Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has six minutes left to make his remarks.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will ask for your indulgence in allowing me to raise all the points I consider necessary.
Before oral question period, when we resumed consideration of the motions in Group No. 7 amending Bill C-60, I said that the people were really concerned by this bill, as I tried to demonstrate.
I gave the example of my colleague, the member for Richelieu, as well as of my other Bloc colleagues who represent ridings where the people are different but share the same concern, that is the need to have credible institutions, institutions that they can trust. Unfortunately, as we said before and will keep repeating, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that is proposed in Bill C-60 contravenes this objective.
I also said it was important to recall the guidelines underlying this bill. We have clearly shown that the president of this institution, who is appointed by the governor in council, will naturally have to show some gratitude to the government which appointed him. The appointee will undoubtedly also have to prove his political allegiance, and we hope that this person will still be required to have the skills needed to perform his functions.
That being said, if the bill is not amended, the advisory board will, in turn, be composed of members chosen by the cabinet-appointed president, who will use the same criteria to set up an advisory board that will be every bit as political.
(1225)
As though that were not enough, there is even a clause which has very few equivalents, if any, at the federal level. It excludes the agency from the application of the Public Service of Canada Act.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Is it to save money? Is it to make things easier and the agency more efficient? No, Mr. Speaker. It is simply because they want to have total control over the hiring process, because they want to circumvent existing legislation and get rid of the unions. They want to hire whoever they want.
The very high risk of patronage was clearly established by my colleagues. And there is more. The list of arguments against this bill is endless. What do we find in clause 16, which is what amendments in Group No. 7 deal with?
Clause 16 will exempt the agency from section 9 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act when it hires experts from outside the public service. That section would have fouled up the government's patronage scheme, so out it goes.
Clause 16 circumvents section 9 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act by providing that the agency may, with the approval of the governor in council-that is cabinet-on the recommendation of the Treasury Board-that is a minister and one of the most partisan members of this government, namely the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer-``procure goods and services, including legal services, from outside the public service of Canada''.
When I read this clause, I can already see Liberal lawyers in the eastern townships opening their cheque books to make contributions to the Liberal Party since they will be the ones to get contracts from the Food Inspection Agency. That is a fact. We are about to give them a very nice Christmas gift.
Fortunately, our colleague, the agriculture critic and member for Frontenac, was vigilant and saw through it. He too has denounced this situation and proposed amendments which would create a framework for that process.
Mr. Speaker, in the minute I have left, I want to address the amendments put forward by my colleague from Frontenac.
What my colleague is proposing is that before procuring services from outside the government, namely consultant services, we make sure that we do not have the needed resources inside the federal public service. At a time when we are asking all public administrations to cut services and improve efficiency, it goes without saying that when the government needs consultant services it should look first among its own public servants. Many of them are very competent. We should use their services. That is what we are asking.
(1230)
This is only common sense. It is terrible to have to raise the issue in this House at this time in our history. We understand that when the time comes to dispense patronage, and I will conclude on this, nothing can stop our Liberal friends. The economic context requires that everyone be cautious about the way they spend money, except if they contribute to the coffers of the Liberal Party.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments reasonably brief on Group No. 7 of the report stage of Bill C-60.
I do not believe I can support the two motions in this group because it looks like they will make it very difficult to contract out or privatize inspection services in the future. Although a provision in Motion No. 20 seems worthy of support. It calls for open bidding in the private sector for any goods and services procured by the new agency. We were recently reminded of how important that is when the auditor general uncovered another untendered contract to Bombardier.
Over the years we have noticed a very close affiliation between Bombardier and both the Conservative and Liberal governments. It is such a cosy relationship that it certainly makes one very uncomfortable. Any time there are untendered contracts without a proper bidding process, the taxpayer should be very nervous. Members of the Reform Party caucus are extremely nervous about the Liberal government's practice of offering untendered contracts to its friends in the corporate sector.
There is a broader question concerning the single food inspection agency: What kind of impact will these motions and the bill itself have on the effectiveness of the new agency? When we are trying to analyze the merits and problems of a new inspection agency it helps to make a comparison. We need something to illustrate our concerns.
