is incredibly important, because food is such a critical ingredient that, as Canadians, we take much too much for granted. The Canadian Grain Commission is one of the factors that ensure quality of food. The CFIA is another, and Health Canada is another. But we have our niche; we have our role to play in ensuring the safety of grains. All this is for the benefit of producers.
There is a change in agriculture. Back when I started farming, which I guess was about the same time as you did, sir, they were still coopering boxcars. Now we're moving to IP, where a lot of our grain is moving through containers, which provides some challenges for the Grain Commission. Under the existing act, we're set up to handle carloads of grain, and not so much containers.
So these are challenges of the future that the Grain Commission has to stay on top of, and we have to function within the Canada Grain Act to serve producers, serve the grain industry, and serve Canadians in such a way that this industry prospers and that the farm sector is a healthy one.
:
That's one of our major concerns. I think you can see that from the questioning from the opposition.
The history of this government has been to basically undermine the independent authorities of regulatory bodies, the Canadian Wheat Board being one. They didn't like the CEO challenging them and speaking for the board, as was his responsibility, and they fired him. It was the same with the nuclear regulator--the Canadian nuclear safety commissioner. She was fired for having done her job under the legislation.
My concern is not necessarily on your qualifications, but where you will take your direction from. Will you have the independence to stand up to the minister when concerns arise? You did mention the other two commissioners, the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, and I know both of those folks as well. But I also know, like you, that they've long been advocates against the Canadian Wheat Board. Their views very much parallel the minister's.
I'm concerned about the weakening role of the Canadian Grain Commission. I laid it out on the table in the beginning. I do think it was an error, and I was hoping you would say it was an error, in terms of your strong promotion of Bill
In any event, you did say to Mr. Lauzon that there were many farmers who expressed support for Bill C-39. In your role as chief commissioner, have you had any concerns expressed on the opposite side--very strong concerns--about Bill C-39 and where it might go?
I don't know whether that's in order or not, Mr. Chairman.
:
I want to get directly to your question about my role.
I have committed to uphold two values. One is that public servants will give honest and impartial advice and make all information that is relevant to a decision available to a minister. That is one of my roles as a deputy head, and I intend to give honest and impartial advice.
The second is that I will loyally implement ministerial decisions lawfully taken. That also is part of the code. And that applies to my role as the chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission, but only as it pertains to the Canadian Grain Commission.
When it comes to the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board, that is not an issue we deal with, other than, as I mentioned, that the Wheat Board is a client of the Grain Commission, and we would deal with that client in the same way as we would deal with all other clients of the commission.
We don't involve ourselves in the Wheat Board issue. I understand that is an issue. Of course, from my past life, I know that's an issue. But in my role as the chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission, we deal with Grain Commission issues and those alone.
As a final point, I would reiterate that the commission plays a role as a quasi-judicial body totally independent of the minister. I understand that role. At no time has there been any indication from the minister or from the government that the relationship or that role would change.
:
I had actually hoped we would talk more about that. It has come up several times, but then we've never actually gotten to the point where I could talk about my qualifications. And the clock is ticking here.
I would just say that I've had many leadership roles in the private sector, in the non-profit sector, and in the public sector. And I have a very good success rate in all three of those areas.
I guess the most successful I've been, particularly as it relates to agriculture, is that in the province of Saskatchewan an overwhelming number of people from the agriculture sector--from rural Saskatchewan, from farm communities--wanted me to be in charge of the province and be in charge of a $6-billion-plus budget that affected not only agriculture, but health care, education, the environment, justice, municipal politics, and federal-provincial relations. And they overwhelmingly asked me to take on that responsibility. That, to me, was the highest honour that could ever be bestowed upon an individual.
Somebody complained about my resumé being too short. I could have stretched it out longer if I had wanted to. I don't even know what version you have. It could be the one that's on the website, for all I know. I think I have a public record that speaks loudly enough for me. I don't feel particularly comfortable going around blowing my own horn.
