[Translation]
Motion No. 2 is identical to a motion proposed and rejected in committee. Consequently, and pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), it will not be selected.
Motion No. 35 cannot be submitted to the House, because it has not received the governor general's recommendation. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such a recommendation be given no later than the sitting day before the day on which the report stage is to commence.
[English]
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 1, 13, 22 and 23. Group No. 4, Motion No. 5. Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 12 and 21.
[Translation]
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 14 to 18, and Motion No. 36.
[English]
Group No. 7, Motions Nos. 19 and 20. Group No. 8, Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26.
[Translation]
Group No. 9, Motions Nos. 27 to 30.
Group No. 10, Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 33.
[English]
Group No. 11, Motion No. 34.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting. I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 13, 22 and 23 to the House.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-60, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 1 the following:
``AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada promises to respect the legislative authority of the provinces;''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-60, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 4 the following:
``(4.1) Notwithstanding subsection (4), where the Minister proposes to establish any policy or standard under that subsection, the Minister shall consult each province before establishing that policy or standard with a view to obtaining the agreement of the provinces to the proposed policy or standard.
(4.2) Where, after being consulted under subsection (4.1), a province advises the Minister that it disagrees with the proposed policy or standard and the Minister then establishes that policy or standard, the policy or standard shall not be applicable to the province where the province also advises the Minister that it does not wish that policy or standard to apply to the province.''
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-60, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 30 on page 6 with the following:
``20. The Minister may enter''
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 6 the following new Clause:
``20.1 No agreement entered into by the Minister under section 20 shall infringe upon any power that the province may exercise over the inspection of food or a related matter pursuant to section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.''
In any event, for further clarification, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to amend the motion or to move a motion that would indicate ``televised hearings''. Therefore, I move:
That, as part of its study of new technologies and privacy rights, six members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Fredericton during the week of February 10 to 14, 1997, for the purpose of holding televised hearings, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent that the House consider the motion at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not unanimous consent. Or did the no mean yes and it is agreed that we can consider the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since you have done such a nice job of reading the amendments, which we introduced this morning with the help of my colleague, the member for Lotbinière, and since you have grouped the motions, including Motions No. 1, 13, 22 and 23, in Group 3, you will note that they refer essentially to the federal government's intention of interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Naturally, we must condemn this vigorously throughout this 35th Parliament, since this government takes advantage of its vast spending authority to blunder into areas of jurisdiction that, in many cases, are strictly the preserve of the provinces.
I am pleased to lead off the debate at report stage of Bill C-60. Through this legislative measure, the federal government is getting ready to create the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The basic responsibility of this new parapublic agency will be to set standards for the safety, quality and manufacture of Canadian food products, as well as to develop minimum standards for imported products. This is obviously a very weighty responsibility for the government, and I am not in any way questioning the good intentions of the departments involved or their concern for public health.
(1130)
However, I would like to remind the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the cabinet generally that their policies are hardly original.
I would point out that Quebec has had unified food inspection services for close to 20 years, yes, a 20-year head start on Canada. The federal government has wasted 20 years meddling in provincial jurisdictions in an attempt to get a glimpse of what they were up to so that it could then turn around and adopt the same strategies.
In terms of results, it would be hard to think of a worse approach, but then this is typical of this country: going over old ground, rewriting existing legislation, and changing the commas in order to be able to call it something new. Finally, let us return to the initial point of my speech, instead of launching into a stinging criticism of the state of this over-bureaucratized country.
As I was saying before, the purpose of Bill C-60 is to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Although this agency comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, it will consolidate the inspection services of two other major departments: Health and Fisheries. This leads me to believe that the federal government has studied the Quebec model thoroughly, for the bill provides for essentially the same bodies as in the Quebec government's system.
But the worst is yet to come. In its bill, the government calls for the agency, once created, to take precedence over all other food inspection systems. I find this federal attitude more than a little insolent.
I would like to draw the attention of the minister and his cabinet colleagues to a concept that is very simple, but ever so hard for the federalists to grasp: interference. This is a gift possessed by certain categories of people, particularly those elected members who belong to a federalist party, to duplicate, and even to deny the existence of, Quebec's distinctiveness in administrative and other matters.
Parliamentary rules prevent me from naming these individuals who are such past masters of the art of denying Quebec its fundamental right to affirm its identity and its distinctiveness. I cannot name names, but I can assure you that there are so many of them in this House, that they take up more than one side of it.
We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that the government is showing its arrogance toward Quebec and the other provinces by attempting, in the preamble of this bill, to assume a certain legitimate right over provincial activities.
In this connection, our amendment is aimed at limiting the impact of such an element, which would have the effect of dismissing all of Quebec's demands in one fell swoop. For decades, the provinces, Quebec in particular, have been objecting to the federal government's attempts to restrict some of the provinces' vested powers, and even to grab up those powers, without any consideration of the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction in these spheres of activity.
The federal government is increasingly moving to centralize powers, while continuing to claim that it is doing the contrary, in order to downplay its illegitimate actions. Such cavalier interference into areas of provincial jurisdiction cannot help but slow down the constructive discourse that could be initiated between the provinces and the federal government. The Liberal Party, with its eye on the next election, is in the process of undermining the credibility of the agency in question. According to Liberal logic, the agency could control all food inspection services in the country by developing national standards. To us this is unacceptable, because it considerably restricts the ability of the provinces to establish and administer their own set of standards.
(1135)
The provinces would otherwise be free to decide whether or not they wished to go along with certain food safety standards that are more a matter of local custom than public health. Perhaps I may recall what happened last spring, when the Bloc Quebecois protested against the decision of the Minister of Health to prohibit and indeed ban consumption of raw milk cheese.
You will recall that Quebec is by far the biggest consumer of this kind of cheese. In the other provinces where this kind of cheese is eaten, consumers are mostly former Quebecers or people who have been to Quebec and who appreciate this type of cheese. This is one example of eating habits in Quebec that are different from those in other parts of Canada.
At the Department of Health, people were thinking about all this, and probably because they had nothing else to do and had to justify their pay cheque, they said: ``From now on, no more raw milk cheese will be imported or manufactured; cheese will have to be made with pasteurized milk''. Of course there was a howl of protest from the official opposition, supported by consumers. I remember that someone put a question about this to the Minister of Labour, whose roots are Italian. I cannot refer to him by name, but he is a fellow citizen, formerly from Italy. When he saw he would no longer be able to get his favourite cheese, he said: ``Oh dear, I will have to talk about this to my minister, because she is making a serious mistake''. See, that is a good example.
In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, they make a kind of tourtière called cipâte, made with partridge and hare. It is a local specialty. Tomorrow morning, an inspector with the new agency might say: ``Cipâte is no good; it might be dangerous to the health of the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. So there will be a nation-wide ban on making tourtières with hare and partridge''.
I realize you are going to say I am exaggerating. Eighteen months ago, who would have thought that a few senior officials at the Department of health would consider banning the consumption of the best cheese in Canada? But it happened.
Without the media coverage, the government would never have backed down under pressure from the Bloc Quebecois. Not that the Bloc was incapable of doing a good job as the official opposition, but because the government, although this is a constitutional monarchy, often behaves like an autocratic and totalitarian government. It prefers to ignore the public interest and support the interests of the major lobby groups, while maintaining an illusion of power based on order and the public good.
In concluding, Bill C-60 is an important bill that will affect three departments. We in the Bloc Quebecois found a number of weak points in Bill C-60.
(1140)
We intend to introduce more than 35 amendments in the course of the day, and my colleagues and I will do everything we can to try and make the Liberal majority think twice. I know that several people on the government benches think our amendments are very constructive and could improve the bill considerably. The purpose of the first group of amendments is simply to prevent the federal government from infringing on provincial jurisdictions.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are at the report stage of Bill C-60. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois has proposed a large number of amendments.
This bill went to committee prior to second reading, and the purpose of a bill's going to a standing committee of the House of Commons before coming to this House for approval in principle is to allow the committee more opportunity to make amendments and reshape the bill in the most effective and useful manner after hearing witnesses and government officials give reason for the bill and what should be in it and what should be changed from the initial bill tabled.
Reform tried to use this opportunity to introduce several amendments at committee stage. In fact, 25 Reform amendments were proposed in committee during the clause by clause consideration of the bill after we had heard from a number of witnesses.
Because we have introduced our amendments at committee stage we of course are unable to reintroduce the same amendments at report stage. Therefore we have not introduced amendments at this point because we sensed a wall of resistance by the government to any proposals we would make.
The rationale behind the majority of our amendments to this bill was simply to make the new single food inspection agency more accountable to Parliament. I have noticed that some of the amendments proposed by my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois move in that same direction, but often in a slightly different vein than those amendments we proposed. Even in committee my colleagues from the Bloc and Reformers often voted together on issues where we could make the food inspection agency more accountable to the Parliament of Canada and not just leave it as an option that the committee at the wishes of the government could look into the effectiveness of this new agency, but in fact that it must review the effectiveness of the agency and that the agency must be more accountable to this institution.
Over the years Parliament has less knowledge and less control over what is happening in the vast bureaucracy, the new agencies that have been constructed by governments. We feel that the trend needs to be reversed.
While the government members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food could at any time review anything, we all know that because the committee has a majority of government members, the committee need not review anything if the government does not wish it to.
We are trying to reverse that trend so that government will be seen to be more accountable and will indeed be more accountable.
The new food inspection agency begins its operation under this legislation in 1997. It will become one of Ottawa's largest bureaucratic entities, with 4,500 employees and a budget of $300 million. We are not talking small potatoes here at all.
Federal officials contend that ending interdepartmental overlap and duplication in such areas as enforcement, risk management, laboratory services, informatic systems and communications will save taxpayers $44 million annually starting in 1998-99. But surprisingly, no detailed breakdown is available to back up this estimate.