An obvious comparison is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which is currently under tremendous criticism by the industry. The PMRA is another institution that was amalgamated by Parliament. It has a fairly large staff. The amalgamation was supposed to save the taxpayers money and provide a valuable service to the industry. There was an outcry of protest from a diverse array of organizations such as the Crop Protection Institute of Canada, Prairie Pools Incorporated.
The CFA was very critical of the PMRA. The Canadian meat processors were extremely upset. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has expressed its concern. The Ontario corn growers are very very upset at the costs the PMRA has forced them to incur.
That brings us to the issues of job security and job creation. The new food inspection agency will have the equivalent bureaucracy to the agencies and departments from which it will be birthed. Perhaps there will be jobs saved in the public sector but how many jobs will be lost in the private sector? How many jobs will be lost in the failure to see economic growth?
We know that products are not being registered effectively with the PMRA because of all the loops and hassles that the pesticide manufacturers have to go through to meet needless requirements of the PMRA. That is costing jobs. It is costing jobs in the agriculture sector. It is costing jobs in the manufacturing sector. It is slowing the growth of agriculture and affiliated industries that support agriculture. That is why these very astute agricultural organizations are so upset with the PMRA.
Imagine anything as diverse as the CFA, Prairie Pools, Crop Protection Institute, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Ontario corn growers, meat processors. Even the horticulture people are very upset with the PMRA. It has been very difficult for their industry to grow and expand because of the bureaucracy and the clumsiness of that agency.
(1235)
When the witnesses appeared before us in committee we challenged the government about whether or not this new single food inspection agency might be going the same route. In looking at some of the clauses we are debating today, it looks as though it may very well be doing that.
I do not believe that the Bloc's amendments will correct it, but certainly if there was a call for bids and an open tendering process, it would certainly help. If the focus on job creation was more on seeing the private sector expand and grow, industry grow and creating new, long term jobs, that would be far more beneficial than providing security for the approximately 4,500 employees of the new single food inspection agency.
I think I have made my point. I am not trying to delay the debate. I know we all want to get out and enjoy the Christmas season. As opportunity affords, I will speak to other groups and raise other issues later on.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Motions Nos. 19 and 20 which deal with a common service provider. It is important to make certain that we understand what the government's proposal is in this area. What we are trying to do is make certain that there are certain providers which can be put together in a cost effective, common way to make sure that the program delivery is efficient and effective and financially sound.
There is no question that before proceeding the agency must seek Treasury Board approval and governor in council approval to hire outside people based on cost effectiveness and a sound business plan. Also, since there is a crossing of different ministries required in dealing with the agency, there is no question that the minister responsible has to confer with his colleagues in cabinet and make certain that everyone is aware of the crossings which may happen.
I would like to highlight as well that the proposed clause requires the agency to follow the normal contracting rules, including calling bids and tenders and respecting all current contract rules.
Many things that are being said are being said erroneously I believe because there is uncertainty about all of the details that are included in the bill. I do want to assure everyone that the contracting rules put in place by Treasury Board will be confirmed with the agency. I assure them that the rules with regard to contracts for employees are in place as well. I thought those areas should be clarified.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss this series of amendments proposed by the hon. member for Frontenac, who is official opposition critic on agricultural issues.
The hon. member deserves to be congratulated for the quality of his work, and for his efficient and thorough review of this bill. The amendments that we are discussing today also seek to improve the proposed legislation, that is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act.
The federal government finally decided to clean up the food inspection sector, and it deserves to be congratulated for doing so. However, there is the issue of provincial jurisdiction regarding this activity, and we alluded to it when we discussed other amendments.
This group of amendments concerns a basic issue, even though it does not relate to the jurisdiction of the provinces. The same is true in the case of many other agencies and crown corporations: given the current wording of the bill tabled by the government, the minister responsible will be able to wash his hands of the actions that could be taken by the new agency.
