GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY ACT

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not raising a point of order. I will use the three minutes I have left to conclude my speech on Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act.

Earlier, I said I was very disappointed by what I heard when the hon. member for Frontenac asked members for their views on this legislation. The bill includes provisions that can certainly be associated with patronage. As I explained, the government appoints friends so as to remain in control.

I said I was very disappointed, because it is always the same thing whenever the government introduces legislation. It comes up with a nice bill and with the best possible intentions, but we can always see this will to keep control over everything.

The hon. member for Frontenac made very constructive remarks. I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, the official opposition is not here only to oppose measures, but also to provide a different perspective, particularly since the Bloc Quebecois expresses the views shared by a large number of Quebecers.

I am anxious to see which ministers will vote against the bill. As usual, unfortunately, it is a bit like taking the views of Quebec and claiming that they are totally erroneous.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Frontenac who did a tremendous job. He introduced a host of amendments to the bill which, as was to be expected from the hon. member, are based on common sense and the public interest.

(1545)

Although the subject has not been widely publicized, it is a very important one that affects the daily lives of Canadians and Quebecers. The bill merges the inspection services of three departments, health, agriculture and fisheries, which from now on will be consolidated in one and the same agency that comes under the department of agriculture or the minister of agriculture.

This agency will have an annual budget of $300 million-this is big bucks-for three years and a staff of 3,400 employees. That being said, now for the bad news: the three entities that existed before had a total of 4,000 employees, so we are losing 600 inspectors. When we say $300 million, we must not forget that this reflects a budget cut of $44 million. So there is every reason to be concerned, but I will get back to that later.

The general position of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue is negative. We are against the principle of creating this agency, because we in the Bloc Quebecois consider that constitutionally, this is an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction, in Quebec and in the other provinces. So we are against the very entity that will be established by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

We are annoyed and concerned. Annoyed because considering the powers given to the minister by this bill, the minister will be able to appoint the chairperson, the deputy chair and all the members of the advisory board that will be created along with this agency. We are concerned because, as other members have already pointed out, this is a new patronage mill, and when we make this kind of remark to the government, it is clear we are referring to the patronage appointments made by the Liberal Party of Canada.

When we talk about patronage and the Liberal Party of Canada, we know what we are talking about, and so does everyone else. In Canada, in Quebec, for instance, returning officers, who play a very important role in our electoral process, are still appointed on an exclusively partisan basis. Nowadays we would have to look far and wide in Canada to find a returning officer without solid Liberal roots.

We had another example today, when a new lieutenant-governor was appointed, a lady who probably comes from a good family and has the qualifications. I know she was president of the Quebec Office des personnes handicapées, but all of the insiders know that her greatest qualification is, no doubt, having been a Liberal Party of Canada candidate in the past. So her appointment today as lieutenant-governor of Quebec is because of her good Liberal connections, and we can be pretty sure that there has been no great consultation with the Government of Quebec.

We had another example this morning, and another yesterday in my very own riding. It was announced, a bit prematurely because the official announcement had not been made, that the port of Trois-Rivières would be recognized as a Canadian port authority. And who was on the guest list? Two people who could not have been representing anything other than the Liberal Party of Canada. When it comes down to it, it is like an opening ceremony for a section of highway, a Cegep, a hospital or a CLSC in Quebec attended by a representative of the Parti Quebecois.

That is not how we do things in Quebec, not even, I think, how the Quebec Liberals do things. Here we have an imperialist mentality, Mr. Speaker, which you no doubt recognize. We must speak out against it, because it is such a primitive notion, as if the Canadian state belonged to the Liberal Party of Canada.

(1550)

Returning to Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the powers assigned to the Minister of Agriculture, there are certainly grounds for annoyance here. We know that this is just one more den of patronage that has just been created by the Liberal government to which it can appoint its buddies. Justification for annoyance, justification for concern.

Concern, because, as has just been said, when food inspection services affecting the daily lives of Canadians and Quebecers are cut, when 600 inspector positions are cut, when $44 million are cut from services, one cannot help but be concerned about the quality of services that will be delivered throughout the country in future.

We are all the more concerned because there is a trend to privatization in an area as vulnerable as food inspection. According to what we hear, a new system has been developed, which may well take the place of the present system, if we are not careful, rather than complement the government system. That is very important.

According to our information, the inspectors could be in conflict of interest or the business could be in conflict of interest with itself. One wonders whether private funds are involved. If the owner of a slaughter house has to provide direct or indirect payment to the inspector supervising his production and if the inspector is pressured by his employer, where does his loyalty lie?

Whose interest is the inspector going to want to protect, the private interest or society's? His employer, who has power over him, or the public whose interest and health he is paid to protect?

With this sort of privatization, which is so fashionable, in the neo-liberal context of deregulation, we are dealing with a basic issue: people's health. I would be very happy to be in my own skin rather than the government's in the event of public health problems involving poisoning as the result of laziness or some sort of lack of control in which the interests of the employer and those of the public are in conflict.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate the concerns of the Union des producteurs agricoles. It has significant reservations regarding this bill. It would like to have people from the agricultural milieu who know what they are doing, who are capable of making the distinctions and recommendations required in food inspection, rather than masses of pals of the Liberal Party.

Furthermore, the Union des producteurs agricoles wants all the budgets-and this may not be easy with the $44 million cut-currently with health, agriculture and fisheries to be transferred. The three budgets should be combined, and not cut.

There is the danger of cost recovery. It underlies all of that. We hope all of this will not be done on the backs of farm producers, and it is the hope of the UPA as well.

Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-60 which, as was just mentioned, will establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The purpose of this bill is to group under a single agency all the federal government's food inspectors.

(1555)

First, I want to mention, like the hon. member for Trois-Rivières just did, the excellent work of my colleague for Frontenac, who is the official opposition's critic for agricultural issues. Thanks to his vigilance and to his knowledge of the industry, he has been able to raise basic issues relating to agriculture and more specifically to the creation of this agency.

My first point was mentioned by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, but it is worth repeating: Quebec cleaned up its food inspection sector several years ago already. It grouped together its inspectors who, until a few years ago, were spread out in several departments of the Quebec government, and at the municipal level. The situation was such that a municipal inspector would go to a restaurant to check certain things.