When we ask questions about where exactly is the $44 million going to be saved, departmental officials did not know where that was. They really had not arrived at that stage yet. It was just a figure they seemed to have pulled out of the air and expected the savings to be realized.
(1145)
We are very concerned about this new federal food inspection agency not because we think it is a bad idea but because we see examples of previous experiments along this line and what has happened. The most obvious one is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which was created to be accountable and responsible to the department of agriculture. However, it has run amok and has no confidence by and from the industry. This was revealed the other day in our committee when several people from the industry appeared on the issue of cost recovery. The prime example they put forward as an illustration of the failures of cost recovery was the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which was designed very much along the same lines as this agency.
Therefore, members will understand why we are concerned that this agency be held more accountable to Parliament and to the committee that reviews the effectiveness and the work of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As I said, 25 Reform amendments were put forward in committee and only two were accepted, one being a clarification of which minister was responsible for the federal good inspection agency. There was some concern because the minister of agriculture was not put in the original document and in fact the government may be intending to do away with the department of agriculture. Therefore we insisted that amendment be included.
The other amendment that was accepted was in the preface of the document. It merely indicated that part of the mission statement of this new agency was to be cost effective. I am very pleased that was put in the preface of the legislation. Unfortunately, when we tried to give it some teeth by putting forward amendments in the actual clauses of the bill that would ensure its cost effectiveness, the government put up a wall of resistance and refused to accept every and any amendment we put forward.
We think that actually more than $44 million could be saved if the government knew what it was doing and had a responsible plan in place and had actually thought this thing through more than picking a number of $44 million out of the air.
With regard to my amendments put forward by this grouping by the Bloc, Motion No. 1 is an amendment that would require the government to respect the legislative authority of the provinces but it does not deal with much else. This may be considered symbolic but we think it looks like a motion that could be supported because we certainly do recognize that in some areas the provinces do have authority.
With regard to Motions. Nos. 13, 22 and 23, we do have some concerns, particularly on Motion No. 13. While consultation with the provinces is to be applauded and we support it, the fact that each province's approval is required to establish standards does cause us concern that we may see some trade barriers developing between the provinces, above and beyond what we already have, using standards as a way to protect one's own provincial area of the industry at the expense of a neighbouring province. Of course that is not the way to unify the country. We really do have some concerns about Motions Nos. 13 and 22.
Motion No. 23 is another amendment with respect to the jurisdiction of the provinces. We support their jurisdiction but are not sure that this particular jurisdiction needs to be entrenched at this point in the act.
I think I will have more opportunities to speak to this bill as we progress through the various groupings.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that the federal government gives a great deal of consideration to the jurisdiction of the provinces and believes that the jurisdiction of the provinces is the provincial responsibility. We also believe very strongly in the process of consultation with the provinces and with all the stakeholders in the industry. There is no question that is important.
As well, this government has certainly set forward the committee's ability to deal with all issues and all matters that come to its concern that it wishes to further explore. A committee certainly has the ability to deal with issues such as PMRA, provincial-federal agreements and any other issue that comes forward.
(1150 )
There is no way that this government wishes to infringe upon the provincial ability. However, we feel that the amendments which are being put forward at present are really not needed within the bill. This government has and will continue to respect the jurisdictional legislative authority of the provinces. Indeed, clauses 14, 20 and 21 of Bill C-60 significantly enhance the ability of the federal government to collaborate with the provinces while fully respecting the provincial jurisdictions.
With respect to entering into agreements with the provinces, such federal-provincial corporations may be involved with matters of potential financial liability. These arrangements will have to be reviewed by the finance minister.
Clearly, the government will enter into agreements only which explicitly allow provincial agreement by the provinces. In other words, we are not going to enter into an agreement with the province and say the federal side wants this, but the province has no say. An agreement is an agreement; it is an agreement between two parties. As a result, the federal government and the provincial governments will agree before a document is signed.
Furthermore, the Government of Canada will continue to respect the jurisdictional level of all governments. I should note with respect to the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Health that the intent of clause 11(4) is to clarify and not alter the role of the Minister of Health in establishing food safety standards. The current process of establishing food health and safety standards already provides for consultations with stakeholders and includes the provinces.
The federal jurisdiction includes setting food safety standards for all Canadians under the Food and Drugs Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke in this House on the bill establishing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, I spoke of reducing costly overlap and advocated harmonizing and simplifying standards so as to reduce the burden of regulatory requirements and promote competition in business.
I concluded my argument by saying that the focus had to be on co-operation between partners and respect for legislative jurisdictions. I even invited my colleagues to reread sections 91 to 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which apparently they did not do.
The Province of Quebec combined its food inspection activities in 1978. Now it is the federal government's turn, and it is proposing the same thing. It wants to harmonize. That is all very well, but there is no need to upset the established order. The rules must be obeyed.
I want to direct your attention to the lack of compliance with the Constitution and the lack of respect for our partners, the provinces and the employees. The present government finally decided, in 1996, to standardize food inspection.
In his latest budget, the Minister of Finance announced his financial game plan for this new agency. I would remind you that that was on March 6. Here we are, a few days away from
Christmas, and the federal government is pushing members of Parliament to pass their bill.
And I mean their bill, because there was no serious consultation. Although the briefs submitted to the Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture contained some very sound remarks, they remained on the shelf like dead ducks, in my opinion. The government apparently did not take them into consideration, because it continues to propose the same bill at the various stages of the process, with very few amendments.
(1155)
In my first speech, I denounced the fact that, as presented by the government, this agency might become a real patronage haven, and this is an understatement. The Liberals want to use the new Canadian Food Inspection Agency to reward their friends. At first, it will have only a few members like the president and board members. But two years later, the agency having moved and the employees having lost their permanent status, new appointments will be made. Who knows what the future holds. There might be a few Liberal candidates here and there who will have bitten the dust in the election.
Subtlety is not our Liberal friends' strong suit. It is obvious that, through this bill and clause 5, the minister is trying to give himself the power to appoint the president and the executive vice-president. The odds are he will probably designate a friend or an old classmate, as is so often the case.
Then, under clause 10, the minister wants to appoint an advisory board of 12 members. Have you ever seen a cowboy movie with only one bandit? There is always a gang, is there not?
Also, the minister will choose individuals who share his vision. Like-minded people do business together, belong to the same party, help one another. Unfortunately, the Liberal fraternity is still very well represented in this House.
Worse yet, under section 22, the minister will approve the agency's corporate or five-year business plan. Can we let that happen? It is understandable, under the circumstances, that the minister wants to retain a degree of flexibility just in case. If that is not remote control, it certainly is acute interference. The government is trying to control the agency and turn it into a club for its friends.
Under clause 11(4), the Chrétien government, through its health minister, will be able to establish policies and standards relating to the safety and nutritional quality of food. That is exclusively the prerogative of the provinces. As in the case of raw milk cheese, the government is interfering in something that does not concern it.
All this is far from reassuring in terms of our government's transparency. Some will say there is nothing new under the sun, and they will be partly right, as far as this government is concerned. As you know, I am a straight talker and I like to see people get their due.
I often say that we have to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. However, in the case before us today, Quebec could end up indirectly subsidizing the inspection services of other provinces, under clauses 20 and 21, which provide for the establishment of federal-provincial corporations. There is a real possibility that Quebec could end up paying for this. Looking at how the federal government deals with the other provinces-and I am thinking of the GST harmonization process-you realize that ``la belle province'' is heavily penalized.
The Bloc proposed many reasonable amendments, to make sure the agency is immune to discrimination and patronage, so it cannot be misused by the Liberal government. But the Liberals refuse to make the necessary changes, because these changes would adversely affect their plans. The fact is that the agency will become a real haven of patronage.
The Liberals are in a bit of a hurry to pass certain bills before Christmas. This is not good.
There is something suspicious. Given what the Liberals are trying to do with this legislation, nothing should surprise us any more. It is easy to figure out that the Liberal government is trying to score political points, to win votes, with this bill. An election will be called in the spring. That is why the government is in such a hurry.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have proposed amendments designed to protect our fellow citizens. We want transparency. We believe the House of Commons committee should monitor or be otherwise involved in the process.
The bill, as presented by the Liberals, is a step backward, not forward.
(1200)
This government did nothing to promote debate. I am talking about a meaningful public debate on the quality of Canadian and imported foods.
What type and level of services are we going to provide in order to protect our fellow citizens? Would you believe the government restricted consultations with the producers, provinces and unions concerned. Members of this House are the only ones left to block this legislation. Any hope for transparency in the establishment of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency now depends on the will of the members of this House to vote according to their conscience and for what is reasonable.
I am thinking of the bill to create this agency, because it is necessary and it is important. But it should be amended to eliminate the possibility of patronage appointments.
Furthermore, are they afraid to hold a serious debate on the quality of our services? One could think so, given the fleetingness of the consultation. There was no consultation, because the Liberals are in a hurry to ram their bills through.
In conclusion, the government is locating the agency in the National Capital Region, but for how long? Here again, we must be vigilant, for they could be tempted to move the head office around, depending on where they want to score political points. That is their long term escape plan. This will be a blow to many honest employees in the National Capital Region. Their rights will be disregarded.
The Liberals are masters of patronage and political intrigue. In all sincerity, I must oppose the government's Bill C-60. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
In addition, I urge Liberal members to vote freely and join us in rejecting this bill. In the past, a member of this House stated, not without attracting attention, that patronage was a political fact of life. I, for one, say that we must stand up and condemn this manner of operating. If bills leave the way open to patronage, they should be rejected.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-60, the legislation which will put in place the federal food inspection agency. I will be making presentations as we go through these groups of motions but I will only speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 13 from group 3.
First, I support the amendment in group 1. It could be considered to be a symbolic amendment which asks the federal government to respect the legislative authority of the provinces with regard to this legislation. It is important, it is not strictly symbolic and it deserves to be supported.