Mr. Hermanson, I have hundreds and maybe thousands of farmers in my riding, as you probably know. All of these people on certainly this side of the House have lots of farmers in their ridings. On their behalf, I do apologize for the comments that were made. These are multi-million dollar operations. When it comes to running a farm today, I have so much respect for farmers. Theirs is a much more complicated business than the average small business throughout the country.
So I just wanted to clear that up. That's certainly not the way I feel, and I probably speak for every farmer in the country.
The other thing I want to say is that I actually respect the fact that you graduated from the Full Gospel Bible Institute. I think that education is.... I'm sure that is a good school, and I compliment you for that.
Getting back to the role of a public servant, after 23 years of being a public servant, it seems to me you would understand the role of a public servant. Maybe you could expound on that. You were talking about the responsibility of the people who work for you and about your responsibility. I'd like you to reiterate that for the committee, please.
:
First of all, thank you for your very warm comments.
With regard to my college education, one input I got from that experience was that I was taught it was important to be a good citizen. That was one of the most valuable components I received from that education, that it's important to serve, and I have tried. As I say, I don't want to blow my own horn, so I won't go beyond that, but that training helped me in my public service.
Perhaps my more practical, hands-on involvement with understanding public service came from the four years I chaired the public accounts committee in Saskatchewan. That may not be shown on my resumé. At times on a weekly basis I would have deputy ministers and key officials from departments come before our committee. They would explain the work of their department. They would deal with the problems as pointed out by the provincial auditor in Saskatchewan. We would make recommendations. They would report on how they had been able to comply with those recommendations.
It was almost like being at the highest level of academic training in a very practical sense. I would see departments that were run well by public servants, where the opposition was hard pressed to find fault with them. I was part of the opposition chairing that committee. I would find other departments that had recurring or habitual problems. They had problems with senior management, problems with their employees.
So I was able to draw some conclusions as to what made a good public servant and where problems and potential pitfalls lay. I saw that over a four-year period.
Maybe I'm preaching to the converted here, but if anyone ever gets a chance to serve on a public accounts committee, by all means take it. Some people think it's boring, but I think it's fascinating. You understand the public service, you understand what public service is, and you see what's good and what can be improved upon. I also had the benefit of hearing from the provincial auditor, an unbiased third party who provided me with invaluable lessons and training.
Mr. Hermanson, the least one could say is that you are luckier than Adrian Measner and Linda Keen. Do you think these people would have lost their job if they had done what you did?
You were barely appointed when you staked a position by writing this open letter on Bill published in The Western Producer. All the colleagues around the table here have mentioned this op-ed piece of February 7. You were appointed on January 21.
Personally, I religiously read The Western Producer just as I read La Terre de chez nous, because I want to also know what is happening out West. When I read this piece, my feeling was that a senior official who had just been appointed, you were carrying the minister's and the government's message and that this was pure partisanship since Parliament has not even finished considering this bill. You must have known that it is controversial. A memo was even sent to employees to tell them that they had no right to speak about it if their comments were critical of the government. You will not admit that this is a gag order, but I call this censorship. People only have a right to speak if they will not criticize. You knew then that the bill was attracting criticism and that it was in the government pipeline, but you nevertheless went ahead with this open letter saying that you support Bill C-39 as is. In my view, this was a partisan comment.
You did what Mr. Measner and Ms. Keen refused to do. They lost their job and you kept yours.
:
If the chairman will indulge me, let me give you an illustration. I hope this is a relevant illustration, and if it isn't, I apologize.
If I purchase an automobile in one province and want to move it to another province, it has to undergo an inspection, as a rule, to ensure that it's safe. But if I move that vehicle from one point to another point within the same province, I am not required to have an inspection done on that vehicle. What we were finding increasingly in the grain industry is that we were inspecting grain that, for lack of better terminology, was staying within the same jurisdiction. It was a cost that most people—maybe not 100%, but most stakeholders—would agree was not a necessary cost. Does it mean that in the case of your vehicle, if you thought there was a problem with it, you wouldn't have it inspected, if it were your choice, and that you wouldn't incur that cost if you felt it was required?