For instance he could check the sanitation of the premises. Then, the health department inspector would come along to check the quality of the food. He would be followed by the agriculture department inspector, who would check the origin and quality of the food items. This meant a series of visits, of forms to complete, and of reports which, more often than not, would not bring about any changes, but would definitely create problems for those trying to do business in an intelligent manner.

Giving a single agency responsibility for all this at the federal level makes sense, but in our opinion, we repeat, the federal government ought to abandon its responsibilities in this area and reach an agreement with the provinces, most of whom, I am convinced, are doing this efficiently, providing quality inspection services and ensuring that our fellow citizens feel secure when buying food for home consumption or when they eat out.

Having said this, passing this bill will not solve the problem. In examining Bill C-60, we note three terrible flaws. Clause 10, which refers to the establishment of an advisory board, as there are in a number of other areas, provides for an advisory body made up of people from a variety of backgrounds, who ought to be competent in the field in which their expertise is sought, people who meet together to study the various issues put before them, in order to

report to the minister and to advise him, so that he may make good decisions. That is self-evident. No one is against the establishment of such an advisory board.

Yet we see in the bill before us that it is the minister who will be appointing these men and women, who will be sought out in related fields, and the minister alone will have the power to appoint them to this advisory board.

(1600)

That is where we start wondering and having doubts about the credibility of this advisory board. If the minister alone decides who is to be appointed, it seems likely, considering the way the Liberal government operates, that there will be few people on this board who do not already share his point of view.

In our experience, more often than not, the Liberal government will appoint its friends, people who are clearly identified with the Liberal Party, organizers and fund raisers who will be asked to advise the minister.

The hon. member for Frontenac, the opposition critic for agriculture, told me that in the agriculture committee, he put the following question to witnesses who came to share their expertise on a bill. He asked them where they were from and what their ties were with the Liberal Party of Canada. One of them, who was from Saint-Hyacinthe, said quite frankly that he owed his appointment to the fact he was Liberal.

I see the Minister of Health who agrees with me, and who thinks it is quite normal to proceed in this fashion. It is the Liberal way. My colleague managed the incredible feat of having this put on the record of the House. There it is, printed proof of this practice of the Liberal Party. I am sure no one will challenge this.

This practice has an inherent risk, and that is our message. We are very critical of this section which gives the minister so much power. If this advisory board consists of people who are, I would not say subservient, the term is perhaps a bit too strong, but who tend to think along the same lines as the minister because they share the same political views, go to the same political meetings, give funds to the same political party, how can we trust the integrity of these people when the time comes to make decisions and advise the minister?

Will these people, who were appointed because of their political allegiance, have all the freedom, all the independence they need to be able to tell the minister when he gives them dossiers they will have to think about and when he asks for their advice, will they be able to muster the requisite credibility, freedom and independence? Will they be able to tell the minister: ``Here are the guidelines you suggested; they do not reflect what the people in this sector want; they do not meet the needs of the public''? Hardly.

This is not to say that being a Liberal means being incompetent. Conversely, to be competent, you do not have to be a Liberal. I think the first criteria should be competence. That is what my colleague mentioned in his speech, and what is reflected in the amendments he is proposing.

In fact, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, through the hon. member for Frontenac, suggests that the Standing Committee on Agriculture appoint these people. I think this is a very useful suggestion and I also think that every time the federal government makes appointments, its appointments should be scrutinized by the various parliamentary committees.

(1605)

In this way, thanks to the way the parliamentary committees operate, because their members represent the government and also the various opposition parties, we have an opportunity to question these people, and I will conclude on this note, and have the assurance that wise choices are made so that the best candidates will be chosen to give the best possible advice to the minister.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-60 at report stage. My colleague from Frontenac has indicated we have reached the motions in Group No. 5. Curiously, it is a point I like to criticize the government on. The motions in Group No. 5 refer to the way the government can organize the human resources in these agencies, that is, how it appoints people to the agency.

I must say right off that the federal government tried the same thing in another bill, the one on fisheries, because it tried to create the fisheries tribunal and make it quasi legal, a quasi tribunal. In that instance I mentioned government fronts. Once again, it is the same thing: a patronage haven.

When the minister claims the right to appoint people himself and to define, extend and renew mandates, what are we talking about? How does this differ from hiring someone from the public service? At least this person becomes apolitical, he will have to work under all future governments, regardless of their colour. But in this case, they take money and make absolutely sure that this will be a place that provides a job for the friends of the party. My colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead made this point very clearly.

Here we are approaching Christmas, two weeks away from it. The Liberals are trying to ensure a fine Christmas present for their friends by pushing us to debate this bill. They want to be sure that there is something under the tree for their friends, once the bill is passed, like the gift of future jobs. It is time to get real.

My hon. colleague from Frontenac has raised some goods points. We will never say it often enough today: when the Bloc Quebecois sends its soldiers to the front, them come prepared and, as a good

soldier, the hon. member for Frontenac has done an excellent job in this matter. I can see him smile, but he is modest.

I would like to come back to a few points. If the federal government wanted to be consistent and say: ``This is not a Christmas present for our friends'', would it be prepared to accept that the agency be made up of people, if nothing else, appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture?

Why refer to this committee?-I notice the parliamentary secretary responsible for agriculture is joining us. We have had the opportunity to work with him. He is from Nova Scotia-Someone described it earlier as a patronage haven, but I will address that later. But I want to make sure to catch the attention of the hon. member, because there are still a few good Liberals. We must not lump them all in the same category. Since the good ones are so few, when we catch one, we better make sure they hear what our expectations are.

(1610)

As I was saying, to prevent the proposed agency from becoming a patronage haven, why would its members not be appointed by the advisory board?

The parliamentary secretary opposite has had to face us in committee. The people opposite know they are in majority any way in the various committees, but at least official opposition members and the other members of this House can have a say. That is what I call transparency; that is what I call having faith.

My second point is the following. Why not ensure that candidates are selected from within the various communities and that the appointments to be considered in committee are made by the community. Let me explain.

If we are looking at an inspection system for fisheries, for instance, the fisheries community would submit to the Standing Committee on Agriculture a list of recommended candidates who have knowledge and expertise in that area. I am sure a joint fisheries-agriculture committee can be struck at that time for the specific purpose of considering who should be appointed to the agency.

Why oppose such an amendment? Perhaps to make sure that the only requirement for getting appointed to the board of this agency is to be a card-carrying member or friend of the Liberal Party.