This amendment deals with process. I would like to quote from a brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, probably Canada's largest organization representing farmers across the country. The brief was given to the committee dealing with Bill C-60. I will read a couple of paragraphs from it. I think it should be entered in Hansard. I support most of what is presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in these two paragraphs.
It talks about the process although in part the process that has led up to this legislation being where it is right now.
(1205 )
``The intention to streamline efforts to save costs and create a more efficient system is one which CFA has supported from the outset. The consultation process concerning the structure of the new streamlined entity was good as far as it went.
``One of the major failings from an industry point of view, even now as the legislation works its way through Parliament, is a real business plan with costs and realistic revenue projections that can be shared with those who are effectively the shareholders. As cost recovery systems become part of business life, government must realize that, as in any other business, those who pay call the tune. When industry is forced to pay user fees it considers itself not just a stakeholder, but a shareholder''.
I have just one more paragraph from the brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the agriculture committee.
``From this point of view, it is somewhat difficult to comment on the legislation Bill C-60. As are most other pieces of new legislation, it is enabling legislation. Most of the detail will be in the regulations which we do not have to review. We also do not have a clear understanding of the financing of the agency. Statements such as: `There will be no new cost recovery fees for the first year of operation, April 1997 to March 31, 1998', when the industry knows that a new battery of fees will be imposed on April 1, 1997, create at best a level of scepticism, at worst, a level of distrust. The fact that the legislation creates a single stand alone food inspection agency with no clear accountability to shareholders gives us pause. What are we being asked to comment on?''
The closing question is what are they being asked to comment on? That is so true. With this legislation, as with so much other legislation that is presented to the House, it has a very broad scope, without enough detail, not enough clear guidance and restriction. It implements an institution and a policy which is uncertain at best. That is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is saying. It is also a big concern to me.
The devil is in the details. The regulations will not be debated and passed in the House either at committee or right here on the floor. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is very upset about it and so am I. It has presented its case very well on this new agency. It does not approve of the process.
I support Motion No. 1 dealing with another part of the process, asking for the approval of the provinces in regard to this legislation.
The second motion from this grouping I would like to speak on is Motion No. 13. I oppose this amendment.
The amendment requires the minister to establish policy standards in consultation with the provinces. I approve of that part of the amendment. Of course there should be consultation with the provinces. There should be approval from the provinces. However, the amendment requires the approval of each province.
Of all governments, this government should know how difficult it is to get unanimous consent of the provinces on an issue such as this. To its credit, the government took the initiative to put in place the agreement on internal trade. It is an agreement which required the unanimous consent of the provinces to remove some of the trade barriers between the provinces that have been put in place over the last 130 years.
(1210 )
Unfortunately many sections of the agreement on internal trade are blank because the government could not get the unanimous agreement of the provinces. Even the completed sections are not being honoured. It is almost impossible to do anything about an infringement or failure to honour the agreement because it requires unanimous consent of all provinces. It does not work. This amendment calls for unanimous consent of the provinces but it is highly unlikely that any major change like this would ever pass.
With regard to the agreement on internal trade, I propose-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could the hon. member conclude his remarks in the next few seconds, please?
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I thought I had only spoken for five minutes. I guess our watches are not synchronized.
In closing, since we cannot get unanimous consent in regard to the agreement on internal trade, other Reformers and I have proposed that instead of a requirement for unanimous consent there should be a requirement for the approval of at least two-thirds of the provinces which would include at least 50 per cent of the population, the double majority. This is just an example. I am not saying exactly what should be done here.
I would probably support that kind of formula in this amendment. But it is not there so I do not support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence.
As I have said before in this House, the need for a federal food inspection agency comes from pressure exerted by municipal and provincial governments, the agricultural sector, fisheries and even consumers.
The setting up of a single food inspection authority was therefore awaited anxiously, but not at any price and particularly not under just any conditions.
When Bill C-60 was examined in committee, and in this House, the Bloc Quebecois presented numerous amendments, which we are to debate today. The reason for so doing is simple: the bill, as presented, is deficient in a number of areas. It has, therefore, been necessary to improve it, primarily in order to reassure the agriculture and agri-food sector, and especially to ensure that the federal government respects provincial jurisdiction over food inspections.
I would, therefore, like to explain to my colleagues on the government side the reasons why the amendments presented by the Bloc Quebecois are necessary, useful, unavoidable even, if we do not wish to see the Canadian Food Inspection Agency become another den of patronage and source of conflict between the provinces and agricultural industry representatives.
I will, therefore, explain why it is vital for the government to accept, and vote in favour of, the amendments we are debating today. The situation is as follows: the initial block of amendments address the appointment of future directors of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Bill C-60, as tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, offers no guarantee of the competency and expertise of those who will be selected as president and vice-president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
We believe it is vital for the bill to be amended so as to ensure that the person directing the agency is not selected for his political allegiance to the party in power, but rather for his real abilities in the area of food inspection. These appointments must, of course, take place after the provinces and organizations representing agricultural interests have submitted to the advisory committee the names of candidates for those positions.
(1215)
Since this is about the quality of decision making in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the government can hardly refuse to support amendments in this respect. Common sense and a desire to avoid wasting public funds should be more important than the government's partisan interests. This is a matter of fairness and common sense.
The second group of amendments refers to the powers of the advisory board, which board shall advise the minister of agriculture on the mandate of the agency. The Bloc Quebecois wants to make sure that the minister obtains from the advisory board all the data, opinions and expertise he needs to make informed decisions.
To be able to do so, the board must be given broader powers. That is why we suggest that Bill C-60 give the advisory board the authority to speak out on all matters it deems relevant to food inspection.
The amendments we are proposing will give the advisory board the authority to answer all questions and speak out on all issues submitted to it by the inspection industry, the provinces and the representatives of its employees.
We also want the advisory board to be able to give its opinion on inspection service rates, facilities, products and the rights of the agency. The purpose of these amendments is to let the advisory board take a position on the real issues at stake in food inspection. We do not want a puppet advisory board at the beck and call of the responsible minister.
That having been said, the membership of the advisory board will also have to be changed. The amendment we are proposing would add one representative of the union or unions present in the agency. We think it is necessary to include agency employees in the board's consulting process if we want to keep abreast of what is really happening out there in the food inspection sector.
I believe that the quality of the services offered by the agency will be better protected if the advisory board is given a real mandate that allows it to speak out on the real issues.
The third group of amendments deals with the status of the agency and its employees and the powers of the responsible minister and the auditor general. In my opinion, he should be able to consult all members of the industry he considers representative and the provincial governments before drafting his report. This is not currently the case.
This is why the Bloc is presenting an amendment to require the auditor general to consult these people and organizations so they may express their opinions and recommendations on the agency's operation. The aim is to ensure that provincial governments, the public and the users of the agency's services may comment on ways to improve the services, thus requiring the auditor general to take them into account in his report.
As regards the status of the agency and its staff, we believe it would be dangerous to make the agency a separate employer under the terms of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The intent of our amendment is to avoid describing the agency as a separate employer in order to preserve the vested rights of employees assigned to the agency.
Furthermore, we want to enable those who currently represent unionized employees affected by the agency's creation to continue to negotiate the assignment of jobs and positions within the agency and all matters pertaining to personnel management.
The aim here is to protect the rights of employees to ensure that, after the two year transition period provided in the legislation, they continue to enjoy the benefits of the Public Service Employment Act. Otherwise, the situation would be unacceptable.
Finally, we note that the powers accorded the minister are watered down and at times vague with respect to agreements with the provinces on food inspection. Under our amendment, these agreements would be signed by the minister responsible and the provinces without the need for approval by the governor in council.
(1220)
Our amendment changes the rule so that the minister responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency alone is accountable for decisions involving the agency.
This leads me to my conclusion that the minister of agriculture and his government should not be reluctant to implement the amendments we are debating in this House, because they are based on logic and common sense. I would like to think they will apply good judgement when it comes to time to vote on them.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to rise and address the concerns that I have regarding Bill C-60. I am interested in what the members of the Bloc had to say. I share their concern that the power to investigate and the power to know exactly what is going on is of utmost urgency.
I understand that the stated purpose of this act is to establish the Canadian food inspection agency in order to consolidate and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of federal inspection services related to food, animal and plant health and to increase collaboration with provincial governments in this area.
I am concerned, the same as the Bloc is, that this power deals with food inspection, including risk management. It is very important that we look at risk management and the power again to look and investigate. I would be very interested in knowing exactly what direction we are taking when we speak of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of federal inspection services.
Since they relate to food, animal and plant health, are we talking about food, animal and plant health as we know and recognize it now in its natural part in our society or are we talking about food, animal and plant health that has DNA changes to it? This is not very clear.
If this new act sets out the new agency's framework in terms of responsibilities, accountability and organization, exactly who is the new agency working for? Who is it responsible to? Who is it to be accountable to? I am sure we would all hope it is the people of Canada.
Because of the fast moving changes already occurring in our food chain with plants and animals, should there not be a control factor somewhere in the agency's framework?
When this new Canadian food agency begins operation in 1997, it will become one of Ottawa's largest bureaucratic entities, with 4,500 employees and a budget of $300 million.
Federal officials contend that ending interdepartmental overlap and duplication in such areas as enforcement, risk management,
laboratory services, information systems and communications will save taxpayers $44 million annually starting 1998-99.
Of course we have nothing yet to substantiate these claims but certainly duplication is a problem and anything we can do to cut that down is of benefit to all of us. I am sure most of us are aware of the massive costs at this time to the taxpayer when federal and provincial governments duplicate their services, not to mention the lack of efficiency and effectiveness as a result of this duplicity.
I recently read an article in Reader's Digest written by Premier McKenna of New Brunswick, a Liberal premier, who speaks of the terrible costs in duplication of government services. He speaks of the cost as high as $5 billion a year.
