Debates of Oct. 17th, 1994

Department Of Agriculture Act

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my full support to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Malpeque. When I first saw Bill C-49, that clause was certainly one of my big concerns.

Since we Reformers have come to Ottawa, we have talked a lot about accountability. Any move away from accountability would in my opinion be a mistake.

If you look at the costs of annual reports, certainly there is some increased cost. However any time you have the opportunity to hold any department, minister or any government for that matter accountable, as members of the House we should take that opportunity. We have discussed this among ourselves at the committee level. It is an amendment that we are pleased to support at this time.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the amendment of the member for Malpeque.

First, to be very clear, I do not feel that the amendment is necessary. We certainly accept and understand the concerns of the member. I understand the concerns of members opposite. There is no question that in part III of the main estimates all of this is done.

The Financial Administration Act requires that Parliament authorize all payments out of the consolidated revenue fund. If Parliament is not satisfied with the information that is provided to support the spending estimates of departments, it can refuse to appropriate funds on request. This gives Parliament effective control over public spending and information used to justify that spending.

As we know the standing committee has a major impact on the information provided in part III of the main estimates which for all departments has replaced annual reports.

We must remember that the soonest annual reports come out after the completion of a fiscal year is eight to ten months. The legislation requires them and it is eight to ten months after the fact. By that time the estimates are also in progress. The estimates include everything that has always been in an annual report. I think the challenge for the committees, whether it be agriculture or other standing committees, is to do a better job and better understand the main estimates when they are discussed. After reading part III of the main estimates, we have a chance to talk about what has happened, what the estimates are for this year and what is the direction for years to come.

The member for Frontenac said that organizations in the province of Quebec have an annual report. I do not question that they have an annual report. However, I question whether they

have main estimates and the progression of a document like that available to us here.

The question is whether it is necessary to retain a reference to the reporting requirement and when it would not be feasible. It would not be feasible to legislate under an annual report. If what is in an annual report is legislated, every time somebody wanted to change the types of things that were in an annual report there would have to be changes in legislation. That is certainly not feasible and not in the interests of time when we already have all of this available.

I think we have an opportunity here to do an even better job than has been done in the past. We can do it and save money and avoid duplication.

I recommend that we leave the bill as it is and suggest that the amendment of my hon. colleague is not necessary.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the difference of opinion between the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Malpeque. In this case I clearly support the hon. member for Malpeque. He is looking for more accountability from the government. I do not believe that anybody in the House should be opposed to that.

In terms of what the parliamentary secretary said with regard to part III of the estimates providing all the information that is necessary to make the government accountable, I disagree fully with that. I challenge any member on the other side of the House to sit with me and answer my questions about part III of the estimates, especially when it comes to connecting part III of the estimates with part II. There is a big gap there. You cannot make the connection with the information that is given.

I challenge any of those members to answer the questions I put to them with regard to connecting part II and part III of the estimates. I believe that the parliamentary secretary and the party opposite should allow this amendment to go ahead. It will improve accountability. The argument of the parliamentary secretary that these reports are not available for eight to ten months, or have not been in the past, does not carry any weight with me.

If they have not been done quickly enough in the past let us change the rules. Let us make the report available at the same time as the estimates, very quickly. I would hope the report would be much more complete than reports have been in the past. I would hope it would include enough information to make that connection between part II and part III of the estimates so that we in the House and people across the country can truly understand how the department is spending the money. Now it is certainly unclear no matter how much study you do in this area.

I strongly support the hon. member for Malpeque in his amendment. I hope the government will not refuse the accountability we need in this House.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to give my opinion on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, in view of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Malpeque.

Just a moment ago, it was pointed out that organizations, too, prepare estimates, and that they also must give an annual accounting. I would point out that the vast machinery of government includes committees, such as the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and that it is very important that this committee submit a report to members of Parliament once a year so that farm producers can see where the money has been spent.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary is afraid of transparency. I say give us all the facts so that we may examine them and understand them. I agree that an annual report should be tabled here in Parliament, because this is where decisions originate, and as Members of Parliament we have the right to an annual report.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair that the hon. member for Malpeque is putting this amendment before the House. He has sought to draw attention to a very significant problem that he perceives in the legislation.

I want to say at the outset that the notion of accountability to Parliament is one that is central to everyone's thinking in this House and rightly so. It is a very important concept and a very important principle that ought to be upheld on all occasions.

I want to draw on the following experience if the member opposite will not take it in an insulting way. I do not intend it that way. Since my election in 1988 there has been a change in the reporting requirements for various departments to Parliament.

These changes were implemented by the last government. As the hon. member knows, I opposed most of its policies. In the case of the changes with respect to the annual reports I was supportive. The reason was because in my view they were a waste of the taxpayers' dollars.

Parliament was receiving in part III of the estimates not just spending plans but detailed reports on the way the department was spending the money that it had to account for during the past year.

I cannot speak for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food because I do not pretend to have read part III of the estimates for the department of agriculture. Most of the depart-

ments deliberately beefed up or improved their part IIIs. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tells me that agriculture led the way. Great. I am unfamiliar with those particular estimates. Most of them and the ones that I dealt with beefed up their part IIIs to make them better so there was full accounting given in part III of the estimates. Therefore the necessity for an annual report simply disappeared.