Let me now move to another point that needs to be addressed. This agency is supposed to be a Canada-wide agency. Since Canada is made up of ten provinces, why not have specified, for each province, in the formula for determining how many administrators or inspectors will be involved, a percentage that would take the relative demographic importance of the province into account. Why not?

In just a few minutes, we were able to make three suggestions to improve the perception, the political philosophy behind all this.

We realize that it may be reasonable to try to ensure that, in Ottawa, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. We cannot go against virtue and oppose the idea that the various inspection systems are being consolidated under a single agency, since we currently have a fisheries division, a food division, and a drug division in the health sector. The idea makes sense, but the problem is how these changes will be implemented.

The work done by the hon. member for Frontenac regarding this issue will have to be taken into consideration, if we want to improve the bill to make it good for all Quebecers and Canadians, including those in Nova Scotia, whom the parliamentary secretary, who is listening carefully, represents.

If the government does not support the amendments or motions moved by the hon. member for Frontenac, what will Canadians and Quebecers think of the bill?

They will think: the more things change, the more they stay the same. In Canada, we switched from the Conservatives to the Liberals. But what has changed? What has changed is that the friends of the Conservatives have lost their jobs; they have been replaced by friends of the Liberals.

The bill is a means to appoint Liberal Party friends who are in waiting. Indeed, not all the Liberal friends got jobs, and they are getting impatient.

The government has an opportunity to clean up the situation and to rebuild the credibility of the bureaucratic system. It has an opportunity to restore public confidence through the people who will represent the public and who will work for it.

(1615)

But if, once again, the government lets go of such an opportunity, what will people think? If they are friends of the Liberal Party they may think they will receive a nice Christmas present, but if they are ordinary citizens they will probably think the government is pulling another fast one on them.

I pointed out earlier that the government is doing the same thing with the Fisheries Act. The Bloc Quebecois is opposing this, again thanks to the information provided by the hon. member for Frontenac, who prepared the amendments very well. The Bloc Quebecois will once again oppose the bill.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of my fellow Bloc Quebecois members in condemning this bill. We often have occasion to discuss a new bill in the House. Generally, when a bill is brought before the

House, it has been gone over by ministers' advisers and the various groups working in the same area. After a certain amount of consultation, a bill is tabled and, as is the custom in Canada, brought before the House for discussion and improvement through amendments from the various parties and the various members, even those forming the government.

But this time, I am very surprised at the arrogance with which the government threw this bill onto members' desks and told them: ``Whether it is good or not, vote for it, we are going to pass it''. Although we tried to suggest some entirely logical amendments that the government could easily have lived with, we met with complete arrogance.

I have noticed this arrogance getting worse for a number of months now. Having come to office with a red book full of fine promises and good intentions, this party began by holding pseudo-consultation sessions that consisted of a few days spent examining-they did not really know what to do-issues such as the Canadian forces abroad. After these brief sessions, they would say: ``There, we have just kept our promise of consulting members more thoroughly, of giving them more opportunities to participate''. The page was turned, and lo and behold, we found ourselves back in the Trudeau era, when the interests of friends of the party dictated what got done, not the interests of the people of Canada and of Quebec.

Today, this government is gagging us and asking us to quietly approve a bill like this, a bill that gives the minister the power to appoint everyone who will run this agency or who will advise the government. This is completely ridiculous. We could always say that this is a government without much experience, that it is perhaps full of good intentions and should be given a chance. But look at its track record. They say that history repeats itself, and when you look at the past performance of the Liberal Party of Canada, can you trust such a government?

I have already said in the House, and I repeat, that trusting Canada's interests to the Liberal Party of Canada is worse than putting Dracula in charge of the Red Cross blood bank. I have already said in the House, and I repeat, that trusting this government to make unbiased appointments is out of the question. We have only to look at the three years since they have been back in office. It is unbelievable. Take the Senate appointments alone. Have you ever seen a more shocking display of patronage? Mr. Mulroney would never have gone that far; he consulted the provinces before appointing senators.

(1620)

Never. This government is not characterized by its transparency, but by its arrogance. That arrogance is felt in its bills, in its appointments, in its political speeches. This Prime Minister is the total incarnation of arrogance.

What I have difficulty understanding is how Liberal MPs are keeping silent, preferring to serve a party, and their party buddies, to serving the interests of the people in their riding. Off-putting, that. I see them with their heads down. I understand their embarrassment to speak on such a bill. They prefer to say nothing rather than defend such a thing. Their constituents would laugh at them. As the kids I used to teach would say: Believe that? Give me a break!

It is incredible to table such a bill and to force the Liberal MPs I see around me to keep quiet, to hunker down in embarrassment in their seats. Their red book has not only changed colour to blue, things are even worse than that.

We are worse off than in the days of the Conservatives. I remember those days. I know how things work within a traditional party, but they would never have gone that far. The most corrupt party, the most patronage-riddled party, the most self-serving party in Canadian history is the Liberal Party of Canada.

I understand the shame we can see on the faces of hon. members opposite. When I run into them in the halls, they tell me that it makes no sense to be forced to vote in favour of such a bill. They tell us the same thing in committees. They tell us they can no longer talk to their leader, they do not see him any more. They only get instructions, it is a matter of believe or die.

If they do not toe the line, they face the same fate as the member for York South-Weston, who dared to remind party members, at the time of the budget, of their promise to abolish the GST. He was told: ``You dare question; out you go''. He is a loyal member, whose fine interventions while he was in opposition helped bring down the Conservative Party. He opposed patronage and arrogance.

Now he finds that his party is behaving even worse, ten times as badly as the Conservatives. It makes appointments and tables bills simply to be able to pay back the party faithful, increase election funds and behave more arrogantly than before.

Meanwhile, the Liberal members elected in good faith are keeping their mouths shut. They have a responsibility. I see the many members opposite listening bowing their heads in silent approval.

I would like them to rise and express their approval rather than encourage me to continue, because what I say is true, and they are unable to control their own party. Let them rise, instead. Perhaps they stand a better chance of being re-elected if they rise than if they pipe down, as they have been for the past few months.

The government is endlessly introducing bills, without consultation, full of things that could be corrected through the wise counsels that could be provided by Liberal, New Democrat, Reform and Bloc Quebecois members.

The best example involves the member for Frontenac, who proposed amendments that would be acceptable to any citizens' committee, whether it sat at city hall or as part of a softball league.