The Reform Party supports downsizing and consolidating the operations of the federal government, but I fear this act will accomplish little except to shuffle names and titles. This act will also continue to decentralize authority for food inspection in the hands of the federal government.
The Reform Party believes the government should acknowledge that since the provinces already provide many of these same inspection services, the emphasis should be on decentralization and encouraging common inspection standards. Along with what the Bloc said, the provinces need to have strong impact on this.
I want to backtrack a bit to the part that I spoke of in relation to federal officials who are responsible for enforcement risk management, laboratory services and information systems and communications because that is very easy and it can be said very quickly but there is a lot in those few words.
I believe we are talking here about looking after our food chain, and certainly that is what the inspection agency's job should be. On whose behalf, again, are all these rules and regulations set up? If it is not for the protection of Canadian citizens, young and old alike, who is it for?
Where is the information and communication with our citizens, the Canadian taxpayer? Who is minding the shop, ladies and gentlemen, and on whose behalf? Two years ago I had to alert citizens in my constituency all about the possibility of rBST injections into dairy cows. They were not notified. There was nothing sent out. There was no communication and no information given. This is very terrifying.
(1225 )
In laboratory services, we have many fine research scientists who, I realize, are very excited by all this new knowledge and the future possibilities. As these new and exciting ideas pour forward, who is asking Canadians if they want these changes? What about enforcement and risk management? What laws are being enforced and where is the risk management control?
I do not believe I am the only member of Parliament who receives weekly correspondence from my constituents who are alarmed by the changes taking place in their food chain, alarmed at the new genetically engineered food. Where is this mentioned at all in the new food inspections bill? Where is the caution?
I now receive books, letters and all sorts of correspondence from all over British Columbia asking me to look at the changes and to consider the apparent lack of caution, as those who would benefit in a monetary manner push ruthlessly ahead to force their will on Canadians.
I recently watched ``Jurassic Park''. I am not a movie goer, but I happened to catch it on TV last week. I did not find it scary in the physical sense but I found it alarming in the research and academic sense. I am not the first person to say this, but the message of the film to me was not can we do it but should we do it.
There are those who would argue that we are overpopulated and that the world at present cannot feed all of its people and that justifies scientists' changing our natural world as we know it. I agree that overpopulation is serious, but surely the answer is not to move full steam ahead in chaos, for indeed none of us knows where this will lead us.
Unfortunately, when we talk of global food production we have to admit there are serious problems. The human population is growing and we are losing 24 billion tonnes of topsoil a year.
Yes, third world countries need food and I fear all this new biotechnology hype is not helping the third world. Rather, those investing are venture capitalists and they need to find investors. How can we expect a starving third world country to come up with the money needed to invest?
What are we doing in the food inspection bill to take a look at what is around the corner? Surely what we do in legislation will reflect what is to come. We should not have to backtrack all the time.
Canada and I imagine the United States as well have a lot of food that is wasted every year. I have been to dumps in the Okanagan where beautiful ripe peaches, ripe tomatoes and ripe vegetables of all types have been thrown out. Why did we not dehydrate them or reprocess them? Surely the food inspection agency could come to grips with some kind of process so that food would not be wasted.
We send money to these third world countries that we do not have. That increases our tax burden. Yet we have food which we do not send. For countries to waste food when there are starving people in the world is not acceptable. To suggest that we must protect our food market so as not to flood the market and cause
lower prices is not an argument. Surely we have enough intelligence nowadays to be able to deal with both major issues.
We now have concerns that there are a number of products which have been changed. Canola is herbicide intolerant. I am not sure whether that means more or less herbicide is needed. We have tomatoes with fish genes in them to make them more tolerant. There are flavour saver tomatoes. I wonder if anyone has ever gone to a plant that has been ripened by the sun and tasted a ripe tomato. I do not think anything can top that. There are pigs with human genes in them. Even our fish are being engineered to grow faster.
What are the negative side effects? In B.C. we have good research scientists. One of them spoke on the weekend and told us that one of the side effects is that this particular engineered fish is a more aggressive feeder. Therefore it is not unlikely that if released into a natural setting it could over eat and cause the demise of our natural salmon. That is not unrealistic to suggest.
We are not using any controls. Food inspection has to deal with all aspects of food.
Every technology, no matter how beneficial, has unexpected costs. Today more than ever before we need researchers and scientists with ethical and moral values. Our research scientists should be free to explore where their curiosity and expertise take them in a controlled environment. However, if they have to be constantly aware of the economic payoff, then our scientists are not free to do their research and pressure is put on them to produce new ideas for those who want to exploit our world, as we know it, which results in the release of these genetically engineered food products on unsuspecting consumers. They are not being labelled. We do not really know what we are purchasing any more.
I have presented two private member's bills which deal with labelling. I hope those bills will be dealt with seriously.
I want to mention that there are occupational hazards related to biotechnology, which include diseases such as cancer, toxicity and product allergies. The main hazards are allergies from recombinant products, diseases, including cancer, and the production of novel disease organisms.
(1230)
What is the concern? The concern is that many of these significant hazards are being ignored by the scientists who are doing research and those reporting on the research that these novel allergies in food products will impact on workers. In fact the escape of these genes on the coats of laboratory workers is occurring each day. Some of them are being taken outside the lab and this matter is not being dealt with.
I will conclude by saying we should look at all the research we have. Let us be very cautious that we do not just choose research that fits our particular purpose at the time and that we worry about all consumers.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, this group of amendments concerns mainly the respect of jurisdictions. The amendments proposed by the member for Frontenac and other BQ members of the standing committee on agriculture who spoke after him stand for a principle very dear to Quebecers, that is the respect of jurisdictions.
Agriculture being a shared jurisdiction, it cannot be denied that the federal government has a say in that area. But it cannot be denied either that the provinces also have a say.
As a member of the standing committee on health, I am very concerned by this issue. Food inspection will be the responsibility of the future agency of the Agriculture Department, but why is food inspected? It is inspected to protect the health of citizens, and certainly not to harm businesses, slaughterhouses or farm producers. The goal of food inspection is to preserve health, probably the most precious gift anyone can have.
I used to be political attaché to the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Crête: The best!
Mr. Dubé: There are some remarks that I cannot make in this House and I do not want to be partisan, but I remember very well that, in 1978, Quebec faced the same problem the federal government is now confronted with, that is the multitude of food inspection agencies.
For example, I will tell you what the situation was in Quebec in 1978. At the federal level, there were at least three departments, Agriculture, Health and Fisheries, and the situation was similar in Quebec. In addition, the Montreal area, Quebec City and a number of other major centres in Quebec had their own food inspection agencies.
Therefore, people dealing with food inspection said: ``We respect the principles and objectives pursued by food inspection agencies, but enough is enough. It is impossible to work, food inspectors are always on our backs and they contradict one another''. There was no consistency.
So, the federal government is now looking for consistency, very late of course, almost 20 years after Quebec. We agree with that objective because, at least, there will be only one federal agency. However, since there is also one agency left in Quebec, there will still be some duplication in respect to slaughterhouses.
I know about it. In my riding, there are slaughterhouses, as there probably are in every riding. These are referred to as type A and type B slaughterhouses. This may not mean anything to the people who are listening and who are not concerned by the issue, but these are the categories. Some categories of meat are approved by the federal government. Others are approved by the provincial govern-
ment. In some cases, this means duplication for the businesses. There is still some duplication left, which is unfortunate.
(1235)
That is why I agree with the member for Frontenac. He is telling us that one cannot stop the federal government from moving forward, because of some rules involving shared jurisdiction in agricultural matters. But please, do respect provincial jurisdiction in this area, as well as in health. Health is even more of a provincial jurisdiction than agriculture.
Personally, I hope there will be agreement between the provinces, even if the agency is federal. That would be simpler for everybody. It is also possible that we, in Quebec, do not want to control what is happening in British Columbia. If that province is more interested in letting the federal government do the whole thing, so be it. Except that, in Quebec, we have a specific culture. People always equate culture with language, but there is much more.
You know that, Madam Speaker. You come from a region that has a specific culture. That can also be true for food, or gastronomy. Now, this bill is suggesting that one agency could do the work efficiently for all the different regional cuisines.
A while ago, there was a reference to the cuisine of the Lac-Saint-Jean region. That is really good cooking. I know, because I have tasted it. Each region has its own specialties. Even the region of Edmundston, your region, Madam Speaker, has its own specialties. You know that people have different customs in different regions.
I do not want to go into distinctions, but we know that French speaking people do not eat the same food as English speaking people, whether they are in New Brunswick, in Quebec or elsewhere. We must recognize that fact.
In this case, who is in the best position to deal with these problems? The closest level of government. I am from Quebec. In my case, the closest level is the Government of Quebec, and all the more so because Quebec has been a leader since 1978 in matters of food inspection. At that time, I worked in the office of the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec, Jean Garon. I can name him since he does not sit in this House. That is to say that I followed this issue closely. Everybody quoted him as an example.
Incidentally, during our consultations, I met old acquaintances from the Quebec department of agriculture. I was told: ``Strangely enough, the federal government is trying to copy us''. So much the better if Quebec can influence and try to improve something that will apply somewhere else. I have nothing against that. But I believe the federal government should take into account the fact that Quebec's mindset, culture, way of life, food, and behaviour are quite distinct.
At least, there is some change, some improvement. Instead of three federal agencies there will be only one. It remains to be seen whether this agency will respect areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I want to commend the member for Frontenac for his hard work on this issue. He brought it up time and time again in caucus, at every meeting, to make us realize how important this debate is. He mentioned it to me yesterday, and again today.