(1240)
There are examples of this at Canada Post. When it suits her, the minister praises Canada Post for its action, but when she is not pleased, she shirks the responsibility by saying that this is a crown corporation dealing at arms' length and that it can do as it pleases.
This issue is all the more important in the food inspection sector, since decisions made have an impact on people's health, and also on domestic and foreign trade for Quebec and Canada. We must make sure the minister is fully responsible and accountable to the House, and that he can make any changes that are required.
Our amendment to clause 16 proposes that the responsible minister for the agency's decisions in these matters have full responsibility, answer questions, take corrective action and ensure that everything is working properly.
Food inspection is an area that is very sensitive to public opinion. We do not have to imagine all kinds of scenarios. It is enough to remember what happened in Great Britain with mad cow disease. We need quick political reaction and politicians and responsible ministers who can act quickly.
If we do not ensure that the minister is truly responsible for his actions, we may create a vacuum that will harm the reputation of the agency and the quality of its food inspection services. That is why I think it the government should consider this amendment and make it part of the bill.
This amendment is in no way partisan. Its purpose is to recognize the role of elective representatives and the person who happens to be the minister responsible for this agency and to increase their effectiveness. There are many shortcomings and loopholes in the bill, in its present form, that would let the minister shirk his responsibilities, and this is not a good thing for food inspection.
The other aspect I wanted to raise is the agency's right to procure legal services from sources other than the Department of Justice. As in the previous groups of amendments, in the food inspection sector it is very important for lawyers to be able to speak out with full impunity and not be influenced by the situation.
I see a scenario where the agency could very well develop two kinds of legal contracts: there would be lawyers capable of being flexible in specific situations and there would be those the agency would use when it needs a very firm, very solid approach.
Who will decide how contracts are awarded? Is it not possible that awarding contracts for legal services from outside the government would open the door to patronage? Will the eligible lawyers on the list just happen to be Liberals? And when there is a change of government, will the list change so that we lose all the expertise that has been acquired in that sector?
As in the case of inspectors, the procedure for legal services must be watertight. The person who gives a legal opinion must not be subject to pressure in connection with his job or other situations. The best way to guarantee the independence of legal services is to ensure that those who give legal opinions are accountable only to the government and that they have job security. They must be able to give opinions that are impartial and devoid of any partisan considerations.
The government has its work cut out for it in this area. It has to work on making the agency independent. The agency must not be vulnerable to political interference. It must be independent at all levels: inspectors, lawyers, board members and the appointment of the president.
(1245)
That is the kind of guideline that is missing in this bill, a problem the Bloc's proposed amendments seek to address so as to maintain Canada's reputation for food inspection, which has served Quebec and Canada well in all our international initiatives. It must remain clearly and unequivocally 100 per cent unaltered. We must have an impeccable international reputation at all times and be able to show any consumer on the face of the earth that ours products are quality products and that the services we provide are not marred by irregularities.
We have developed expertise in that area based on past experience. Consolidating the three government authorities into a single agency is a step in the right direction, but let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. We must not, on the one hand, make improvements and, on the other hand, end up creating a whole set of circumstances that could jeopardize the quality of the inspections performed.
These amendments are part of a series of amendments tabled by the hon. member for Frontenac and designed to retain the goods aspects of the bill. But in those cases where the Liberal majority indulged in making changes and decided changes were necessary, they figured they might as well go all out and make room for some of their friends. I urge the Liberal majority to reconsider that aspect of the bill. There is still time, as we consider the proposed amendments.
You do not have to pass them all as they stand, but I feel compelled to ask the Liberal majority to consider those that are on the table right now as part of this group. They should say: ``All right, we agree that the minister should be really accountable and should have to account to this House for what this agency does''.
We must have the clear assurance that the people concerned will act fairly and equitably with regard to procurement and contracts, particularly legal contracts, as well as in acquiring any other equipment required for this activity. Loads of new technologies and new tools that could be used are being developed all the time.
Before long, we will even be dealing with biotechnologies. Some moral issues will have to be considered in food inspection, and we will have to make sure we are not under the control of economic forces whose interests may differ from those of the general public.
