House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agriculture.

Topics

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Therefore, division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is now on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

December 12th, 1996 / 12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The division on the motion stands deferred.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

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.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-60 today. This bill proposes that the Government of Canada consolidate all federally mandated food inspection, animal and plant health services into a single federal food inspection agency. This agency will report to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

When the new food inspection agency begins operation in 1997, it will become one of Ottawa's largest bureaucratic entities with 4,500 employees and a budget of $300 million.

Although the Reform Party supports consolidating and downsizing the operations of the federal government, we fear that this act will accomplish little except to shuffle names and titles. Instead the government should be considering the advantages of privatizing a significant portion of Canada's food, plant and animal inspection services.

Only $40 million or 13.3 per cent of the agency's $300 million budget is currently cost recovered. The agency already plans to dramatically increase this amount to more than $70 million. While the Reform Party supports user pay and cost recovery, the cost of the service must reflect the true cost of providing the service, not the added expense of maintaining the government's bureaucracy.

The act should ensure that a greater priority is placed on cost avoidance and cost reduction. This is important as the agency created in this act will be responsible for enforcing and administering several federal statutes which regulate food, animal and plant health related products. This includes the Feeds Act, Fertilizers Act, Health of Animals Act, Meat Inspection Act, Plant Breeders' Rights Act and Seeds Act.

The act will also continue to centralize authority for food inspection in the hands of the federal government. The Reform Party believes the government should acknowledge that since the provinces already provide many of the same inspection services, the emphasis should be on decentralization and encouraging common inspection standards and more harmonization.

For these reasons the Reform Party opposes this bill. Turning to the bill itself, we have specific concerns.

Provisions in this bill seem to create an environment for empire building. Clause 5 of the bill states that the governor in council shall appoint a president and an executive vice-president of the new agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to day operations of the agency. They will provide advice to the minister on matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is no mention of the qualifications required by these people. This type of situation opens itself up to pork barrel politics.

The bill also states that the president and the executive vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as fixed by the governor in council. We do not even know the salary amounts for these two positions. With this legislation, each member of the advisory board shall be paid such fees for his or her services as are fixed by the minister. Again, we cannot tell Canadian taxpayers how much they will be paying for these salaries.

This bill gives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food complete control over this agency which is a vital part of the agriculture industry.

The Liberal member for South Shore has voiced his concerns over his government's bill in this House. He has commented on the lack of consultation regarding Bill C-60 in his constituency. The small and medium size seafood processors in his riding have also told him that they feel increasingly isolated by this government. I can assure the member that this isolation is shared by western producers and processors.

This familiarizes us somewhat with the Canadian Wheat Board. Commissioners on the Canadian Wheat Board are appointed and have received severance and pension payments that are hidden from public view. The minister is setting out to create the same type of regulatory agency with Bill C-60. The issue of severance packages, pensions, premiums and what have you in that agency is unbelievable to western farmers and it is causing a tremendous division.

The Canadian Food, Beverage, Consumer Goods and Services Coalition submitted some valuable criticism of this bill. It stressed the need for an agency built around a board of directors that would be truly accountable and effective in setting these policies. I would like to point out that this is the direction the agriculture minister is slowly turning to in hinting he will be making changes. Why is this not being done before the bill is passed?

The coalition feels an advisory board under the direct control of the minister will simply contribute to the continuation of the outdated policies and procedures of the original department. It stressed that the legislation should focus more on cost effectiveness and service to the consumer.

We in the Reform Party proposed an amendment to the preamble to identify cost effectiveness as an objective of the agency. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food actually passed the amendment, albeit by a narrow margin. However, the Liberal majority on the committee succeeded in defeating all of our other amendments which were designed to bring more accountability to the agency and would have ensured more consultation with the industry.

For example, we would have ensured that the appointment of the president and the vice-president would have been done in consultation with the industry and would have been subject to a special subcommittee on food inspection. This is what the industry wants but it is not what the Liberals want so they defeated the amendment. This is another prime example of how this government operates.

We also put forth an amendment to ensure that the appointments to the advisory board that is created by this legislation would be open to scrutiny by a subcommittee of the standing committee. Of course the Liberal committee majority defeated this excellent amendment also. The Liberals seemed determined to derail any attempt by Reform members to give the agriculture and agri-food committee some responsibility and make it significant and accountable.

We also proposed an amendment to provide for a one-year moratorium on any further cost recovery actions so the standing committee could examine the consequences of the existing and proposed fees on the competitiveness of the Canadian industry. Another Reform amendment would have ensured that the fees would not have exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the service. Not surprisingly, these amendments were defeated also. This is unfortunate because it leaves all the power in the hands of the minister. There is no accountability and there is no consultation with the industry. These are severe detriments to making this agency what it should be.