Annual reports, interesting as they may be and impressive as they may look with lots of glossy pictures of the minister handing out money or congratulating some group, as many of them used to do, had their place but frankly they were expensive. It cost a great deal to produce and to print them. The previous government eliminated them by order in council for those departments that did not have a statutory requirement to produce an annual report to Parliament.

In the case of the agriculture department, the requirement was in the statute. We are seeking in the amendments today, not the amendment moved by the hon. member but in the amendments to the act, to delete the requirement that the department provide an annual report to Parliament. Most other departments have eliminated that requirement. All we are doing is bringing agriculture in line with the other departments by this bill.

Given that, it is reasonable to propose to Parliament that we are providing the information in part III so why reprint it in a different format and pay people to redraft it and reprint at public expense for no good reason. The information is in part III. Parliament gets the information when the estimates are tabled annually and we have to approve those estimates in committee and in the House.

Therefore members get an opportunity to review the draft. They can see the part IIIs. There is a draft supply bill where they can move amendments and so on. I know hon. members may argue that perhaps our control over supply is not what it could be, but that is a separate argument for another day. The fact is the material is being provided to Parliament in the part IIIs. If there are specific inadequacies in those part IIIs the information can be elicited in committee. The agriculture committee has the power to call witnesses before it from the department at will, including the minister, and demand additional information.

The intent of the amendment to uphold the integrity of the House and its primacy in terms of reporting requirements for departments is a good one. Frankly however I think it is unnecessary for the reasons given by the parliamentary secretary in his very able argument and because of what I believe to have been the experience members who have been here a little longer have had. That is we have not lost the accountability process or diminished it in any way by relying on part IIIs instead of on annual reports.

I invite members to consider that as we come to a vote on this matter. I would ask when the question is put that it be negatived on division. I believe you will find there is agreement that that be so.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to support the hon. member's motion calling for the annual report on agriculture to be submitted to Parliament. I think that this practice is totally appropriate and should be maintained.

Of course, part III of the Estimates on agriculture may contain data which is repeated in the annual report, but the information in the annual report is more detailed and more accessible to the people concerned by agricultural issues. It is an additional tool available to those who wish to know more about economic agricultural issues.

So I think it is quite appropriate to continue publishing the annual report, especially for this department with rather significant expenditures. This desire to stop issuing the annual report on agriculture reminds me of how reluctant this Liberal government is to show openness. An example of this can be found in the Department of Public Works where it is very difficult to access information. Of course, the minister will tell us that the information exists, that it is published somewhere, but it is very difficult to access it.

I also fear that this desire to stop publishing the Department of Agriculture's annual report is somewhat consistent with this government's lack of openness. I think that all the actions taken by the government to make information more accessible to the general public and the stakeholders must not be seen as a waste of money.

In conclusion, I think that the government should continue publishing its annual report on the Department of Agriculture.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate with some interest, particularly the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's rather lengthy argument against the need for more accountability in this House.

He mentioned there were a number of new members in the House and perhaps their lack of experience was the reason they might support more accountability. I assure you that for those of us who are new to the House, we have found the review of the estimates to be a very frustrating process. Of course, very little

occurs out of the review of the estimates. Anyway, if changes do occur in committee it is all reverted when it comes back to the House and the government has its way.

Another concern is that while the estimates are being reviewed by committee that issue is not open for debate in the Chamber itself. However, a report could actually be tabled much earlier and could give us more time to prepare for the estimates. If a report is tabled it certainly is open for debate and may hold the government more accountable for the actions of that department.

I hope that in light of the communication members of the Liberal Party sent to Canadians through their red book that they wanted to open this place up, make it more accountable and rebuild the trust with Canadians that they will support any measure which will make us the elected representatives of the people more accountable to them. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak in support of this amendment.

The amendment by the hon. member for Malpeque speaks to something Canadians find increasingly frustrating in dealing with governments. It is this idea of a lack of accountability or the lack of the proper procedure. All members have a huge volume of estimate literature in their offices which, except perhaps for the people who wrote the documents, is hard to understand.

The motion is straightforward. It is a very sound idea which has a good deal of common sense. It just asks that a report be filed from the department to address the very concerns people have about the estimates and the fact that they are so difficult to understand.

At the Reform Party convention this past weekend we passed a motion that we would like the government also to follow up on this whole idea of a standardized accounting practice as recommended by the Auditor General. That would make this whole effort more understandable in its entirety. As a first step, this amendment is plausible, very realistic. It should receive support from all sides of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like a recorded vote on this motion to amend Bill C-49.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to the amendment by the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. The amendment has been ruled in order. I would ask the member to read his amendment.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to place an amendment before the House regarding Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain other acts. I move:

Motion No. 2

That clause 6 be amended by striking out line 17 on page 2 and substituting the following:

"any inspection powers, duties or functions".