He even told me: ``My dear colleague from Lévis, I know you have some experience in agriculture, even though it is no longer your field''. Finding his exemplary perseverance and tenacity irresistible, I came here to speak in favour of his amendments, to support his views. We will never say it often enough, the member for Frontenac is a staunch supporter of the Quebec farming community. Without sounding like a victim, he has often said that farming was not mentioned enough in speeches in this House. If it were not for the member for Frontenac, the member for Lotbinière, and the member for Champlain, we would not hear much about farmers.
(1240)
If we were to rely on the Liberal Party, the government, to speak about farming in the House, we would never hear about it. Today is a case in point. It is frightening.
Food inspection is a concern not only for farmers, but also for consumers. How is it that no Liberal members of the health and agriculture committees are speaking on this issue? I am not allowed to criticize them for being absent, but I can criticize them for being silent. This is incredible.
In conclusion, I will congratulate the member for Frontenac. I hope that members opposite will reconsider their position and join us in this extremely important debate on the issue of respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Madam Speaker, I realize that the Liberal majority has decided not to answer the call of the member for Lévis. Once again, they remain silent on agricultural issues.
I am happy to speak to the amendments proposed by the member for Frontenac, telling the federal government that, even if it did update its vision of Canadian federalism and merged together all federal food inspection agencies, it was high time to make those changes because there was a terrible mess in that area.
However, in doing so, because of its very limited view of what had to be done in that sector, the federal government disregarded
the fact that provinces already had some expertise and that they had developed some know-how.
With his amendments, the member for Frontenac wants to make the government listen to reason and realize that it should not interfere in provincial jurisdictions with this bill on food inspection.
Let me give you three main reasons. Sometimes we hear people say that separatists are against anything federal, but that is not the problem in this case; it is a matter of principle, of logic, of common sense.
Everyone knows about the first example, the raw milk cheese. Thanks to a Canada-wide way of thinking, a view I would say is almost cultural, they came to a ridiculous conclusion that mainly affected Quebec raw milk cheese producers, because there are more producers in Quebec, but also all Canadian producers, of course. The Bloc Quebecois led a powerful fight on that issue at the federal level.
Did the Government of Quebec initiate the same kind of action in the case of food inspection? Not at all. Our practices are different, our point of view is different, but this has to do with our culture, with our perception of the future of our society, and it translates into concrete initiative like these.
Our first example was the planned ban on raw milk cheese. We had to wage a public fight, we had to demonstrate publicly the ridiculous side of the position taken by federal officials in order to win our case. Quebecers are looking forward to the day when it will no longer be necessary to do battle in the House in order to get things that make sense.
I would like to give you another example. If we allow the federal government to intervene in the area of food inspection, if we let it set standards and operating procedures, we will get some strange results. A case in point is lamb production.
Lamb production in Quebec is very different from lamb production in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, there are many small farmers with 200 to 300 sheep, sometimes less. In western Canada the flocks are much larger.
When a disease that should be eradicated is found in one flock, up to two years ago the practice was to slaughter all the sick animals and those who might have been contaminated, in order to eliminate the problem.
(1245)
But the federal government, under pressure from western producers, who can be counted on to defend their interests, has changed the procedure. But it has always decided there would be only one rule across Canada; now, it was quarantine. The major impact of this in Quebec is that the management of a producer's herd may be totally paralyzed because, when a producer has 200 animals and they are all placed under quarantine, we might as well say he has to shut his farm down. In western Canada, if 200 animals out of a herd of 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 are placed under quarantine, the economic impact is not the same at all.
This is to show you that if we decide that the federal government can interfere in this way with food inspection and management, we will get absurd results similar to the one I just described.
There is another sector in which the federal government should not enjoy unjustified powers, that is, the management of slaughterhouses. Our slaughterhouses vary widely in size. We need standards that may differ for the various types of slaughterhouses, without putting aside the rules on food quality and the guarantee that diseases will not spread.
There are still small regional slaughterhouses that can work. They are often multifunctional slaughterhouses that slaughter different kinds of animals. These facilities need to be regulated differently from what might be a very large slaughterhouse dealing with a single species, say pigs. There are major differences in terms of management, which results in practices being different from region of the country to another. In that sense, to give the federal government the power to establish standards and, with these national standards, to interfere in any province is not doing Quebec or any other province a service.
I would like to come back to clause 11 of the bill and to the amendment we put forward so that each province could veto the use of this provision by the Minister of Health.
We would not want to find ourselves in a situation where the federal government could decide to get involved, to interfere in a certain area-raw milk is still an excellent example to illustrate this point-and the province would then have to prove such interference is uncalled for. The onus should be reversed and each province should have a veto on the application of this provision so that, any time a decision made by the federal government in a given area is in contradiction with the province's objectives, the province may say: ``Thanks, but no thanks. This just cannot be done here, and the reason for that is quite simply that it is not in keeping with our way of doing things''.
We must therefore ensure that this bill to standardize food inspection at the federal level does not lead to what would amount to across-the-board standardization and that those who have a centralizing, federalist vision of Canada are not given yet another tool to impose national standards in an area that requires a level of flexibility unlike what is provided for in this government bill.
We must ensure that the provision about agreements respecting food inspection entered into by the federal government and any of the provinces does not leave the door wide open for federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
To let the federal government provide services to the public on behalf of the two levels of government, thereby directly interfering with provincial jurisdiction, is only perpetuating a pattern. Once again, we have a basic choice to make: do we want a federal system where the delineation between provincial and federal jurisdictions is an incredible mess? Or could we not at least, while we are in this system, clarify the respective jurisdictions and let provinces keep the jurisdiction they have as regards food inspection?
(1250)
As we can see, provincial governments, or Quebec in any case, are 10, 15, or 20 years ahead. Back in 1978, food inspection responsibilities were assigned to one department. Today, in 1996, the federal government is putting forward a proposal to that effect, but its proposal still reflects the old political assumption that the federal government should control all areas of activity.
This could lead once again to the problem of having to manage national standards, which do not necessarily apply easily and appropriately to each of the existing areas of activity.
As for constituents of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, those involved in farming in these various areas, every time they see duplication of government services, they point it out. They were delighted to see the federal government reduce the number of food inspection groups. It was about time, because three departments were involved, whereas there will be only one from now on.
This bill could, and must, be improved by giving provincial governments control over food inspection, so that, in two, three, or five years, we will not be in court over legal complications. If those concerned by food inspection measures need a loophole, in order to elude the law, well, let us leave the bill as is, as it will give them an opportunity to do so. Then, all they will have to do is blame governments for not minding their own business. Therefore, there must be a fee structure.
The burden of proof must be reversed. Food inspection must come under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government could, through its legislation, manage some aspects which fall under its jurisdiction, but it must not be allowed to interfere in such a way that, in two, three, or five years, through regulations, it ends up with even greater control. This is why I support the amendment by the hon. member for Frontenac.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Therefore, division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division on the motion stands deferred.
(1255)
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-60, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 6 on page 3 with the following:
``9. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, direct that the head office of the Agency be in the location in Canada recommended by the committee referred to in section 9.1.
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, direct that the head office of the agency be in a location other than the one recommended pursuant to section 9.1 but shall not make any such order unless
(a) the Governor in Council has provided the committee referred to in section 9.2 with all the reasons for such a change; and
(b) the committee has approved the change.
9.1 Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall recommend, for the purposes of section 9, the location in Canada of the head office of the Agency .
9.2 Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall, after studying the reasons for the change provided to the committee pursuant to paragraph 9(2)(a), either approve or refuse to approve, for the purposes of subsection 9(2), any change in the location of the head office of the Agency.''He said: Madam Speaker, clause 9 is very simple and almost laconic. It provides that:
The head office of the Agency shall be in the National Capital Region, as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act.The senior officials we met last September 26 have drawn to our attention the fact that tomorrow morning, six months or two years from now, after a change of government, a new agriculture minister could, by order, to ease his conscience and continue to indulge in patronage, have the agency moved to his riding. Of course, we want to shield our fellow Canadian citizens from any potential abuse in that regard.
Let us remember that it can be done through a simple order in council. Why should the head office of the agency move year after year? The Liberal government, already in power for over three years, is very patronage-minded. It could eventually move agencies from one city to another, and that can be very costly.
Our amendment proposes to involve the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It suggests two things. First, the location of the head office of the agency would be reviewed and decided by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and not only through an order in council.
This would make the process much more open and at the same time revitalize the role of House of Commons committees that, in fact, do not do much except execute orders coming from above, in this case, from the minister himself.
Once the head office is located somewhere, a future move is always possible or could become necessary 30 or 40 years down the road. To govern is to foresee, and people in the government should be smart enough to expect that the head office of the agency will not be moved 3 or 4 years from now. But who knows? That could happen, as in the case of the House of Commons, which moved from Montreal over a century ago. You may remember that, according to our history books, the Parliament Buildings were set on fire following a minor rebellion and, in its wisdom, the government of the day decided to move Parliament to another province, Ontario.
(1300)
The second objective is that the future relocation of the agency's headquarters be subject to an in-depth review of the need for such a relocation and that the new site be approved by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Relocating the agency's headquarters, with all this decision would imply-asking the employees and their families to move, moving the office furniture, renting space in another city, etc.-is out of the question without first having carried out a review of the reasons behind this decision. Of course, if it is a patronage decision, an irrational decision, then the committee, after hearing a lot of witnesses, would submit its recommendation to Parliament.
Changing topics, there is no need I guess to ask that the agency's headquarters, if they are to be established in the national capital region, be located in Quebec. When we go over the estimates for the Department of Agriculture, for instance, we see that, year after year, around 11 per cent of the departmental budget is spent in Quebec.
Let me remind the House that Quebecers represent close to 25 per cent of the overall population and pay over 23 p. 100 of the taxes collected in Canada. However, barely 11 per cent of the agriculture department's budget goes to Quebec.