I would like to quote a paragraph or two from a presentation by the Canadian Horticultural Council on December 10. This is what the council had to say about the cost of service:

"During the cost recovery round one discussions in 1984, the food production and inspection branch estimated the total cost of the fresh fruit and vegetable program to be approximately $7 million. In 1994 when the cost recovery round two discussions were launched under the food production and inspection branch's business alignment plan, we were informed the costs for the program had increased to approximately $17 million", more than double what they estimated. "Suffice it to say that in both cases we had to rely on the branch's word that the figures were correct. When we questioned how the program costs could have risen by $10 million over the 10 year period, especially when a number of the services had been deregulated, we were informed that the rules were calculating the costs had changed". Boy, that is cost recovery.

Then we go into user pay. Another short example: "It is worth noting that between 1984 and 1994, the principle of sharing the cost based on public and private good has disappeared. In 1984 one-third of the costs were deemed to be for the public good and in 1994 there was no longer any public good".

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Essex—Kent Ontario

Liberal

Jerry Pickard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Madam Speaker, it is important to realize that we are, right now, debating Motion No. 5.

This motion proposes an amendment to section 9 of Bill C-60, intent to have the committee look at where the location of the head office should be. The motion suggests that the head office be looked at within the purview of a committee and the committee make a decision where that head office should be located.

This amendment is not needed. In reality, during the discussions with the standing committee and the amendments put forth in the standing committee, clause 9 indicated very clearly that the head office would be located in the national capital region. That is very clearly in the amendment.

There is no legislative precedent in the Canadian Parliamentary system for having a standing committee to be involved in the level of detail in the administration in deciding where a building is located.

The minister is responsible and accountable for his budget. He is responsible and accountable to the Canadian public. He is responsible and accountable to this Parliament. Therefore it is very clear that as part of his duty he must make those detailed decisions and bring them forward.

I would at this time as well point out that it is of extreme importance to not only the minister but also to the department that all regions of this country be treated fairly and equally. We endeavour to make certain that where we are talking of research centres or all the facilities that exist in agriculture Canada, the proper facilities are placed throughout this country in order to serve that industry as well as possible.

There is no question that the decisions being made are made on the basis of fairness. I would assure my colleagues from Quebec that has been the case in the past with the department of agriculture and the department will continue to make certain that not only Quebec but all regions of this country are treated fairly with regard to those types of decisions.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I would just like to comment on this grouping. We are really only dealing with one amendment put forward by the Bloc regarding where the agency's national office will be located.

The parliamentary secretary for the minister of agriculture just spoke and talked about the accountability that is in the system, and that this type of amendment is not required. I agree with him only on one point. This type of amendment should not need to be required. If there were accountability it would not be required.

I want to review with the hon. member some facts that prove that his argument is a bunch of hogwash. He says that the minister and the agency will be accountable. Let us look at the record of the Liberal government. Location is very important.

We have seen governments from as far back as I can remember playing political games with locations of head offices. Even recently in this Parliament the Liberals brought forward a piece of legislation that privatized CN Rail, which means that basically it should be able to run its own affairs. In the legislation it stated that the national office of CN Rail had to be located in Montreal. Talk about politics. What a bunch of foolishness.

The previous Tory government decided that for political reasons the national office of the Farm Credit Corporation had to be in my province in the city of Regina. That was a political decision. Where was the accountability? Where is the accountability now, where was the accountability then?

It is not only with the locations of office locations, it is with the granting of contracts. All of western Canada was infuriated when the Conservative government offered the CF-18 maintenance contract to Canadair instead of Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg even though Bristol Aerospace had the best tender with better quality and a lower price to offer.

Because of political expediency there was no accountability. It was a joke. A few members ran into Prime Minister Mulroney's office and demanded that the contract with Canadair be accepted for political reasons, and the Prime Minister bowed to their wishes.

What should be the criteria for determining the location of the national office? Has it even dawned on anybody to debate the criteria? The criteria for the location of an agency's head office should be cost effectiveness, efficiency and productivity. The most effective and productive location for the head office of the Farm Credit Corporation may just be Regina, I do not know. I do not think a cost benefit study has ever been done to determine where that national office should be.

The most cost effective location for the single food inspection agency might be the national capital region, but we do not know. That was not even a consideration. The minister said because there are other departments involved, this may be the right place. But nobody looked into it. Nobody crunched the numbers. That was the last thing on the agenda.

The first priority has always been political expediency: "How are we going to maintain the most votes? If we are in trouble in Atlantic Canada, then we had better put some office in Atlantic Canada. If we are in trouble in Alberta, we had better put something in Edmonton or Calgary".

Canadian Food Inspection Agency ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Stop being so cynical at Christmas time.