They would say: ``We are putting a softball team together. Is it all right with you if we talk about it among ourselves before appointing people to run our club?'' Everyone would say: ``By all means, let us talk about it.'' That is all the hon. member is suggesting in his motion.

His amendment says: How about it, if the agriculture committee of this place, where all the parties are represented, said, for instance, let us make a list of all the suggestions received from all over the place, or just about, and put a subcommittee in charge of meeting the candidates to ensure, first, that they meet the legislator's requirements and, second, that they have adequate knowledge-that is what the amendment says-in order to effectively perform their duties?

(1625)

After these consultations have taken place, recommendations would be made to the minister. The minister may retain fifteen of the names on the list as acceptable candidates and these people would be appointed. Or else, he would go back to the committee, saying he objects to such and such a candidate for this reason or that. Could there be anything simpler?

That is how things are done everywhere else, even on a parish council. On a church wardens' board or a school board, that would go without saying. But no, the Liberals have raised arrogance to the status of a motto. ``Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance''. During the election, it was ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. Now it is ``arrogance, arrogance, arrogance''.

Then they come and tell us: ``Take it as it is. It is Christmas time; it will go down well. Do not worry, we will make objective appointments.''

As I said earlier, the past foreshadows the future, and to trust this party to make objective appointments is to dream in technicolour, it is a Christmas story that will turn out badly.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal members present seemed to really enjoy my speech, I would like to get the unanimous consent of the House to continue indefinitely.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

(1630)

The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question will be on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 12.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Translation]

The next question will be on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[English]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment

are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, official languages; the hon. member for Bourassa, immigration; the hon. member for Peterborough, Trent-Severn Waterway.

* * *

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

* * *

CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY ACT

The Deputy Speaker: We now move to mitions in Group No. 6.

[English]

Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with the two opposition parties and I think you would find unanimous consent that the remaining groups of motions be deemed to have been read, seconded and a recorded division called for. Then the remainder of the afternoon will be open for debate.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's request?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I was not consulted.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member asked for the unanimous consent of the House. Did members not hear the question?

Mr. Plamondon: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. member please repeat her question?

[English]

Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is to allow the remaining time to be devoted to debate on the amendments before the House. Therefore, I ask that the House give its unanimous consent that the remaining groups of motions be deemed to have been read, seconded and a recorded division called for.

(1635)

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's proposal?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to Group No. 6.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-60, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4 with the following:

``12. Notwithstanding that the Agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act,

(a) section 7 and subsection 69(3) of that Act do not apply to the Agency; and

(b) for the purposes of paragraph 92(1)(b) of that Act, the Agency is deemed to be designated pursuant to subsection 92(4) of that Act. ''

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-60, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4 with the following:

``12. The Agency is deemed to be included in the definition of ``federal undertaking'' in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code and that Act applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the Agency and its employees.''

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-60, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34 on page 4 with the following:

``13. The employees of the Agency shall be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act.''

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-60, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 4 with the following:

``13.(1) Subject to paragraph 12(a), the President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.''

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-60, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 4 the following:

``(1.1) One year after the Agency is established, the President shall provide, for study, to such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters, a detailed report respecting the criteria used in making appointments under subsection (1).''

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-60, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 29 with the following:

``93. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act, or any provision of this Act, or any provision of any Act enacted or amended by this Act, comes into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

(2) The Governor in Council shall not make the order referred to in subsection (1) unless it has been advised by the Minister that the Minister has prepared a Code of Conduct and Ethics to govern the appointment of employees by the Agency.''

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now move on to Group No. 7.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-60, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34 on page 5 with the following:

``16. Notwithstanding section 9 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Agency may, with the approval of the Minister,''

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 37 on page 5 the following new Clause:

``16.1 (1) Notwithstanding section 16, the Agency shall not procure goods and services, including legal services, from outside the public service of Canada unless the Agency has satisfied itself that such goods and services are not available within the public service of Canada.

(2) Notwithstanding section 16, where goods and services, including legal services, are to be procured from outside the public service of Canada, the Agency shall, before procuring those services, call for bids for those services from the private sector.''

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next vote is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We now move on to the motions in Group No. 8.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-60, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 8 on page 7 with the following:

``corporate business plan, for study, to such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters for study by that committee.

(1.1) After studying the corporate business plan, the committee referred to in subsection (1) shall either approve or reject the plan.

(1.2) Where the corporate business plan is approved, the committee shall advise the Minister of the approval and the Minister shall table a copy of the plan in the House of Commons for approval by that House on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister is advised of the committee's approval.

(1.3) Where a corporate business plan is laid before the House of Commons under subsection (1.2) and rejected by that House, the Agency shall not implement that plan.''

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-60, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 7 the following:

``(1.1) Before submitting its plan to the minister, the Agency shall consult

(a) any person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing, food distribution and public health sectors whom the Agency considers appropriate to consult;

(b) any government of a province that has advised, in writing, the Agency of its wish to be consulted; and

(c) the unions representing some or all of the employees of the Agency.''

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-60, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 7 with the following:

``detailed statement of the assessment by''

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We now move on to the motions in Group No. 9.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-60, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 8 with the following:

``24.(1) Subject to the regulations, the Minister may, on January 1, 2000, fix the fees to be paid for a service or the use of a facility provided by the Agency.''

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-60, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 8 with the following:

``26. (1) Before fixing a fee under section 24 or 25, the Minister shall consult with the advisory board and may consult with any persons or organizations that the Minister considers to be interested in the matter.''

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-60, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 8 with the following:

``persons or organizations that have an interest in the matter or that have expressed an interest in the matter to the Minister.''

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-60, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 8 with the following:

``27. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Treasury Board may make regulations for the purposes of sections 24 to 26.

(2) Every regulation the Treasury Board proposes to make under subsection (1) shall be sent by that Board for study and approval to such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters.

(3) Where, after studying a proposed regulation referred to it under subsection (2), the committee rejects that regulation, that regulation may not be made by the Treasury Board.''

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The next division will be on MotionNo. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next division will be on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next division will on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.

We now move on to the motions in Group No. 10.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-60, in Clause 31, be amended

(a) by replacing line 29 on page 9 with the following:

``31. (1) The Agency must keep books of account''

(b) by adding the following after line 31 on page 9:

``(2) One year after the Agency is established, the Agency shall make available for inspection its books of account and records for that year.''