Does that help you to understand why the commission and, I think, stakeholders feel that some of the mandatory costs, as they occur under the current Canada Grain Act, need to be made optional and to be determined by those within the same jurisdiction? To me, that illustration made sense.
This doesn't mean that the inspections can't take place. Under the new act, those inspections can take place; they just won't be done by the Canadian Grain Commission. Those who inspect the grain would have to be approved by the Canadian Grain Commission. It doesn't mean that the Canadian Grain Commission can't monitor the quality of grain that moves; we still have the ability to monitor, to ensure that the quality is there and that registered varieties are involved. We have all of the powers that producers need to ensure that the grain quality assurance is there.
It's on that basis that we put this as the priority ahead of what you said were 200 job losses—though we don't know exactly how many there will be. It's not that we're happy about the jobs; but again, our primary responsibility is to work on behalf of producers in the grain industry and to the benefit of Canada. That's what we're trying to do.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of course I'm certainly not going to support this motion. In hearing the testimony, reading the resumé, which is an excellent resume, and learning something that I found out through the meeting, which was re-endorsed by my colleagues here, Mr. Atamanenko and Mr. Easter, about Mr. Hermanson's integrity, if I'd had a chance for one more question, it was going to be along the lines of what I really heard here today, which as I said was reinforced by two of our members across the way, about that integrity and basically Mr. Hermanson's honesty and shoot-from-the-hip style. I try to be that way--well, I don't know whether I try to be, I am that way--and what I find is that people who have a tendency to do that speak from the heart. They speak the truth. If I'd had one question, it would have been whether the thought ever crossed Mr. Hermanson's mind to change his mind when he saw the recommendation from management, when he first took over his position, when he thought about the political side--and to just take away any possible political heat, if I could use the term, that he's taking here and that I think is unjustified.
I know I can't put words in his mouth, but I think his answer would have been, absolutely not. That's the kind of guy we need here--a guy, person, lady, and what have you. I think it's very credible.
I think this motion smacks and stinks of pure partisanship, and it's unfortunate. This should be about qualifications. Everything right up to and including integrity has been endorsed here about the man's ability. It should be a non-issue.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If you'll just stay with me, I beg the committee's deference for just a minute.
First of all, I do not believe that the opposition members, in particular Mr. Easter and Mr. Atamanenko, can actually endorse this. Unfortunately, there was much conversation about whether or not a farmer is qualified. I think Mr. Boshcoff has set the record straight that he believes farmers are competent and qualified to hold this position, and he's nodding his head yes.
I can quote Mr. Easter himself. He said he did not doubt your qualifications or competence.
If I can have the committee turn to page 877 of Marleau and Montpetit,
A committee has no power to revoke an appointment or nomination and may only report that they have examined the appointee or nominee and give their judgement as to whether the candidate has the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
This motion, if we report it back to the House, has to be along those lines. We have to be speaking directly to the candidate's qualifications or competence. It is on the blues that several members of the opposition agreed to his qualifications and competence.
So I don't see how this motion can go forward.
Thank you.
:
I don't have it in front of me, but my amendment would be “as he failed to respond to the concerns of the committee with respect to demonstrating the qualifications necessary to fulfil the requirements expected of the position of chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission”.
That's along the lines of Bruce Johnson's motion.
I would move that amendment. If Brian wants to argue competence, if competence goes to the issue of being independent of the government, that's my concern. We've seen the op-ed piece, which is promoting legislation that is not yet the law and does in fact sway public opinion along the lines that the minister wants it swayed.
The history of this government, the record of this government, is absolutely clear: anybody who stands up to the Prime Minister is fired. What we need in these positions, as chief commissioner of the Grain Commission, or head of Canada's nuclear regulatory authority, or head of the Canadian Wheat Board, is people who are going to be strongly independent of the government. The article that appeared in several western papers leads me to believe this chief commissioner would be more of a spokesman for the government than an independent regulator administering the Canada Grain Act, so that's where I'm coming down on it.