I approached the minister of agriculture to tell him that it averages 11 per cent, although there were times when it dropped to 9 per cent and other times when it reached 13 and 14 per cent, but on average it is 11 per cent. So, how could he explain why his department is only investing 11 per cent in Quebec? Well, he said: ``It is easy to understand, dear hon. member for Frontenac. There are a lot of infrastructures in the nation's capital, in Ottawa, offices and such. The nation's capital can almost be considered as being a part of the province of Quebec''. Are there so many people living in Quebec but working in Ontario? Could be. But not enough to make up for the difference and reach 23 per cent, which would only be fair in our view.
So, if it is true that everything done in Ottawa could be considered as being done in Quebec, would it not be possible to establish the new agency in Quebec, since it is expected to open up in the national capital region? Set on the river bank, it could lean towards Ontario, a bit like the leaning tower of Pisa. In New Brunswick, not much leans this way, since it would have to reach over Quebec.
Would my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who sits with me on the standing committee on agriculture, be ready to rise now in this place and to say: ``Dear hon. member for Frontenac, we will give you something today: we will establish the head office of the agency in Quebec''?
As you can see, clause 9 provides that the head office of the agency shall be in the national capital region. I bet you $20 to $1 that it will be in Hull. I am being generous, I bet you $20 to $1 that it will be in Hull. However, I am almost sure I will lose. It does not matter. I am willing to take the risk that you make $20 on an outlay of $1, just so that you can see the major injustice being done to Quebec once again.
The head office of the agency will be the reflection and the heart of the agency. It is estimated that some 4,500 jobs will be directly created by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Of course, all 4,500 jobs will not be at the head office but easily 800 to 900 of them will be. This is very significant. Readjustments will have to be made within three departments.
(1305)
Without further delay, I challenge the parliamentary secretary who could make you win $20, Madam Speaker. I challenge him to rise now and for once to make a decision not in favour of Quebec but a fair decision for all of Canada, that is, that the head office be located on the other side of the Ottawa River, in Hull, Gatineau or somewhere in the area.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's answer.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-60 today. This bill proposes that the Government of Canada consolidate all federally mandated food inspection, animal and plant health services into a single federal food inspection agency. This agency will report to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
When the new food inspection agency begins operation in 1997, it will become one of Ottawa's largest bureaucratic entities with 4,500 employees and a budget of $300 million.
Although the Reform Party supports consolidating and downsizing the operations of the federal government, we fear that this act will accomplish little except to shuffle names and titles. Instead the government should be considering the advantages of privatizing a significant portion of Canada's food, plant and animal inspection services.
Only $40 million or 13.3 per cent of the agency's $300 million budget is currently cost recovered. The agency already plans to dramatically increase this amount to more than $70 million. While the Reform Party supports user pay and cost recovery, the cost of the service must reflect the true cost of providing the service, not the added expense of maintaining the government's bureaucracy.
The act should ensure that a greater priority is placed on cost avoidance and cost reduction. This is important as the agency created in this act will be responsible for enforcing and administering several federal statutes which regulate food, animal and plant health related products. This includes the Feeds Act, Fertilizers Act, Health of Animals Act, Meat Inspection Act, Plant Breeders' Rights Act and Seeds Act.
The act will also continue to centralize authority for food inspection in the hands of the federal government. The Reform Party believes the government should acknowledge that since the provinces already provide many of the same inspection services, the emphasis should be on decentralization and encouraging common inspection standards and more harmonization.
For these reasons the Reform Party opposes this bill. Turning to the bill itself, we have specific concerns.
Provisions in this bill seem to create an environment for empire building. Clause 5 of the bill states that the governor in council shall appoint a president and an executive vice-president of the new agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to day operations of the agency. They will provide advice to the minister on matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is no mention of the qualifications required by these people. This type of situation opens itself up to pork barrel politics.
The bill also states that the president and the executive vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as fixed by the governor in council. We do not even know the salary amounts for these two positions. With this legislation, each member of the advisory board shall be paid such fees for his or her services as are fixed by the minister. Again, we cannot tell Canadian taxpayers how much they will be paying for these salaries.
This bill gives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food complete control over this agency which is a vital part of the agriculture industry.
The Liberal member for South Shore has voiced his concerns over his government's bill in this House. He has commented on the lack of consultation regarding Bill C-60 in his constituency. The small and medium size seafood processors in his riding have also told him that they feel increasingly isolated by this government. I can assure the member that this isolation is shared by western producers and processors.
(1310)
This familiarizes us somewhat with the Canadian Wheat Board. Commissioners on the Canadian Wheat Board are appointed and have received severance and pension payments that are hidden from public view. The minister is setting out to create the same type of regulatory agency with Bill C-60. The issue of severance packages, pensions, premiums and what have you in that agency is unbelievable to western farmers and it is causing a tremendous division.
The Canadian Food, Beverage, Consumer Goods and Services Coalition submitted some valuable criticism of this bill. It stressed the need for an agency built around a board of directors that would be truly accountable and effective in setting these policies. I would like to point out that this is the direction the agriculture minister is slowly turning to in hinting he will be making changes. Why is this not being done before the bill is passed?
The coalition feels an advisory board under the direct control of the minister will simply contribute to the continuation of the outdated policies and procedures of the original department. It stressed that the legislation should focus more on cost effectiveness and service to the consumer.
We in the Reform Party proposed an amendment to the preamble to identify cost effectiveness as an objective of the agency. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food actually passed the amendment, albeit by a narrow margin. However, the Liberal majority on the committee succeeded in defeating all of our other amendments which were designed to bring more accountability to the agency and would have ensured more consultation with the industry.
For example, we would have ensured that the appointment of the president and the vice-president would have been done in consultation with the industry and would have been subject to a special subcommittee on food inspection. This is what the industry wants but it is not what the Liberals want so they defeated the amendment. This is another prime example of how this government operates.
We also put forth an amendment to ensure that the appointments to the advisory board that is created by this legislation would be open to scrutiny by a subcommittee of the standing committee. Of course the Liberal committee majority defeated this excellent amendment also. The Liberals seemed determined to derail any attempt by Reform members to give the agriculture and agri-food committee some responsibility and make it significant and accountable.
We also proposed an amendment to provide for a one-year moratorium on any further cost recovery actions so the standing committee could examine the consequences of the existing and proposed fees on the competitiveness of the Canadian industry. Another Reform amendment would have ensured that the fees would not have exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the service. Not surprisingly, these amendments were defeated also. This is unfortunate because it leaves all the power in the hands of the minister. There is no accountability and there is no consultation with the industry. These are severe detriments to making this agency what it should be.
I would like to quote a paragraph or two from a presentation by the Canadian Horticultural Council on December 10. This is what the council had to say about the cost of service:
``During the cost recovery round one discussions in 1984, the food production and inspection branch estimated the total cost of the fresh fruit and vegetable program to be approximately $7 million. In 1994 when the cost recovery round two discussions were launched under the food production and inspection branch's business alignment plan, we were informed the costs for the program had increased to approximately $17 million'', more than double what they estimated. ``Suffice it to say that in both cases we had to rely on the branch's word that the figures were correct. When we questioned how the program costs could have risen by $10 million over the 10 year period, especially when a number of the services had been deregulated, we were informed that the rules were calculating the costs had changed''. Boy, that is cost recovery.
(1315)
Then we go into user pay. Another short example: ``It is worth noting that between 1984 and 1994, the principle of sharing the cost based on public and private good has disappeared. In 1984 one-third of the costs were deemed to be for the public good and in 1994 there was no longer any public good''.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is important to realize that we are, right now, debating Motion No. 5.
This motion proposes an amendment to section 9 of Bill C-60, intent to have the committee look at where the location of the head office should be. The motion suggests that the head office be looked at within the purview of a committee and the committee make a decision where that head office should be located.
This amendment is not needed. In reality, during the discussions with the standing committee and the amendments put forth in the standing committee, clause 9 indicated very clearly that the head office would be located in the national capital region. That is very clearly in the amendment.
There is no legislative precedent in the Canadian Parliamentary system for having a standing committee to be involved in the level of detail in the administration in deciding where a building is located.
The minister is responsible and accountable for his budget. He is responsible and accountable to the Canadian public. He is responsible and accountable to this Parliament. Therefore it is very clear that as part of his duty he must make those detailed decisions and bring them forward.
I would at this time as well point out that it is of extreme importance to not only the minister but also to the department that all regions of this country be treated fairly and equally. We endeavour to make certain that where we are talking of research centres or all the facilities that exist in agriculture Canada, the proper facilities are placed throughout this country in order to serve that industry as well as possible.
There is no question that the decisions being made are made on the basis of fairness. I would assure my colleagues from Quebec that has been the case in the past with the department of agriculture and the department will continue to make certain that not only Quebec but all regions of this country are treated fairly with regard to those types of decisions.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would just like to comment on this grouping. We are really only dealing with one amendment put forward by the Bloc regarding where the agency's national office will be located.
The parliamentary secretary for the minister of agriculture just spoke and talked about the accountability that is in the system, and that this type of amendment is not required. I agree with him only on one point. This type of amendment should not need to be required. If there were accountability it would not be required.
I want to review with the hon. member some facts that prove that his argument is a bunch of hogwash. He says that the minister and the agency will be accountable. Let us look at the record of the Liberal government. Location is very important.
We have seen governments from as far back as I can remember playing political games with locations of head offices. Even recently in this Parliament the Liberals brought forward a piece of legislation that privatized CN Rail, which means that basically it should be able to run its own affairs. In the legislation it stated that the national office of CN Rail had to be located in Montreal. Talk about politics. What a bunch of foolishness.
(1320)
The previous Tory government decided that for political reasons the national office of the Farm Credit Corporation had to be in my province in the city of Regina. That was a political decision. Where was the accountability? Where is the accountability now, where was the accountability then?
It is not only with the locations of office locations, it is with the granting of contracts. All of western Canada was infuriated when the Conservative government offered the CF-18 maintenance contract to Canadair instead of Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg even though Bristol Aerospace had the best tender with better quality and a lower price to offer.
