Agriculture Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[Peter Everson]

Thank you very much for the question.

The $11 million for food safety stems from the budget of 2011, which gave us $100 million overall over a five-year time horizon to make a number of investments in strengthening food safety. These range from renovating our labs and buying new scientific equipment to innovating with new scientific methods. They include such things as coming forward with a new inspection model, which will guide us in how we do our service delivery and in how we deal with regulated parties going forward. Most significantly for us in many respects, it will enable us to make fundamental investments in IMIT, which will modernize how the front line delivers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I'll ask our witnesses to stay. We are doing the supplements and the estimates. If there are questions from members in direct regard to them....

I'll call the first question for the supplementary estimates under Agriculture and Agri-Food.

AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

Department

Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$1

Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$1

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Vote 20c—Operating expenditures and contributions.........$22,568,836

Vote 25c—Capital expenditures..........$272,314

(Votes 1c, 5c, 20c, and 25c agreed to)

Shall the chair report votes 1c, 5c, 20c, and 25c under Agriculture and Agri-Food to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We'll now move to vote 1. Shall vote 1 under Agriculture and Agri-Food carry?

AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

Department

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$594,969,595

(Vote 1 agreed to)

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

We have yet to receive the report on plans and priorities, which the minister himself said, according to my notes, should be here by March 15. I understand that the House won't be voting on this until June 23, according to my notes. I asked the minister whether he would come back to committee, and he said he would certainly make every effort to come back to committee so that we could ask him further questions once the plans and priorities are tabled.

Mr. Hoback lauded the fact that the minister always makes himself available, and I expect that he will make himself available. So frankly, I find it almost reprehensible, irresponsible of us to continue when we have the opportunity to ask more questions, given the billions of dollars that are being spent, the very little time in which we've had an opportunity to review the entire book of estimates—only three days—and the fact that this is being placed before us and frankly pushed upon the Canadian public without a proper vetting, without an absolute, proper probing. It's tantamount to what happened last year with the omnibus bills. It really is unnecessary.

I would ask the consent of the committee to wait until the minister has had the opportunity to table the plans and priorities and we to ask further questions. I'm seeking consent for us to do the responsible thing and not rush this forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Valeriote's concerns, but I think that if you look at the estimates and what they actually are and what they consist of and where they're generated, and when you start looking at the supplementary estimates (A)s, (B)s, and (C)s and you realize that the funding is actually not just in the estimates but is in the supplementary estimates also, there's nothing here that is out of the ordinary or that any other committee would not be doing at this point in time—that is, approving those estimates so that they can continue with spending through the budget cycle. Then, as the different supplementary estimates come in, of course, the spending will be increased by department as we move forward.

So I see no reason to delay. I think we should just move forward with the vote at this point in time. As I said, this is something that the House leaders should talk about. If they have a problem with the process of estimates and supplementary estimates, then that's something that's far above this committee to discuss. The House leaders should discuss it amongst themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just before I recognize you, let me say that the reporting date is May 31.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

May 31 is quite a distance from today, February 28? We have plenty of time. There is no rush. The opposition House leaders have no more success in getting the cooperation of the government House leader than, frankly, the opposition in this committee is having getting cooperation from the government.

Mr. Chair, we know the arguments. We know the validity and the value of having an opportunity to look at this further, particularly since the minister gave no indication that he would be avoiding this committee. And Mr. Hoback has lauded the fact that this minister is prepared to come before us; let us have an opportunity.

If we ever get a complaint from the public, it's that billions and billions of dollars are spent and directed without adequate probing, without adequate investigation. We've each had ten minutes today—that's it, five in the first round and five in the second—and we're spending all this money, and for something that doesn't need to be reported until...did you say May 23?

[The Clerk]

It's May 31.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

May 31; that's another extra week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's the last day.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's the last day.

[A Voice]

There's no rush.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, there's no rush; we don't need to be rushed.

So I move that we not vote on this today, that we wait until the report on plans and priorities is tabled, that we invite the minister to return to committee, and that we take whatever opportunity we can to be more responsible and ask any further questions that might arise as a result of his appearance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mr. Hoback first.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Well, Chair, again I don't want the members to become confused between the budget process, wherein the spending is laid out for the entire year through the budget process, and the estimates and the role that the estimates actually play.

The Conservative Party has been through the estimates. We've gone through them and have reviewed them. We're very comfortable with the way they are sitting here today. We're prepared to vote on them here today so that the department has stability as it moves forward, so that farmers understand exactly what's coming down the pike for them as they go into the next year.

I see no reason to delay here, other than, if Mr. Valeriote wants to play politics with this for a month—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's not politics.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

—that this may be an option he wants to play. But in the same breath, we have serious things to do. We're focused on jobs and growth in the Canadian economy, and that's what we'll do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I think Mr. Hoback really covered what I want to say.

I'll point out to Mr. Valeriote that it's too bad he wasn't at in his chair when I asked the officials to explain the estimates process, because I think he would have had a better understanding—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I was in my chair.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

—of the process. Mr. Hoback has explained it very well.

As Mr. Hoback said, we've all had a chance to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Valeriote has a point of order.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the opposition is tired of being belittled every time Mr. Richards speaks. It's interesting that the belittling only comes out of his mouth.

Talk about issues, not about people—please, Mr. Richards.