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-60, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42 on page 9 with the following:

``(c) provide a report to the President, the Minister and such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters on the audit, opinion and assessment.''

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 9 the following new Clause:

``32.1 Before providing the report under paragraph 32(c), the Auditor General of Canada shall consult

(a) any person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing, food distribution and public health sectors whom the Minister considers appropriate to consult; and

(b) any government of a province that has advised the Auditor General of Canada, in writing, of its wish to be consulted.''

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next vote is on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We now move on to the motions in Group No. 11.

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-60 be amended by adding before line 1 on page 10 the following:

``32.1 The provisions made by any Appropriation Act for the fiscal year in which this section comes into force or a subsequent fiscal year, based on the Estimates for that year, to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of Canada within the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and Health in relation to any matter for which the Agency is responsible by virtue of Section 11 are deemed to be an amount appropriated for defraying the charges and expenses of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in such amount as the Treasury Board may, on the recommendations of the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and Health, determine.''

His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in the following amendment to Bill C-60, An Act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence. That Bill C-60 be amended by adding before line 1 on page 10 the following:

``32.1 The provisions made by any Appropriation Act for the fiscal year in which this section comes into force or a subsequent fiscal year, based on the Estimates for that year, to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of Canada within the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and Health in relation to any matter for which the Agency is responsible by virtue of Section 11 are deemed to be an amount appropriated for defraying the charges and expenses of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in such amount as the Treasury Board may, on the recommendations of the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and Health, determine.''

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are now on debate on the motions in Group No. 6. You may have notice that we proposed six amendments in this group: AmendmentsNos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 36, which specifically concern clause 13 of Bill C-60.

I would like to take a few moments to read clause 13, since this is the crucial clause and the amendments the official opposition is presenting this afternoon are specifically aimed at improving Bill C-60.

If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food thinks this is obstruction, he is mistaken. I will read clause 13, and there is not a single municipal council in the smallest municipality in Canada that would accept a clause like this one.

13. (1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.

As the Prime Minister said so eloquently this week to people who were looking for work: ``Good luck''. I could tell people who are looking for work: ``Stick with the president of the Food Inspection Agency and with the Prime Minister's party, the Liberal Party''.

We also read in clause 13(2):

13.(2) The President may set the terms and conditions of employment for employees of the Agency and assign duties to them.

13.(3) The President may designate any person or class of persons as inspectors, analysts, graders, veterinary inspectors or other officers for the enforcement or administration of any Act or provision that the Agency enforces or administers by virtue of section 11, in respect of any matter referred to in the designation.

I may recall that, as I said earlier, for the time being the agency does not have to abide by the guidelines that usually apply to this type of agency of department when hiring employees. It does not have to abide by a principle that is currently recognized and that is effective in that it affords some protection against patronage.

Our amendments are clear and specific. For instance, our amendment should be read here in connection with the amendment concerning the Professional Institute of the Public Service. We proposed this amendment because, in its present form, the agency will be a separate employer in the meaning of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As a result, many of its employees will lose their vested rights.

(1640)

We must not forget that this new agency created by Bill C-60 will have a staff of 4,500 in full time positions across Canada.

These employees will come from pretty much everywhere, but, if they do not suit the president and are considered incapable of doing the job or do not want to leave Halifax to come and work at head office, which will be here in the national capital, they will be replaced by other people the president can simply appoint. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada will not be respected. So, a number of employees will be penalized by C-60.

This sort of behaviour by the Liberal Party headed by the hon. Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice is despicable. Just this week, his comment to a woman from Saskatchewan, who has three university degrees-two bachelors and a masters degree-and is looking for work, was, simply: ``Good luck''. It is disgusting.

So, to rule out any abuse or poor employee management and to make the hiring process transparent within the agency, which will have nearly 5,000 employees, we are calling for a detailed report on the hiring criteria used.

I would at this point like to return to this week's, in fact today's, oral question period. You no doubt followed the questions on the space agency in the region of Longueuil and Saint-Hubert. Mr. Evans is a personal friend of the Minister of Industry and was appointed by him. A fine example of patronage. Today, Mr. Evans is getting his minister into hot water up to his neck.

The amendments we proposed are aimed at protecting this party from potential abuse in the case of the food inspection agency. We are no longer talking about the space agency but about food inspection. Food is going to be inspected, and human health will be at stake.

The president and executive vice-president of this agency must be appointed not because they are friends of the Liberal Party, but because they are competent and able to do the job. Too often, unfortunately, in partisan appointments, the individual who has contributed the most to party coffers is given huge responsibilities. But in this case, we are talking about your health, Mr. Speaker, and that of your children and your wife. This is serious.

The report will have to be sent to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food one year after the establishment of the agency. Here again, we are concerned by possible patronage abuses on the part of the government and we want to be able to monitor this process closely and openly.

Before turning to clause 93, we repeatedly suggested and recommended in a number of our amendments that the agency consult with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. The members opposite refused.

I can see them, and I also see them in committee. Just this week, in a committee of which I am a member, I nudged my colleague from the Reform Party and told him: ``See how bored the Liberal members seem to be today with the committee on agriculture''.

(1645)

Indeed, they seemed to be bored to death. Some did not seem to really understand the issue, others did not want to speak, fearing to drag things out even more, or to ask questions because they we not familiar with the issue.

My colleague from the Reform Party said: ``Yes, unfortunately, it is not the top experts on agriculture they have sent to the committee'', with the exception of the member for Malpeque, who always has questions or solutions to propose.

This having been said, for the amendments in Group No. 6, the critical issue was clause 13 of Bill C-60. To conclude, I remind you again that the Liberal government is going to appoint the president and the first vice-president for an indeterminate period. We do not know. I asked whether it would be six months, six years or twelve months, but they would not tell me anything, claiming they did not know. So, for an indeterminate period, the chairman and vice-chairman will be free to appoint anyone they like. In other words, they are telling people to look for ``jobs, jobs, jobs'', while the Prime Minister wishes them ``good luck''.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to raise a point of order. Since it is only 4.45 p.m., I would like to get the unanimous consent of the House to speak for another five or six minutes so I can explain to my Liberal colleagues across the way why Bill C-60 should be improved.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time is up. Since he wishes to go on for five more minutes, does the House give unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleagues from the government party want to know more about the benefits of our amendments aimed at improving Bill C-60.