Ultimately, the farmer, the processing industry and the consumer may have diverging interests. The government's responsibility is to make sure the chain of production does not have any weak link, because in food inspection, every detail counts and a rigorous follow-up is required.
In the past, I have seen reputations destroyed overnight, which is what happened in the case of the mad cow disease and also in the case of fish inspection. For all those reasons, I urge the House to approve the amendments moved by the hon. member for Frontenac, because they would improve this bill.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating an extremely important bill. In my beautiful riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata, and more specifically in Notre-Dame-du-Lac in Témiscouata, there is a big slaughterhouse for pigs.
Recently, the owners wanted to expand the facility to increase production. They wanted to increase the number of nurseries, and their plans sort of clashed with the Quebec legislation, which is very strict in this regard. Quebec cleaned up this sector a long time ago.
The important thing is to be able to guarantee to the public that food inspectors can do their work professionally, and with the proper safeguards to prevent any problem.
(1250)
In Quebec, we had an inquiry on the tainted meat scandal. Incidentally, it was around that time that we got to know people who have since become great politicians in Quebec, including Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Chevrette. Following this episode, we decided that such an incident should never happen again. This is why we developed legislation which guarantees to the public that the work is done extremely well.
I think that the inspection of food should come under provincial jurisdiction. In February, the government pledged, in its speech from the throne, to do its utmost to eliminate overlap, duplication and useless spending. Since the federal government is getting involved in an area which, we feel, comes under provincial jurisdiction, it is headed in the wrong direction and should leave this responsibility to the provinces.
It is also very important to make sure the integrity and the competence of those hired to do this work can never be questioned. What is being proposed is an agency outside the government, but whose president would be appointed by the government. This president would select his own board members, hire his own staff and so on. The whole process would take place outside the scope of the Public Service Employment Act. If you establish an institution in this fashion, you are gambling as to who will be in control.
We can see it clearly in the case of certain other organizations. The government must keep its distance, remain at arm's length as they say in English. Unfortunately, I cannot think of the French word. There must be some distance between the government and the organizations in question. However, to move from that to creating agencies and skirting the Public Service Employment Act is a bit disconcerting.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage did exactly the same thing. She created the ICO, the Information Canada Office. One of the deputy ministers at Heritage Canada became its director, and its employees do not come under the public service legislation. It makes you wonder where we are headed. The government says: ``We have to cut costs, so, over a three year period, 45,000 public servants across Canada are going to be laid off''. What is the government doing? It turns around and says: ``We will need an office or a board here, an agency over there''. And then, when new organizations are created, their staff is not subject to the Public Service Employment Act.
What raises concern is that new employees will be hired, but they will still be paid with taxpayers' money. Twenty million dollars were taken from the heritage budget to subsidize the ICO. But in that case, we no longer have any control. To a question I put to the minister, she answered: ``Well, the hon. member opposite only has to check on the Internet and she will find everything she needs to know about the ICO''. I have used the Internet several times and I am sorry to tell you that, if everyone surfing the Internet relies on the ICO for information on Canada, they will be sorry, because there are only about four pages on Canada, and most of it is propaganda and not information. Apart from the fact that the population of Canada hit the 30 million mark last summer, there is not much factual data to be found on the ICO site.
(1255)
So we have an office that was set up. A director was appointed. He was given the authority to hire people and spend $20 million, without being subject to any public service quality control measure. The exact same thing is being done here with this agency. What is likely to happen with a quasi-government agency? Unfortunately, we could see a lot of party politics, favouritism and patronage. We will go back to the old system: ``If you vote for me, you will have a job, a position in the agency, in the office, in some other organization. Support my government and my party''. This is the first risk.
We also risk having people who are almost in private sector, outside of government but not quite, but hired prcatically on the same basis as private businesses, people who, as we have seen in many sectors, inflate the bills and invent items that do not exist.