Because of political expediency there was no accountability. It was a joke. A few members ran into Prime Minister Mulroney's office and demanded that the contract with Canadair be accepted for political reasons, and the Prime Minister bowed to their wishes.
What should be the criteria for determining the location of the national office? Has it even dawned on anybody to debate the criteria? The criteria for the location of an agency's head office should be cost effectiveness, efficiency and productivity. The most effective and productive location for the head office of the Farm Credit Corporation may just be Regina, I do not know. I do not think a cost benefit study has ever been done to determine where that national office should be.
The most cost effective location for the single food inspection agency might be the national capital region, but we do not know. That was not even a consideration. The minister said because there are other departments involved, this may be the right place. But nobody looked into it. Nobody crunched the numbers. That was the last thing on the agenda.
The first priority has always been political expediency: ``How are we going to maintain the most votes? If we are in trouble in Atlantic Canada, then we had better put some office in Atlantic Canada. If we are in trouble in Alberta, we had better put something in Edmonton or Calgary''.
An hon. member: Stop being so cynical at Christmas time.
Mr. Hermanson: The member says I should not be cynical at Christmas time. It just so happens that a lot of civil servants have not enjoyed a very good Christmas because for some political reason their head office was moved from one end of the country to the other and they had to tag along. Had they known it would save them some of their own tax dollars, they may have been prepared to move from Ottawa to Regina or from Vancouver to Halifax.
What really happened was that they knew some politicians were playing some games with the location of their national office and their lives were being wrecked as a result. It is time we stopped doing that and look at cost effectiveness.
If this motion had stated that the head office of the agency be located in the most cost effective location in Canada, I would have jumped for joy. That would be real progress. But that is not quite what the amendment says. The Liberals had not even thought about that as a criterion for the selection of a location for their national office.
I am sick and tired of playing these silly political games, playing with people's lives and spending taxpayer dollars needlessly.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division on the motion stands deferred.
(1325)
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-60, in Clause 5, be amended by
(a) replacing line 20 on page 2 with the following:
``5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council shall appoint a''
(b) adding after line 24 on page 2 the following:
``(2) The Governor in Council shall ensure that persons appointed to the positions referred to in subsection (1) have a comprehensive knowledge and a broad experience of the areas dealt with by the Agency.''
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-60, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the following:
``may be renewed for one further term.''
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 3 the following:
``(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), no person may be appointed by the Minister to an advisory board unless that person has been recommended for such appointment pursuant to subsection (1.3).
(1.2) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall invite each province and the organizations in that province representing agricultural interests to submit to the committee the names of candidates residing in that province for appointment to an advisory board.
(1.3) Subject to subsection (1.1), the committee referred to in subsection (1.2) shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), recommend from among the candidates the persons it deems most suitable to be appointed to the advisory board.
(1.4) The committee shall recommend persons under subsection (1.2) from each province and the percentage of candidates recommended from a province shall be equal to the percentage that the population of that province represents of the total population of Canada.''
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 3 with the following:
``Agency that such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters submits to it.''
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 3 the following:
``(2.1) On any matter within the responsibilities of the Agency, the board may advise
(a) a provincial government;
(b) a union representing some or all of the employees of the Agency; and
(c) a person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing, food distribution and public health sectors.''
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 21 on page 3.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 3 the following:
``(3.1) The Minister shall appoint at least one representative of a union representing some or all of the employees of the Agency to the board.''
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 3 with the following:
``(4) The Minister shall appoint as Chairperson of the advisory board the person recommended for that position pursuant to subsection (4.1).
(4.1) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall, for the purposes of subsection (4), recommend the member of the advisory board that it deems most suitable as Chairperson of the board.''
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 3 with the following:
``pursuant to the recommendation made under subsection (5.1).
(5.1) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall, for the purposes of subsection (5), recommend the amount that each member of the advisory board shall be paid as fees for his or her services.''
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 44 on page 5 the following new Clause:
``17.1 The Agency shall, once every year, provide to such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters a detailed report respecting all actions taken in that year by the Agency in the exercise of its powers under section 17.''He said: Madam Speaker, again, these motions are well grouped. Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 21 are amendments proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbinière.
The reason the Bloc Quebecois is trying hard to improve Bill C-60 is because of the serious risk of patronage. From 1984 to 1993, another party was in office and some people would literally wake up at night despising the Prime Minister of the time, because they were so fed up with his politics of patronage.
The party that took over from the Mulroney government does not fare much better in this respect. This is serious, as you are well aware. The government, through the governor in council, will appoint the president for a term of five years which may be renewed, and also the executive vice-president. There will be an advisory board of not more than 12 members, who will also be appointed by the governor in council.
What is even worse is that the regulations governing employment in the public service will be suspended for an indeterminate period of time. This means anyone can be hired, whether it is an uncle, an aunt, a nephew, a niece, a brother-in-law, a mother-in-law, a sister-in-law, the niece's friend, the sister-in-law's nephew, even the grandfather, if he still young enough to go to work. This is a serious matter. We are talking about an indeterminate period of time which could be six months, a year, two years, whatever. I have no doubt that the executive vice-president and the president will all be good friends, good Liberals.
These people will appoint employees of the new food inspection agency in a fashion similar to that of the government. We raised this issue during question period. The director general of the space agency, which is located in Longueuil, or Saint-Hubert, lives in Ottawa and refuses to move. So, the government pays $1,300 a month to house him in a luxurious rental unit. Is it a frient of the government who is enjoying all this? Of course.
(1330)
Look at the recent wave of appointments in our ridings. Our new returning officer in my riding is a well-known Liberal. The fact that he is a Liberal does not make him incompetent, but, by the same token, one need not be a Liberal to be qualified.
This retired gentleman was appointed, while we have young men and young women looking for work. They are very competent, but they do not have a job and have to rely on either unemployment or welfare benefits. This government has appointed in my riding a man who is drawing a good pension. Why not have given the job to a competent young person?
In my riding, the employment or unemployment insurance-we are not quite sure what word to use any more-board of referees is chaired by a notary who happens to be the daughter of a former Liberal member.
When representatives of the farm debt review board appeared before us at the agriculture committee, I was the only one to ask them: ``Who do you have to thank for your appointment?'' Jean-Yves, the representative from Quebec-he is from the St-Hyacinthe area-made it quite clear that he had his political affiliation to thank for it. And what affiliation is that? Liberal. In the greater Eastern Townships region, the same Jean-Yves has managed to win the nomination as Liberal candidate for the riding of Richmond-Wolfe in the upcoming election. He managed to get himself nominated.
Are we going to give the Liberal Party of Canada a blank cheque to waive the public service hiring procedures for an indeterminate period so that the new food inspection agency can become a patronage haven? Never. We will condemn this measure with all our might.
The fact that a person is a Liberal does not make that person competent. The name of Jean Bienvenue comes to mind; he was the minister of education in Quebec under Robert Bourassa. Guess what his political affiliation was. He was appointed superior court judge in Quebec. The fact that he was a Liberal did not make him a
competent judge. He was appointed by the Liberals, not the Conservatives.
We have proposed countless amendments to improve on Bill C-60, so that the people of Canada could have a reliable food inspection agency built on a solid foundation. To have a solid foundation, the best qualified people must be hired.
One of these amendments suggests that the education and experience of the president and the vice-president should match the agency's management and service delivery requirements. Qualified people should be hired. Chances are the government party will vote against that to protect themselves, because they do not want to have their hands tied, they want to be able to appoint whoever they please.
(1335)
By ensuring that the president and executive vice-president of the agency have a comprehensive knowledge and a broad experience of the areas dealt with by the agency, we would minimize the risk of seeing one or more unqualified person appointed to these positions, as was the case of Justice Bienvenue, to whom I referred earlier.
We are proposing that the president be appointed for a term of five years and, if he does an excellent job, he could be appointed for one, but only one, more term of five years. After ten years in a position, I would say he would have given all that he can give, and that is enough. I bet our friends opposite will vote against that too. What they want is to be able to appoint the members of the new agency for life, like the senators.
I urge our Liberal colleagues to consider carefully what they want to do. If they want this agency to be above suspicion, it has to be as free of patronage as possible.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we are now dealing with group 5. A number of amendments were put forward by the Bloc to this part of the bill which deals with the ratification or review of appointments to the agency.
Reform introduced an amendment to Bill C-60 at committee stage. Our amendment stated:
No appointment shall be made under subsection 10(1) unless it is approved by a subcommittee of each of such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider
(a) agriculture matters;
(b) health matters; and
(c) fisheries matters.Government members chose to oppose that amendment in committee. Had it passed, it would have ensured that members of Parliament with knowledge and interest in the areas of agriculture, fisheries and health would have been able to review appointments to the advisory board of the agency. They would have been able to review the staffing decisions of the agency. That would have addressed the patronage issue which my colleague from the Bloc so eloquently berated.
We support Motion No. 3. It ensures that persons appointed to the agency's executive by the minister are qualified. It is important that these executives not be the local Liberal who happens to donate the most money in the last election.
It is sad that the Conservatives and the Liberals are trying to outdo each other on patronage appointments. Under the Mulroney Conservatives, Marjory LeBreton was the de facto minister of patronage. They did not have a minister in the House, but they might as well have, it was so blatant. Nobody got appointed to anything by that Conservative government unless they met the credentials of being a strong Conservative Party supporter. Of course she got the biggest plum of all. She was appointed to the Senate, where she is now able to make her pronouncements after being a party servant for so many years.
The Liberals, not to be outdone, chose Penny Collenette to be their de facto minister of patronage to hand out the appointments. We saw it recently in the appointment of returning officers across the country for the next election. That is the mindset of the Liberal government.