Mrs. Gaffney: And that is why we allowed you to speak in debate too.

Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Thank you very much. I want to give special thanks to the member who convinced her colleagues to agree to my request.

I want to address clause 93 of Bill C-60. It is also quite important, but it should be amended. I will read it for the benefit of the House:

This Act, or any provision of the Act, or any provision of any Act enacted or amended by this Act, comes into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

I told you that the Governor in Council would appoint the president, the executive vice-president, and the advisory board. It would appear that they have already found a president, an executive vice-president, and that the advisory board is just about complete. Some democracy! But I am still introducing my amendments.

Under clause 93, our amendment provides that the act will not come into force as long as the Minister of Agriculture has not prepared a code of conduct and ethics to govern the appointment of employees by the agency. We want a code of ethics, but not like the one the Prime Minister wanted for his cabinet. Whenever we ask him to read from his code of ethics or to provide us with a copy, we are told it is still being printed.

I challenge you. If you had a code of ethics in your private company, you would be proud to show it to me, to boast about it, to praise it, or better yet, to improve it if at all possible.

(1650)

When the Prime Minister is in hot water, as was the case this afternoon during question period, when his industry minister was questioned about the space agency, is his code of ethics any good? We know how Mr. Evans was appointed chairman of the space agency in St. Hubert.

This code must be developed in conjunction with the union or unions of the future agency and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The objective is to get rid once and for all of the patronage that might easily take roots within the food inspection agency. This is serious.

In the several months since we started examining Bill C-60 and I started raising these cases of patronage, I have received several calls from people supporting me. Unfortunately, when I ask them to testify before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, they are very reluctant because they fear retaliation from that party.

The Mulroney government did not go as far with patronage. Brian Mulroney, whom I consider to be among one of the greatest givers of patronage jobs, would never have created a new agency just to reward his friends. This is serious because there will be more than 4,500 jobs.

If the government votes against this amendment that we are proposing in clause 93, we will have to understand that it wants to control the agency, thus hurting the interests of the people it represents.

I doubt Canadians will have full confidence in this food inspection system that will be entrusted to an agency whose executives will not be appointed because of their capabilities, but because of their political allegiance and their past services to the Liberal Party.

I thank the Liberal members for giving me five more minutes.

Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise a second time this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-60 to establish the food inspection agency to point out not an anomaly, in my opinion, but rather a precedent.

At least it will represent a precedent in the federal public service. When I rose earlier, I said that, like my colleagues, I was against the minister having sole responsibility for appointing the members of the advisory board, because of an extremely high risk of patronage, which could discredit the advisory board and, consequently, any study submitted to this board and any opinion provided by the board to the minister.

Clause 12 of the bill, regarding human resources, states that:

The agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

(1655)

If clause 12 states that the agency is a separate employer, that means that the agency will not be subject to the Public Service of Canada Act.

It states further, at clause 13, that ``the president has the authority to appoint the employees of the agency''. It is there in black and white. So, it is obvious that the president, as several members said-and the hon. member for Frontenac just did-who is appointed by the governor in Council, in other words by cabinet,

with all the risks attached to such appointments, such as appointing partisan individuals whose only qualifications would be their membership in the Liberal Party, once this president has been appointed, carefully chosen because he is one of their own-so he will do exactly as told-, this president will be totally free to appoint whomever he wants as an employee of the agency. They are civil servants. We are talking about civil servants who will go everywhere, in restaurants, in businesses, to inspect the food quality, the cleanliness of the premises.

Those are the people referred to. The bill provides:

12. The Agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

13. (1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.

(2) The President may set the terms and conditions of employment for employees of the Agency and assign duties to them.

This means that not only is the advisory committee mentioned previously-which could be essentially partisan-thus discredited, but that the agency as a whole can lose its credibility. This is very serious. This means that any individual, any business owner or institution could question the quality of these inspectors' work.

I am convinced that no union, no shop steward representing public servants was consulted about this clause, which exempts the food inspection agency from the application of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. In other words, these people will not be public servants. They will be employees of the agency and they will always be governed by its terms and conditions of employment. This is what clause 13, which reads as follows, provides:

13.(1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.

(2) The President may set the terms and conditions of employment

The agency must not become a haven for patronage. We not let this happen, otherwise the work of all these people, the work of the whole agency will come into question. This would prove that Quebecers are right to demand-not merely ask-that this inspection work be done by inspectors accountable to the Government of Quebec. We experienced a similar situation of distrust in the seventies.

(1700)

Some will remember the tainted meat scandal in Quebec. At the time, food inspections were not conducted properly, and hardly anything was checked. The situation was brought to light and it was found that organized crime had infiltrated the food inspection sector.

Following a commission of inquiry, the Quebec government took a number of measures to correct the situation, including the grouping of all inspectors under a single organization, and the implementation of strict measures to give credibility to this activity.

The most serious harm that has been done at the time is that, because of some laxness in food inspection, for many years and even still today, some people have doubts when they see the seal ``Quebec approved''.

After 10 or 15, I do not know how many years, people in some circles still hesitate to put their faith in inspections by the Quebec government. That is exactly what will happen once we have an agency run by the government's buddies, those who contribute to its slush fund. Moreover, inspectors will be selected by these people.

I do not have to tell you what will happen when the time comes to hire inspectors. The first card one will have to show is not the qualification card granted by some college, but a small red card with a maple leaf on. That is the one to be shown. That is the way things will work.

And then, they want the agency to have some credibility. They want inspectors to go do their inspections anywhere they please and would have us believe that, after the officer from the Liberal Party has visited their business, people will feel really secure. That is sheer nonsense.

I cannot think for a single moment that such provisions will be maintained. My colleague from the agriculture committee is right to criticize the way Liberal government is proceeding in that regard. The government seems intent not on dealing with problems but on creating a lot more. They think the solution lies in leaving any future decision making to people they alone have confidence in, that is Liberal hacks. That seems to be the solution.

They could change the title of the bill and call it the Liberal Food Inspection Agency instead of calling it the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Then at least it would reflect a de facto situation and people dealing with those inspectors would know what is what. With the provisions as they are, there will be some doubts. People will wonder if the inspector is qualified, competent, if he took courses and was trained for the job, who hired him, and so forth.