We hear these days of what is happening at the space agency. We would have a lot to say about that. The government says: ``Come on, there is nothing to worry about'', when in fact we are losing control of public funds. For the public, this is discouraging because it is like shifting money from one pocket to the other and saying that we saved something in the process. But if we really look at the figures, we realize that there are no savings because even if we have cut employees in the heritage department, we have created
the office and given it $20 million. We may have cut positions in the agriculture department but at the same time we have created an agency that will control food quality, with all the very real risks involved.
And then, there will be court cases. Who will be hired as lawyers? Not federal employees. We will hire our friends. A Liberal government will hire Liberals. A Conservative government will hire Conservatives. And a Reform government will hire Reformers. Friends will be hired to go before the courts.
I think the public is not being fooled. They know what is going on. People understand that the government does not save much except at their expense, that it reduces its support to the less fortunate while it tries to set up official organizations that will allow it to continue to spend taxpayers' money.
Therefore, I urge the government to carefully review our amendments, which are very important in assuring Canadians that, in the future, there will be no more political patronage and wasting of money and that the new food inspection procedures will be in their best interest.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata was very eloquent in making the connection between culture and agriculture, as was the Quebec agriculture minister for whom I had the pleasure of working at one point. And she is right. She is right because the federal government's actions as regards culture and agriculture are similar in many respects in that it is trying to eliminate public service jobs for economic reasons to create an agency that will operate outside the public service and that will give more freedom to the governor in council, which, as you know, means cabinet.
(1300)
The first amendment put forward by the member for Frontenac deals with the new agency, which groups together three agencies that used to belong to three different departments, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health, into one single agency falling under the jurisdiction of the agriculture department.
However, we can see that people would be appointed by cabinet. If the amendment is not adopted, the agriculture minister, when criticized, could defend himself by saying: ``It is a cabinet decision. It is not my fault. I am not responsible. Yes, I am a cabinet minister, but because of ministerial solidarity-''
Finally, it makes the minister of agriculture look good, except that this is a rather special operation. I nearly said ``spatial'', because there has been so much talk of space today, but no, it is ``special''. We in Quebec are not all that familiar with this custom. These are measures taken in Quebec in very specific cases, in very specific areas not generally covered by specific departments or sectorial departments.
What is involved here is a food inspection agency, for which at least there is a precedent. At least three agencies have been doing the same thing. As I said yesterday, these various food inspection agencies have been consolidated since 1978 in Quebec. Eighteen years later, we see the federal government developing a desire to do the same thing, moreover in an area of shared jurisdiction, at least where agriculture is concerned. Where health is concerned, however, this would, in principle, be a provincial area of jurisdiction, except where foods from outside the country, or from other provinces, are concerned. But this is not always the case.
We do not, however, have any objection to the principle of consolidating three federal agencies. It is clearer, at least. People will have a clearer idea of whom they are dealing with. But, after grouping the agencies together, they take a diversionary tactic and create one agency which will be able to operate in a different way than the regular sectorial departments.
This leaves a great deal of scope for questions, not that we want to accuse anyone of bad faith, but still. Amendment No. 1 says: ``Yes, but why go elsewhere looking for services, when there may be qualified people within the Public Service?'' This would be logical, particularly since the fusion may result in early retirement offers or job cuts.
In this context, it seems to me that, before making such changes, thought ought to be given to using the services of people who are already working in the federal public service. That, I would think, would be self-evident. Yet, it seems to me that the government is resisting this amendment.
The other point concerns appointments as legal advisers. Obviously, in Quebec, and I imagine everywhere else as well, there have been appointments following the political trends of the time, and I am not addressing only this present government with this. It seems that the Conservatives also had a considerable appetite for the same thing, which they had had to stifle during the long lean years. It took them nine years to catch up, with a whole series of appointments of lawyers and other professionals, who had all been frustrated during the long Liberal years by not being appointed to legal services.
We in Quebec saw the same thing happen during the Trudeau Liberal years, if not before, and then Mr. Mulroney came along promising change. But the essential change he made was that he appointed different people. When you follow public affairs in Quebec, you see what is going on with federal appointments. With Christmas approaching, I think I could make an analogy with the party game of musical chairs, which it resembles greatly.