(1340 )
That is the fodder that feeds the political machinery. Some hope that down the road, if they pay my dues, donate enough money to the Liberal coffers, pound on enough doors or if they support the right person who happens to make it to the Prime Minister's chair or the leader of the party at least, they will get their reward and be well cared for.
It is one's party faithfulness and loyalty that becomes the paramount criterion for being appointed to these various boards, without public scrutiny and merit being the primary factor.
We support Motion No. 3.
Motion No. 4 limits the agency's executives to one term. If there is proper scrutiny of who these people are I do not think that type of step is necessary.
We support Motion No. 6. It would allow the standing committee to review the appointments to the agency. The last part of the amendment is a formula to force the minister to make the appointments based on an exact province by province formula. This is an excessive measure. It is getting away from merit and into a quota system. I believe members are quite aware of our feelings on people being appointed to positions or being hired based on quotas rather than merit.
We support Motion No. 7. It would allow the standing committee to review appointments to the agency's advisory board. We argued that position in committee and the Liberals rejected it.
We oppose Motion No. 8. It would allow the advisory board to advise a provincial government or a union-we are not sure why the Bloc put that in. Perhaps someone can change our mind with a good argument.
We oppose Motions Nos. 9 and 10. Motion 10 would require that at least one of the advisory board members be from the agency's union.
We support Motion No. 11. This amendment would require the minister appoint as president of the agency the person that the standing committee deems to be the best candidate. This brings accountability and allows elected people to have a constructive role in matters concerning government agencies and the creation of these agencies.
We support Motion No. 12. It allows the standing committee to review matters related to the new agency such as the advisory board members' pay. One of the things that damaged the Canadian Wheat Board the most was the fact that no one knew how much the appointed commissioners received in salary. All sorts of rumours floated around about what they received. Finally there was a leak concerning their benefit package if they were to retire or be fired.
Farmers were shocked to find out that they were paying severance packages of over $250,000 to these appointed commissioners. It was all kept secret. A lot of ill feelings developed toward the Canadian Wheat Board and the commissioners because this fact had been kept secret. Therefore, Reform supports this motion because it opens things up and everybody knows the dollars that are involved and whether or not they are adequate or too benevolent.
We support Motion No. 21. This would allow a review of the agency's operations once a year by the standing committee. Anything that can be done to bring elected people into a more meaningful role in reviewing the work of agencies such as the food inspection agency is a very positive step.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, several points have been brought forward by the leader of the official opposition which we agree are very important to the system.
However, we feel that most of the issues that he mentioned have been dealt with very clearly within the legislation. I know people can talk about patronage appointments and a wide variety of things, such as the offices and positions that people have, but the reality is there are four or five political parties in this House.
If we look at the representation of the people across the country, there are always going to be some Liberals who are appointed to positions. There are going to be some Bloc members who are appointed to positions. There are going to be some Reform members who are appointed to positions. Those appointments must be on merit. On this side of the House we do not question the fact that people are to be appointed on merit.
(1345 )
We feel that this legislation provides for an appointment process of the president and the executive vice-president on the same basis as we would appoint a deputy minister and associate deputy minister. The process ensures that knowledgeable, well qualified people will be selected for those positions. The legislation also allows for the renewal of the appointment of the president or the executive vice-president for one or more terms as appropriate. As such it will provide the government with the flexibility to ensure a consistent and continuous senior management structure in the agency.
With respect to the role identified for the Standing Committee of the House of Commons in the selection of advisory board members, there is no legislative precedent in the Canadian parliamentary system for having a committee involved with that type of detail. Yes, we have seen the fiascos of committees getting involved in the scrutiny of appointments in the United States. Quite frankly, it is a political tear down when we look at it. I think the public watches with interest when parties start that process. In reality, I am certain that the United States is very envious of the system we have in this country. It is very clear from the people we have in appointed positions that they do an extremely good job.
The minister is responsible and accountable to Parliament for the agency and its administration. As we look at it the minister is the end of those responsibilities. Quite frankly, he has the responsibility to consult very widely, check with as many people as possible and make certain the operation is running properly.
The purpose of the advisory board is clearly to provide the minister with advice with respect to matters relating to food inspection. Provinces, unions, and others will continue to seek input from a host of sources that will help the minister with his decisions.
With respect to the selection of the advisory board members, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that the minister can choose an advisory board from as wide a selection of individuals as possible. We do not wish to inadvertently limit or curtail the possibilities of choice of that board. Rather than mandating representation from specific interested parties, it is preferable to have a broad source of knowledgeable people, including the possibility of representation from the unions.
With respect to fees paid to the advisory board members, these fees will be subject to Treasury Board guidelines that are in place in this country.
With respect to the reporting on intellectual property, this information is currently available and reported annually. For example, the food production and inspection agency of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada issued 1,621 fresh fruit and vegetable dealer licences in 1996 and is part of the summary list in part III of the main estimates. This reporting will continue in the agency. Furthermore, committees of the House will continue to review this sort of information as part of the main estimates process through the Appropriations Act.
I reiterate as well that where concerns come up and Parliament wishes to deal with them, we do have the committee process in place. That committee process is to allow members of this House to investigate whatever issues they feel necessary to further investigate. It will involve members of Parliament. Through that process I believe the House is well protected too.
The minister who is virtually responsible in the end must take the resource of what is going on, take the circumstances of the agency and make certain it is running properly. The House at the same time has its vehicle through the committees to investigate any concerns. Quite frankly, both sides of the House have a full opportunity in committee to voice concerns and bring forward witnesses to discuss issues that are pertinent.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. At first blush, the bill seems pretty innocuous. I looked at it with the hon. member for Frontenac.
However, a closer examination shows what the Liberal Party wants to do. This is rather disheartening. The government comes up with nice bills, but it always wants to able to appoint friends. Because the government wants to remain in office, it does not necessarily appoint competent people. Not to worry. It does not matter whether these appointees are competent or not. What matters for the government is looking after its friends.
Earlier, the hon. member for Frontenac proposed constructive amendments. My colleague sat on the committee. He made constructive suggestions, and I am anxious to see whether the government will have the courage to accept and support these positive changes.
Why do I say this? It is because, while I am still naive, I do notice certain things when I look at the current political reality. We are the official opposition and people often say that the opposition is only there to block government initiatives. This is not at all the Bloc Quebecois' vision, particularly since we are not even here to try to form the government.
Rather, we are here to defend the views of part of the public. I was elected to represent the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Therefore, I come here with certain views and I say to the government: ``Listen, your bill may not be so bad, but we propose this changeor that change''. But to no avail. I am quite convinced that, when the time comes to vote, the government will turn a deaf ear.
It should come as no surprise that people are no longer interested in politics. It is always the same thing. It is always these little schemes to promote patronage. Of course, this is done quietly. It does not make the headlines. It is always done in an under handed way. This is all very disappointing. Even though we are the opposition-I would rather say the watchdog of democracy-we should be able to work together at least some of the time, so that everyone can make a positive contribution.
This reminds me of the bill we talked about recently, which would have revoked the conviction of Louis Riel. Why did the government vote against the bill? This is ridiculous. When the opposition says black, the government says white.
But that is not what it usually says. Usually, it says: ``The opposition is just there to disagree''. I am sorry, but we do try to suggest some constructive changes. We try to raise some interesting points. But all we get is a completely negative reaction to any contribution we are prepared to make. I must say I find this very disappointing. I look forward to the time when we have our own country, so we can go our own way.
I will give a few examples from the bill. In clause 9, it says that the head office of the agency shall be in the national capital region or any other location in Canada. That is good. However, according to certain officials, the head office of the agency could be in Ottawa at first and then be moved later on by order in council. Basically, the question that comes to mind is whether the agency could go where it would be politically expedient. If things are not going well in a riding, this would be a good thing to have, so the government hands out a goody. That is what I dislike about the Liberal Party and the government.
In clause 10, it says that the minister responsible for the agency shall appoint an advisory board of not more than 12 members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years. The minister would also appoint one of the members as chairperson of the advisory board instead of letting people qualified in this area who have to work with the food inspection people choose their own representatives.
So the minister is making sure he can control the members of the advisory board and influence their decisions. That is pretty obvious. When you give a job to your friends, they can hardly turn around later on and bite the hand that feeds them.
In subclause 10(5), it says that the minister will fix the fees paid to the members of the advisory board. However, I may point out that in clause 8, it says that the president and the executive vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as is fixed by the governor in council. The question is whether this is a mere technicality or whether it is some kind of double standard that could lead to discrimination. This clause is unacceptable for another reason.
(1355)
Clause 12 provides that the agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Clause 13 provides that the president has the authority to appoint employees to the agency. When the bill was studied in committee, officials confirmed that there would be a code of conduct, of ethics, governing the appointment of agency employees. The thing is, however, that we will not know the content of the code before the bill is passed. It reminds me of the code of ethics of the ministers opposite: they have a fine code of ethics to show that everything they do is proper, except no one knows what the code is. It is completely ridiculous. What is the use of a code of ethics when people cannot even find out what it is about? Here again, it serves to score political points.
The officials told us that the usual rules governing hiring in the public service would be suspended during the transition period. Why do we not know what rules will be used?
We note therefore that patronage-discrimination even-will abound in the future Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has proposed reasonable amendments to prevent the federal government from abusing its power in this matter.
As I said earlier, we simply want to make a constructive contribution. I do not want to foul things up. So long as we are paying taxes to Ottawa, I want to be sure this country is run the best way possible. I am here to work, to improve bills while we are still here. I see these sorts of things, and then people ask me why we want to have our own country.
At some point, people have to try to understand more. As I said earlier, we wonder why people are not more interested in politics. I think it is because of this sort of thing.
Our colleague from Frontenac has contributed constructively. I would therefore invite the government to give it some thought, and perhaps we could work more together.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, as it is almost 2 p.m., we will now go to Statements by Members. We will come back to the hon. member after question period as he has a few minutes left.