If the record of the government weren't so bad, that it just puts people in place who speak its line, then we could look at it differently. But the record is terrible, so we have no choice but to oppose this appointment.
:
Mr. Chair, I sit here with great disappointment in my colleagues.
As a person from the province of Saskatchewan, I have known Mr. Hermanson over the years. I have known his personal service to his province, to the people of Saskatchewan, to the agricultural community. I know what he did while he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, and the partisanship I see going on today almost breaks my heart.
I think that being involved in political life doesn't mean that you cannot uphold your pledge when you take a position. When I retire from this place, I hope that just because I served the people of my province, and those people put me in and gave me the privilege of serving here, I will not be taken to task by a group of people saying I'm not qualified to hold this position.
I'm very pleased that Mr. Hermanson applied for the position and received the position that he did receive. He's very well respected in our province. And it gives me great disappointment, because over the years, sitting across from Mr. Easter, Mr. Boshcoff, and Mr. St. Amand when they were in the government of this country, I saw people appointed who I maybe would have called at that time political appointments.
I find this a really partisan position. I really think Mr. Hermanson is a very credible appointment and I believe we should be supporting him totally.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
's comments have really, I think, gotten to the root of what we're talking about here.
I'd like to go back to s comment. I respect Alex as much as anyone on this committee. I think he's a genuine individual; too. But the only way that Mr. Hermanson can be a victim of circumstance here is if we make it that way, “we” being this committee. And I believe we're on the way to that if this motion passes.
Something that Mrs. Skelton said really made me think. A few months back, when the Prime Minister appointed John Manley to prepare and study the issue of Afghanistan and come back with a report, my first thought on it was, “Wow, will he stay non-partisan?” It was just a passing thought. A number of my constituents said the same thing to me. But at the end of the day, I told my constituents, “Look, Mr. Manley was a well-respected MP when he was in Ottawa, to my knowledge, and we have to give somebody with that kind of qualifications the chance to do the job.”
At the end of the day, the fellow came back with a report that I believe was honest. It was not, in any way or shape, partisan or what have you.
The same thing applies here. It's about qualifications. We've had some members across the way talk about his ability. just re-endorsed that. Mr. Hermanson's experience as a farmer is definitely an asset. His experience as a politician is definitely an asset. He knows how the system works. His integrity has been endorsed more than once. This is a non-issue--except partisanship, if we allow it to be there.
As said, if the fact of being a member of Parliament would disqualify, for instance, , after his days are done here, from having some kind of agricultural appointment, I think that would be a dang shame--as it would be for me, or you, Mr. Chairman, or anyone else. If the qualifications are there, that's what we should be looking at.
So I would just ask everybody here to really look at this honestly and leave the partisanship aside. The man is qualified. I fully endorse his appointment to this position, and I think history will prove that this is a great appointment.
I think I should leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.
:
The reason was that Adrian Meisner stood up to the minister on behalf of his board of directors, who were elected by producers, and the Prime Minister didn't like it, and he was fired.
Ms. Keen did her job for the same reason, and the Prime Minister didn't like her standing by the laws of the land, so she was fired.
In this case Mr. Hermanson in his remarks basically said, “The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service also clearly states that public servants must loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.” Well, the article on was not the law. The law is what I showed you earlier in that big binder, the Canadian Grain Commission Act. That's the law. This is a proposed law. There are lots of concerns. We're hearing from the agriculture union and concerns from producers over many areas in or the Canadian Grain Commission changes.
Mr. Hermanson said, and I quote in the article, “As chief commissioner of the CGC, I strongly support this legislation and reiterate this organization's commitment to providing producers with value.” Well, that is basically, in my view, the minister's voice. I don't want to hear the minister's voice. I want to hear independent opinion from the Canadian Grain Commission based on their mandate.
When we call the chief commissioner before this committee in his capacity when we're reviewing , I expect him to answer with a position of independence. Some of it will agree with the minister; some of it will disagree. But to make a blanket statement, “I strongly support this legislation”, very shortly after it came out, when there are so many concerns by producers out there, shows me there isn't the independence from the government that's necessary for this position.