(1305)
Kids like to play musical chairs, but when political appointments are involved, the game is less amusing. The Senate is, of course, the ultimate version of the musical chairs game. When people cannot run around the chairs fast enough, they send them on to the other place. One might call this a kind of compassionate treatment. I do not want to say that everybody in the other Chamber is no good, but this is a costly duplication of an institution.
What we have here is another example, in food inspection. The federal government obviously wants to keep its powers and responsibilities and not delegate to the provinces. It would, however, be much easier to say: ``There is an area where duplication could be avoided, because food, fish, products, especially in the context of free trade today, move not only between provinces, but between countries as well''. In this context, the government might well want to keep certain responsibilities. In an independent Quebec, in partnership with Canada, mechanisms could likely maintain this situation in cases where products moved between countries.
We have no objection to the mechanism. Our objection is to the way it is set up and to the excessive powers accorded the ministers and the cabinet, because, as we know, the minister can recommend appointments to cabinet. If criticized, however, he will say: ``Yes, yes, but it is cabinet. You know, I am only a minister and I must not break ranks with the other ministers''. Yes, we understand, but we do not know who is right and who is guilty in this game.
The people of Quebec and Canada want greater transparency and more public involvement in the management of public affairs and political life. It is in this spirit, that the choice of the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be by universal suffrage. He will be elected by all members of the Bloc Quebecois. Members of the Bloc wishing to take part will have to wait a few more weeks before the convention.
This is the sort of situation that shows how management of public affairs and political life could be improved.
Why do I say that? Because for a long time, at least in my first years here, I was youth training critic. I was often in contact with young people. What young people do not like about politics-and after being in politics for so long you are aware of this, Mr. Speaker, this will not faze you-is they would like to see some changes, they are tired of the same old ways, especially with regard to patronage appointments. Were the appointees selected because of their hard work for the party, or for their generous contributions to the party? We do not know how it works exactly and people think it is wrong. They would like to see a mechanism such as the one proposed by the member for Frontenac, namely an independent nominating committee.
Mr. Speaker, if I do not have the opportunity to talk to you again, I wish you a Merry Christmas and happy holidays.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Pursuant to an order made earlier in this debate, all questions in group 8 are deemed to have been put and deferred. The House will now proceed to a debate on group 9, Motions Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing the amendments in Group No. 8-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We are debating Group No. 8 which includes Motions nos. 24, 25 and 26. Please forgive me, but the information I gave to the House earlier was wrong.
(1310)
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Therefore, Mr. Speaker, are you saying I am right? Are we debating Group No. 8?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Yes.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this debate the thrust of this bill has become increasingly clear. I think it is important that we keep it in mind. I will briefly review all the comments made by the opposition up until now.
This is what we have been trying to show all along, this bill, despite its main thrust, which is quite laudable, namely to streamline food inspection, bringing all responsibilities and prerogatives pertaining to food inspection under one single agency, the means used to reach this objective are totally unacceptable. They are unacceptable and will be counterproductive.
We have already shown, quite eloquently I believe, that the fact that the president is to be appointed by the governor in council is par for the course, but that chances are he will be chosen more for his political affiliation than for his ability to do the job.
Moreover, we have shown how extensive his powers will be, including selecting his own advisory board, in other words the power to be consulted on issues of his choice, to ask for advice of his own choosing that will go along with what he and the government, regardless of its political stripe, want.
Moreover, it was decided, under clause 10 or 12 of the bill, not only to exempt the hiring of employees and inspectors of the agency from the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but also to set the terms of employment the president would see fit to set. In other words, this amounts to eliminating the labour code and the long standing tradition we have in this country to entrust negotiating
labour agreements to a credible association controlled by its members.
We have seen, a little further on, under clause 24 I believe, that the agency will be able to hire whomever it pleases, including outside professionals. We know what the hiring criteria will be in such cases. Of course, this is going to be about consultants, whether legal or otherwise, who will have contacts, people who are on good terms with the agency and known as loyal servants, not of the government, but of the Liberal Party.