We cannot accept such a situation. That is why, unless the amendments put forward by my colleague are accepted, we will not be able to support such a decision.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many things have been said today that need to be clarified and corrected to a great degree.

When the hon. member concluded his speech he suggested that the government would not ensure that qualified, well respected people will get the jobs. In fact, that is exactly what will happen. We will make certain that qualified well respected people are doing the inspection jobs for food.

(1705 )

It has not been by error or by mistake, or any other way but good, strategic planning that Canada is recognized around the world as one of the countries with the safest food supply in the world. The federal inspection agency has been and shall continue to be the best inspection agency that the country can possibly put forward.

We know that when problems have occurred in other countries, Canada has been on the side of extra caution. We shall remain on the side of extra caution.

We are not talking here about political, partisan appointments. We are talking about a lack of arguments by the opposition to bring forward criticism that is valid for this bill.

A very partisan approach has been taken in the House today. I am certain not one person from the government, not one person in the House, and I do not care on which side of the House they sit, would jeopardize the safety of the food supply, food source for Canadians or internationally. That is paramount. That must be stated now.

Amendments have been put forward. Those amendments are in some degree to Americanize our system. The suggestion that an agriculture committee start holding hearings on people who will be coming to certain boards, going into the detail of how our system operates is somewhat different from a parliamentary system.

The responsible person in all the inspection systems in Canada is the Prime Minister, going down to his cabinet and to the ministers who are appointed to carry out that responsibility.

This agency is not being formed on a whim. A tremendous amount of consultation has taken place across the country. Well over a year has been spent looking at different aspects of agriculture, health, fishing as well as the inspection agencies that exist at the present time.

I know very well that some of our officials have been on this case over two years, trying to make certain that all the steps that are being put forward are done in consultation with the industry, in consultation with all the inspection services in the country, in consultation with all the departments in government to make sure a good, positive, protective system that will make certain our food supply is the best in the world is established.

The agency will make certain consistency is there and one source can be responsible for the inspection systems in the country. There is no question that there is overlap when you have three separate departments functioning with one agency to do the inspections.

Certainly, if there are laboratories that are doing the same work, if there are facilities that we have in an area that could do both the agriculture, the fishing and the health inspections at one time that is the most efficient way to do.

By forming an agency under the minister of agriculture, we have formed a single inspection agency reporting to one minister and one group of people who can look at the system and come up with solutions that would better the delivery of inspections across the country.

That is what has happened. We feel it is extremely important to have the proper steps in place, the proper people doing the job. Quite frankly, it is not an area where we are looking at partisanship. We are looking at placing the best qualified people in those positions that we can get. I believe that is most important for all Canadians.

I would like to address a few of the motions put forward that I have not addressed to this point. One has to do with common service providers.

(1710)

A series of motions were brought forward. The purpose of the government's proposal was to give the agency the opportunity to find a cost effective way to deliver services in the program. However, before proceeding, the agency must seek Treasury Board and council approval to pay for those costs as the business proceeds. This is an area with a cross-governmental implication and therefore the minister should require and seek concurrence of his colleagues.

It is important that we look very carefully at the human resources issue with regard to this bill. The intention of clause 12 is to provide the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with separate employer status and not to make changes to collective agreements which are a framework for the public service. With the addition of subsection 12(a), this proposed amendment would open all matters to the bargaining process that are now within the employer's responsibility in the public service. In other words, some of the

amendments are opening up doors to employee-employer problems which may come in the future.

Certainly the department has looked very carefully at how the bill should be structured in order to make certain that there is a harmonious, fair way flowing from the present inspection system to the new agency so that all employees will have a reasonable understanding of what is happening and will be able to move from their present jobs into the inspection agency if they so desire.

I was a bit astounded when the member for Richelieu stood today. I recall the member for Richelieu being a very staunch member of the Conservative Party when Mr. Mulroney was here. It is not proper for him to stand and criticize the present government for partisan appointments. It seems that no one was more partisan, more prone to be dictatorial and oppressive than the former prime minister. It is very unfair for a person who sat in his caucus to go after the government for the policies and the issues we have brought forward.

Clearly the direction of this bill is to have the best possible inspection agency in the most cost effective and efficient way we can. We are looking at cost controls when we put an inspection agency in place. I have heard from the agriculture community, the fishing community and from all others that it will be a very positive move if we can save money.

One of the greatest considerations the industry has had in the past several months is the PMRA. The question of the PMRA is a matter of the industry being very concerned about cost and cost effectiveness. If this agency is put in place with a savings of $44 million, that will address cost savings and effectiveness not only for all Canadians but for the industry itself.

Although many criticisms have been brought forward, I believe unfairly, about some of the today's issues, the central focus of the government is on the efficient delivery of service and top quality service inspection. Food inspection is our number one priority. The people receiving that food inspection are the people who must be protected. It is important for this country to have the safest food inspection service in the world. We are here to deliver it.

(1715)

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on motions in Group No. 6, according to the groupings made by the Chair with the co-operation of House leaders.

The more we move along in the point by point study of the amendments to this bill, the more we realize this is the greatest exercise in improvisation we have seen these last few weeks. If improvisation, carelessness and arrogance have always been the trademark of this government over the last two years-almost three years, actually-instead of the openness all citizens are calling for, this bill really takes the cake.

It is unbelievable that they should simply brush off all our amendments. None of them is deemed acceptable, even though they could easily be accepted by anybody except this arrogant government.

We are simply looking for a better management of this food inspection agency. We are suggesting appointments should be made in consultation. But the government has done it again today: It has named a new lieutenant-governor without consulting in any way the government of Quebec, even if it could do it. This is a federal prerogative. I do not hold a grudge against the person who has be named, but against the office of lieutenant-governor and the way the government went about this nomination.

What we are seeing here, as discussed under other groups of motions, is that the government would like to appoint a dozen persons as administrators of this agency at the sole discretion of the minister. I can understand the shame members opposite feel when they see a minister grabbing the power to appoint. They know what kind of appointments will be made, patronage appointments, as always. The appointee will have to be a known Liberal. It could be profitable for the slush fund. After all, Liberals have always been at the service of the friends of their own party and never at the service of the people.