This amendment is necessary for a very simple but important reason. The bill must clearly indicate in layman's terms what the inspection powers of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food really are. Clause 6 now reads:

The minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purpose of providing the inspection services that the minister considers necessary for the enforcement of any act in respect of which the minister has any powers, duties or functions.

The problem I have with this particular wording is that there is a potential conflict between the intent and the interpretation of the clause. As it stands it could be interpreted to give the minister the power to appoint inspectors for the enforcement of any act for which he is responsible. The wording is not precise or exacting enough to limit the appointment of inspectors by the minister to those acts which already have inspection clauses in them. I know this is the intent of the clause and this has been explained to us by the minister's officials.

However, the open ended and loose wording gives rise to another possible interpretation which follows. I believe there are some 35 acts under the minister's jurisdiction right now. Some have asked me if this clause gives the power to the minister to appoint inspectors at his whim and fancy for all of those acts. If so it is hard to visualize any support for this clause. We do not need or want the minister to have such powers. We already have officials in our society who are responsible to

enforce regulations, laws, standards and to provide inspection services.

Therefore the intent and the interpretation of the clause could and should be harmonized, in my view, for the satisfaction of both legal minds and lay people. I suggest that my amendment would accomplish this.

All I am asking is that we put the word inspection into the clause one more time. My amendment to clause 6 has been carefully stated in the House. This amended wording makes sense because it clarifies what the intent of the clause is and eliminates any possibility, in my mind at least, of potential expansion of the minister's powers to appoint inspectors to any act under his jurisdiction. Such appointments would be needless, redundant and dangerous.

I therefore ask the House for its support of this amendment.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the hon. member's amendment to clause 6 of Bill C-49.

The minister already has the power to designate inspectors under other legislation the minister administers. This change, taken in conjunction with clause 18 in Bill C-49, merely allows the minister to designate inspectors under the Food and Drugs Act. The Minister of Health can also appoint inspectors as well as the Minister of Industry with whom the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food shares the responsibility for the administration of the Food and Drugs Act.

The authority to inspect comes from individual acts, not from the minister. That is what we need to point out here. The amendment gets very restrictive and does not state what it is possible to do under the act. The minister can appoint an inspector. The minister cannot be as specific and restrictive as this amendment states. The authority to inspect comes in the individual acts that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food administers, such as the Food and Drugs Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Canadian Agriculture Products Act. The inspection powers that are given to the minister must be done in general terms in order to ensure that it applies to the inspection provisions of such acts as the Food and Drugs Act.

I must remind the members that if it is made this restrictive it can be costly, it can be absolutely too restrictive. An inspector's duties are outlined in other acts and we must remember that inspectors have many more duties than inspect because they might have to make recommendations and determinations on what further action goes on from there.

We must be very careful that we do not tie the activities of inspectors or the activities of the minister. The bill allows the minister appointments through other acts which give the inspectors their jurisdictions and their activities from there.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clause 6 of Bill C-49 has only six lines. If you allow me, I shall read them:

1. The minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purpose of providing the inspection services that the minister considers necessary for the enforcement of any act in respect of which the minister has any powers, duties or functions.

What my Reform Party colleague is asking the Joint Committee on Agriculture and, in fact, what he is suggesting is pretty much the same, except that instead of any powers, duties or functions, it specifies inspection powers, duties or functions. The Bloc Quebecois cannot oppose that because it specifies the role of inspectors and their powers and duties, as well as the amount of leeway they will have in the performance of their duties. In closing, the only thing I would wish is to avoid duplication, like sending two inspectors to check more or less the same thing, as we can see now in the Department of Agriculture or other similar departments.

So I can assure my colleague in the Reform Party that for the good of agriculture, the Bloc Quebecois will support the Reform Party's amendment.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the amendment to the bill by my hon. colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. It only makes common sense that we clarify what is the role of the inspectors in relation to their being appointed and given a task by the minister of agriculture. That only makes sense.

My argument was reinforced by the hon. parliamentary secretary for the minister of agriculture who indicated that in other pieces of legislation, other acts, these powers are already specified.

Why should they not be specified in this act as well? It only makes sense. It is logical. It harmonizes with existing legislation that is already in place. The disconcerting part of it is that if we pass such a broadly worded clause in this act it may apply to future acts in which the minister has no business appointing any inspectors to deal and meddle around in the affairs of producers.

I am really concerned about the open endedness of this act. I am also concerned that the department of agriculture is already rather large, perhaps one bureaucrat to every three to five producers who are out there working. It looks to me like perhaps this is a make work project for more inspectors where they are perhaps not needed, crossing from one act to another.

It only makes sense. I would appeal to the government to respect the wisdom that comes from this side of the House and let us not make a fuss, let us simply adopt a good common sense amendment to the bill.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief comment in support of my colleague's amendment to this piece of legislation and I would really like to express a concern that I have with regard to the government's resistance to accountability and its resistance to clarification in this act.

I am really upset that it is not willing to accept better accountability and in the case of this amendment clarification which is clearly justified and which the parliamentary secretary has said is there in other acts. I hope this amendment will be accepted by those on both sides of the House.