In the motions in Group No. 8 which we are discussing now, there is a reference to the report. There is an action plan the agency will have to submit and that will be subject to public scrutiny. How are they going to proceed? As I said earlier, it will be all behind closed doors, to speed up the process, so no one will realize what is going on and they can do things on the sly more often than not. The agency will have absolute control over the action plan it wants to develop. In other words, the agency will not seek the advice of the advisory board or the local people when preparing its action plan, but will seek the advice of outside consultants, which it is free to choose.
(1315)
That is totally unacceptable and that is why the hon. member for Frontenac and agriculture critic has put forward amendments which hopefully will be considered on the basis of their merit and accepted. What do these amendments say?
First, when agency officials produce an action plan, we do not want this action plan to be put on the shelf and forgotten as soon as it is tabled in this House; it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture instead.
The members of this committee, government members and opposition members alike, take the future of the farming industry to heart, as, we assume, everyone else does. They want to ensure that the right decisions are made.
These members will scrutinize the action plan submitted by agency officials and will be in a position, at least we hope so, to make the necessary changes before the plan is tabled in the House, put on a shelf and forgotten by everyone. That is what our amendments are all about.
We want the agency's action plan to be referred to the agriculture committee for consideration and approval. This is not too much to ask. I cannot see how the Minister of Agriculture or the members of the government party could object to such a sensible motion.
What else is suggested? That the agriculture committee, in considering the plan, listen to the groups concerned, those representing farmers from coast to coast. They could tell us whether this action plan is practicable and will achieve the stated goals at a reasonable cost.
We could also hear from the consumer associations' representatives to find out whether the inspection procedures meet the standards or whether the inspection should target another kind of industry or product.
We could also hear people from the industry. They could tell us whether the agency's action plan will allow them to operate normally, and whether it will give them credibility with the consumers and guarantee the good quality of food for consumers.
Before we develop an action plan or have it tabled in the House, only to meet the same fate as thousands of reports tabled here, that is being shelved for good, it would be worthwhile, if this process is to be of any significance, to have it referred to the agriculture committee. The committee could hear from all those interested and make sure, even if we have doubts concerning the agency and its executive, the action plan is at least credible and can be examined and judged on its merits.
I hope the government will consider these amendments and recognize the enormous amount of work the agriculture critic and his colleague have done.
Since this is my last speech before we adjourn, I would like to extend to you my best wishes for the season.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have moved on to group No. 8. We support the amendments in group No. 8, Motions Nos. 24, 25, and 26.
Motion No. 24 suggests that a parliamentary review of the agency's business plan be undertaken before the bill is approved.
(1320 )
Motion No. 25 supports a parliamentary review of the agency's business plan before the bill is approved. It also supports the agency consulting with industry employees first. Accountability which is required by Parliament is essential.
I believe the committee did an excellent job of reviewing the bill. Excellent witnesses appeared before the committee. We were able to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. However, when it came to implementing change, the powers of the committee were hampered because the government held the heavy hand on
the committee and insisted that its members not consider valid amendments and instead pressed ahead with the government's agenda, whether or not that was the best position to take.
To illustrate that point, I would like to mention the one amendment that was able to get through the clauses by clause session. It amended the preface of the bill. That amendment called for cost effectiveness. One would think that every member would think that is an essential measure for the bill. It would ensure that the new agency would be cost effective. The government said that was its intention. The witnesses said it was paramount. One of the key purposes of the agency is to make one food inspection agency more cost effective than having three separate agencies under three different ministers.
While this was a perfectly sensible and logical amendment, government members voted against it. Fortunately, two government members supported the amendment so there was a split. That was the only amendment which was put forward in committee on which government members were not unanimous. It struck me as being very odd that three government members on the committee would vote against cost effectiveness as a principle and guiding light for this new single food inspection agency. That tells me that government members are very hesitant for the agency to be accountable to Parliament. That is very sad indeed.
Another amendment we proposed at committee stage indicated that the fees set by the agency must be reasonable. The fees should not exceed a reasonable cost in providing the service or the use of that service.