With its customary arrogance, the government wants the minister to appoint the 12 members of the board and rejects the very simple, concrete and sensible suggestion made by the hon. member for Frontenac, who said: ``We would like the agency to be managed by people who have some experience in the agri-food area, so we would like the committee responsible for considering agricultural matters here, in the House of Commons, to invite people to send in their résumés. Then, with the assistance of the subcommittees and all the parties, we could screen candidates. Finally, we would make our recommendations to the minister, who, in turn, would be able to use his discretionary power to choose 12 members among a list of 20 candidates''.

The minister could at least approve this solution. We think the committee should appoint the 12 members, but if the minister were to say: ``Give me a list with 20 names on it and I will choose 12 members'', that would be some type of compromise to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Frontenac, who is very efficiently overseeing this whole matter for the Bloc Quebecois.

In the proposal he brought forward, the hon. member for Frontenac is, in fact, saying: Our amendment has three objectives. First, that the 12 members of the advisory board be appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, after due consideration. Second, that beforehand the provinces and the

representatives of the agriculture industry be allowed to submit to the committee the names of candidates for appointment to the advisory board. That is not too much to ask of the minister.

(1720)

Third, that the membership of the advisory board take into account the weight of each province within the federation.

The government brags about being a national party and providing equal representation for all citizens. The hon. member for Frontenac is giving the government the opportunity to prove it. He said: ``If a province has 25 per cent of the Canadian population, then it should have three seats out of 12 on the advisory board''. That does not mean that the board would be controlled by a region or another. We will have achieved the balance all Canadians are striving for.

When we consulted our people on this, they asked why we were consulting them about it, because it was obvious to them that the minister should receive suggestions from the provinces, the agri-food sector, political parties in general and people who could sit on the advisory board. But the minister was so arrogant enough that he turned down this suggestion, which seems absolutely fundamental to me.

I understand why there is not a single Liberal member today who wants to speak in favour of such a thing. They say nothing and hide. There they are, their heads bowed down. There are so many that they cannot be missed. What do they say? I can see an assistant to the minister who is nudging a member to get him to speak on this, but I do not blame the member for heading behind the curtain. There is no justification for speaking against such logical and simple amendments, which would just facilitate the workings of any agency that we want to be effective and relevant and to do the work that all the members of this House want it to do.

So, to be sure, we say that we must consult the people involved in the agri-food sector and the provinces, which also have a very important role to play. But no, the minister has told his members say nothing or else they will be expelled, as was the member from Ontario who now sits as an independent member because he dared to say to the Prime Minister: ``Mr. Prime Minister, you promised to scrap the GST, do you not remember?'' He was thrown out of his party because he dared to talk to the Prime Minister. This is democracy in the Liberal Party.

This is an arrogant party, the party most given to pork-barrelling and the most corrupt party in Canadian history. It thinks of nothing but helping its political friends instead of serving the interests of Canadians and Quebecers. And the person who best personifies this corruption and pork-barrelling style of government is the Prime Minister himself. I am convinced that even the Minister of Agriculture received instructions to use such a dictatorial approach in appointing people.

The Prime Minister's list of party backers is a long one. The Liberals appointed 400 people last year to well paid positions. They will now appoint 500 or 600 more before the election and, particularly, before the holiday season. Since people will be busy partying, nobody will notice all these appointments, and there will be many of them.

The Prime Minister instructed the minister to set up the agency right away, to use his discretionary power to do so; he will be given the names of appointees later. There are still a few Liberal candidates who did not get a reward or a contract, and let us not forget that it is the wife of the former defense minister, Mrs. Collenette, who makes suggestions. Members will recall that the defence minister himself granted contracts worth $75,000 to one of his fund raisers to thank him and to ask him to organize his next election campaign.

This is what we are making a stand against today. I wonder why even Liberal members are hiding and refusing to acknowledge that what we are proposing is logical and that we should put an end to the arrogance they have been showing lately on every issue, especially on political appointments.

(1725)

This is worse than the Mulroney years, because Mr. Mulroney took the time to consult the provinces even for the choice of senators, but the present Prime Minister's arrogance is obvious. Moreover, he admitted it publicly when he said: ``I am the one who makes the appointments''. He also told his minister of agriculture: ``I will name them and I will give you the list''.

The kind of patronage, so typical of the Trudeau years,is being reinstated and strengthened. But that is not what was said in the red book. The red book said that a Liberal government would give a greater role to members of Parliament to improve the democratic process in the House of Commons. Instead of that, we are going back to a dictatorship.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak to this bill because the purpose of this group of motions is to protect the interests of those who will manage this system. The government wants to deny public service employees their vested rights. The other aspect is the one that the member for Richelieu, with his extensive experience, just mentioned so eloquently. He has seen it all, so the government must really have gone too far for him to make this kind of comment.

As the member said, the government, at the end of the session-and that is what Canadians must pay attention to-just before Christmas or just before Saint-Jean-Baptiste day, tries to ram some bills through the House so they will not come up again after the holidays.

The member for Frontenac, with his initiative, and his colleagues in the agriculture committee did wonderful work, and I want to pay tribute to them. Even though they sometimes seem a little too insistent in caucus or in their personal contacts with us, they do make us aware of the reality. They tell us how important agriculture is. But that is of no interest to the members opposite, who are uncharacteristically silent on the subject of agriculture, not only today, but most of the time. This issue concerns not only thousands of Quebecers, but other Canadians as well. Coming from a rural area, even though I now live in a semi-urban area, I know how important agriculture is, as do most Quebecers.

The member for Richelieu is right. Why is it that members opposite do not rise more often to speak to agricultural issues? Would it be because the Liberal government wants to ram his bills through the House? Would it be that it does not want its members to put forward too many arguments because it is afraid of our reaction, so it is trying to avoid debate? But is this democracy? Are we setting a good example? Is that the kind of behaviour we want our young people to see, a government that is acting as if there were no opposition, as if things had to go its way while it is in office? That is almost like a monarchy.

I am surprised that the member for Gander-Grand Falls has not said a word. He usually speaks up when he sees such a flagrant lack of respect for democracy. Without breaking the party line, he usually rises in this House to point out such inappropriate behaviour. He did not do so today, which is rather unfortunate.

However, since we do not have much time left, Mr. Speaker, all members of the Bloc Quebecois who are here today and myself wish to congratulate the member for Frontenac and his two colleagues, the members for Lotbinière and Champlain, for the wonderful work they do to support agriculture in Quebec. My thanks to the member for Frontenac.

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order, but I can do it later on, when the government whip and the whip of the Reform Party are in the House.

[English]

The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into Canada.