moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-60, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 6 on page 3 with the following:
"9. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, direct that the head office of the Agency be in the location in Canada recommended by the committee referred to in section 9.1.
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, direct that the head office of the agency be in a location other than the one recommended pursuant to section 9.1 but shall not make any such order unless a ) the Governor in Council has provided the committee referred to in section 9.2 with all the reasons for such a change; and b ) the committee has approved the change.
9.1 Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall recommend, for the purposes of section 9, the location in Canada of the head office of the Agency .
9.2 Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall, after studying the reasons for the change provided to the committee pursuant to paragraph 9(2)( a ), either approve or refuse to approve, for the purposes of subsection 9(2), any change in the location of the head office of the Agency.''
Madam Speaker, clause 9 is very simple and almost laconic. It provides that:
The head office of the Agency shall be in the National Capital Region, as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act .
The senior officials we met last September 26 have drawn to our attention the fact that tomorrow morning, six months or two years from now, after a change of government, a new agriculture minister could, by order, to ease his conscience and continue to indulge in patronage, have the agency moved to his riding. Of course, we want to shield our fellow Canadian citizens from any potential abuse in that regard.
Let us remember that it can be done through a simple order in council. Why should the head office of the agency move year after year? The Liberal government, already in power for over three years, is very patronage-minded. It could eventually move agencies from one city to another, and that can be very costly.
Our amendment proposes to involve the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It suggests two things. First, the location of the head office of the agency would be reviewed and decided by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and not only through an order in council.
This would make the process much more open and at the same time revitalize the role of House of Commons committees that, in fact, do not do much except execute orders coming from above, in this case, from the minister himself.
Once the head office is located somewhere, a future move is always possible or could become necessary 30 or 40 years down the road. To govern is to foresee, and people in the government should be smart enough to expect that the head office of the agency will not be moved 3 or 4 years from now. But who knows? That could happen, as in the case of the House of Commons, which moved from Montreal over a century ago. You may remember that, according to our history books, the Parliament Buildings were set on fire following a minor rebellion and, in its wisdom, the government of the day decided to move Parliament to another province, Ontario.
The second objective is that the future relocation of the agency's headquarters be subject to an in-depth review of the need for such a relocation and that the new site be approved by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Relocating the agency's headquarters, with all this decision would imply-asking the employees and their families to move, moving the office furniture, renting space in another city, etc.-is out of the question without first having carried out a review of the reasons behind this decision. Of course, if it is a patronage decision, an irrational decision, then the committee, after hearing a lot of witnesses, would submit its recommendation to Parliament.
Changing topics, there is no need I guess to ask that the agency's headquarters, if they are to be established in the national capital region, be located in Quebec. When we go over the estimates for the Department of Agriculture, for instance, we see that, year after year, around 11 per cent of the departmental budget is spent in Quebec.
Let me remind the House that Quebecers represent close to 25 per cent of the overall population and pay over 23 p. 100 of the taxes collected in Canada. However, barely 11 per cent of the agriculture department's budget goes to Quebec.
I approached the minister of agriculture to tell him that it averages 11 per cent, although there were times when it dropped to 9 per cent and other times when it reached 13 and 14 per cent, but on average it is 11 per cent. So, how could he explain why his department is only investing 11 per cent in Quebec? Well, he said: "It is easy to understand, dear hon. member for Frontenac. There are a lot of infrastructures in the nation's capital, in Ottawa, offices and such. The nation's capital can almost be considered as being a part of the province of Quebec". Are there so many people living in Quebec but working in Ontario? Could be. But not enough to make up for the difference and reach 23 per cent, which would only be fair in our view.
So, if it is true that everything done in Ottawa could be considered as being done in Quebec, would it not be possible to establish the new agency in Quebec, since it is expected to open up in the national capital region? Set on the river bank, it could lean towards Ontario, a bit like the leaning tower of Pisa. In New Brunswick, not much leans this way, since it would have to reach over Quebec.
Would my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who sits with me on the standing committee on agriculture, be ready to rise now in this place and to say: "Dear hon. member for Frontenac, we will give you something today: we will establish the head office of the agency in Quebec"?
As you can see, clause 9 provides that the head office of the agency shall be in the national capital region. I bet you $20 to $1 that it will be in Hull. I am being generous, I bet you $20 to $1 that it will be in Hull. However, I am almost sure I will lose. It does not matter. I am willing to take the risk that you make $20 on an outlay of $1, just so that you can see the major injustice being done to Quebec once again.
The head office of the agency will be the reflection and the heart of the agency. It is estimated that some 4,500 jobs will be directly created by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Of course, all 4,500 jobs will not be at the head office but easily 800 to 900 of them will be. This is very significant. Readjustments will have to be made within three departments.
Without further delay, I challenge the parliamentary secretary who could make you win $20, Madam Speaker. I challenge him to rise now and for once to make a decision not in favour of Quebec but a fair decision for all of Canada, that is, that the head office be located on the other side of the Ottawa River, in Hull, Gatineau or somewhere in the area.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's answer.