Believe it or not, government members voted against that amendment. That shows us the wrong direction in which the government is going. A few months earlier when we debated the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which was studied in the agriculture committee, we were able to amend the act at report stage by inserting the word reasonable. It put guidelines on a government agency which said it could not be unreasonable.
Sometimes governments are unreasonable. We saw a lot of unreasonable things happen in the Mulroney government. Mr. Speaker, you were here then. You saw many of the unreasonable things that they did and you spoke about them.
Governments change from time to time. Mr. Speaker, you probably do not think this government is unreasonable, but governments from time to time are unreasonable.
The Liberal government says it is going to be reasonable. Of course we doubt that. It says that it will be reasonable, however, it will not implement a restraint or a constraint to ensure that these agencies deal with consumers and the industry in a reasonable way. The government says that it will ensure the agency will always be reasonable.
Sometimes governments are not reasonable. However, if the legislation says that the costs must be reasonable, they will have to be reasonable because it is the law of the land. If the bill is not followed, legal recourse should be available.
It was extremely disappointing that government members were opposed to amending the bill to ensure that the costs be reasonable for the services provided by the single food inspection agency. This is at a time when the government, under treasury board initiatives, is implementing cost recovery. The industry is saying that many times cost recovery is not reasonable. Strong statements were made by organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the prairie pools, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and food processors that said that cost recovery is not reasonable.
(1325 )
The House has no powers to hold the government and these agencies accountable. It is not there. We wanted to put it in the legislation. The government said: ``No. We want the minister to have all power and the committee can meet and discuss these agencies at length then''.
We can talk until we are blue in the face, but unless we have the support in legislation we do not have the clout. If an unreasonable government is in place then our hands are tied behind our backs. That is not the way government should work. That is not what Canadians want. That is not what was in the red book.
The hon. member who left the Liberal ranks a few days ago because he could not be reconciled with his party over the budget and then tried to get back into the party was told: ``No way, José''. By the way his name is not José but I am not allowed to his name.
However, he got up in the House and said to the Prime Minister: ``You promised that government would be more accountable. It is in the red book''. When he quoted the page he was booed by his colleagues. They called him a traitor for quoting the red book. It was shocking. The government is moving away from being reasonable and accountable. It is disgusting. It is wrong.
The House is studying the single food inspection agency and amendments by my colleagues from the Bloc. We put forward similar amendments in committee. As I mentioned earlier, Reform put its amendments forward at committee stage because under the new process there is supposed to be a better chance of reasonable amendments being considered in committee if they are presented before the bill is approved in principle. No way. That is another broken promise.
Even a simple amendment that said the cost would have to be reasonable was defeated. At a time of user fees and cost recovery, at a time of friction between the government and the industry, the government said: ``No. We don't want to be accountable. The committee can look into anything but it has no power. There is no sanction in the legislation. We want to keep the minister's hands entirely free. We want the agency to be able to do as it pleases,
charge what it pleases for the services it provides''. That is unacceptable. That is unreasonable.
The auditor general should be able to hold this agency to full account as well. We are concerned that the auditor general will not have sufficient opportunity to hold the new single food inspection agency accountable.
The other day the auditor general in a report to committee that the whole system of guidelines for cost recovery are vague if they exist at all, that there are unquantifiable factors out there, that the department has not done its homework and does not know what it is talking about when it talks about what the cost recovery levels are for our competitors, what the expectations for cost recovery are, whether cost recoveries are considered to be in the public or the private good.
He said that guidelines have not been put in place by the department of agriculture or by Treasury Board and certainly will make it much more difficult to determine whether this agency is being accountable and reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this chance to speak to this grouping of motions. As I said, we support them.
Perhaps this is my last chance to address the House and the Chair prior to the Christmas break. We are not sure what is happening here. I certainly want to wish all members a very merry Christmas and, Mr. Speaker, may you enjoy the holiday season. May you all be safe and have precious time with your families. We will look forward to seeing each one of you in the new year.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's Order Paper.