Debates of Dec. 13th, 1996

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has six minutes left to make his remarks.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

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.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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.

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.

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.

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.

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.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, are you saying I am right? Are we debating Group No. 8?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Yes.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-214, an act to provide for improved information on the cost of proposed government programs, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Program Cost Declaration Act

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill presented by the Liberal member for Durham. I feel in this particular instance he is definitely on the right track. As this is a private member's bill I can personalize it and strongly emphasize how much I support the general thrust and intent of the bill.

The bill will require that the estimated annual cost and the cost per capita of every new government program be published as soon as the bill that authorized it is introduced in Parliament or the regulation that implements it is issued. The auditor general's opinion on the estimate is also to be published.

When a bill would come to this House at second reading stage there would be a requirement for the government to present to us the costs and economic impact of the bill. The actual requirement is that the government would have to explain the economic impact so that all members of this House and all Canadians could understand the nature of the bill. This has to be a tremendous improvement over what we are doing now in this House of Commons. I will use two examples to illustrate areas that would be improved by this bill: the tobacco bill and the disability aspect of the Canada pension plan.

The tobacco bill is being hotly debated and hotly contested. It is a tough issue. There is a fine line between trying to impose regulations and steep taxes on this legal substance-it is legally allowed to be sold-and restricting the impact of this substance on the health and welfare of individual Canadians, especially the young people because of its highly addictive qualities.

We have debated this bill. The tobacco industry and related lobbyists have said that the advertising and sponsorship provisions in the bill and the restrictive nature of the sale of cigarettes will force them to reduce their funding.

The Minister of Health has not provided us with any numbers on the economic impact on advertising or sponsorship. He has raised the taxes by $1.50 per carton. He said that he could not go any higher, that the committee had advised him a greater tax increase would encourage the smuggling trade. Some of these numbers should have been given to us, for example the extra revenue the tax increase will generate.

Why is it that cigarettes can be sold in B.C. for $44 a carton with a high taxation level, which encourages east to west smuggling? When people are in Toronto they go to the huge warehouses and buy cartons of cigarettes for $19 each whereas in B.C. they pay $44. They will spend $500 to save $500. It pays for the air fare. If they bring $1,000 they can really save money.

When bills are presented, these things are not being explained to us as members of Parliament. If this type of explanation were given, a bill like the tobacco bill would not be debated just on the basis of emotion, the emotion of addiction, the emotion of what it is doing to youth, the emotion of something that supposedly is bad but nevertheless is legal. The bill could be discussed with some balance; the emotional arguments would be balanced with the economic arguments.

The government has been trying to introduce the tobacco legislation for 14 months but has not been able to. People have been dying from smoking cigarettes. But when the health minister suddenly introduces the legislation, it has to be passed now, before Christmas. It has to be fast tracked because people are dying and that is all we are concentrating on.

If a bill were presented along with its economic impact it would have to have a more thorough review at the departmental and ministerial levels before it even got to cabinet. If cabinet were to approve the bill with its financial ramifications, it would then be presented to us on that basis. That would make a big difference for all parliamentarians. Then we could make a proper balanced decision on these bills.

I read the member for Durham's opening speech on this bill. He said that many members of Parliament end up voting just to go along with their party line, but they do not really understand what they are really voting for and why they are voting the way they are.

I am currently a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We just finished reviewing chapter 17 on CPP disability. In his report the auditor general indicated that management is a problem in the civil service. I am not saying nor is he saying that it is mismanagement. The problem is undermanagement.

There is not enough leadership, not enough guidance. There are not enough rules for the people in management to carry out effective control of the programs they are in charge of. There are not enough effective controls to say yea or nay to certain people on disability. The rules are archaic. They have been added on since 1970. It is an abomination.

Some of these people in the bureaucracy need help. As legislators, we are the ones who are standing in the way. We have now given them the tools to work with so all they have to do is say no or yes to people and there are a lot of complaints. This type of bill would enable the presenter to make the proper changes and talk about the financial impact.

An overall review is necessary in our CPP, which we are doing, but it is also needed specifically in the disability area. Since 1993 the department has done 24,000 reassessments of long term disability claimants and found that 34 per cent of them no longer qualified but were still receiving benefits. Fortunately, over half of that money will be recoverable and the government will get some money back.

It is a serious matter. There has to be a mechanism in the rules which states that we must present a cost benefit analysis of a bill or changes to a bill so that everybody understands not just the kind of society we are trying to create or the caring we want to show the people in Canada but also the economic impact along with the emotional impact.

It is important for us as legislators to give those in the civil service the tools to work with so they can do a proper job in effectively controlling the public purse strings. It is becoming far too easy for politicians to stand up and say that they just blew it. If that is what we say, then we are not assuming our responsibilities to pass good and effective legislation that will make spending more visible, that will make the cost of government more apparent that will be in the best interests of every single political party in the House and all Canadians whose tax dollars we suck out of their pocketbooks. We must know who spends it, who is accountable for it and how wisely the money is being spent, which is what Bill C-214 does.

We could amend the bill a little by adding a sunset clause where it would be compulsory at the end of the fifth year to check out the viability of each of the programs to see if they are successful in achieving their desired ends.

On the auditor general's opinion on the estimates, which is also to be published, I disagree a little bit with my colleague from Durham in this area. The job of the auditor general is to audit after the fact and not predict before the fact.

The auditor general's job in auditing is to match the intent of government legislation and the intent of programs with the success or failure of achieving the objectives, which is what he is doing now. I believe that is something he can still do. He would be doing the value for money audits but for example, it would have been so much easier had the Minister of Health presented all the financial implications of the Tobacco Act.

There is also the Endangered Species Act. How much is that going to cost? What is the impact of that act? There is hardly a member of Parliament here who knows what the impact of that bill will be. Why has that not been presented to us by the minister?

We have a right to know how the money is going to be spent and who is going to have to pay for it. Things like that are very important, very critical and very crucial. I commend the member for Durham for bringing forward a private member's bill like this one.

This is what is going to happen with this. The President of the Treasury Board has said: "We must equip ourselves with better systems for evaluating the actions of government so that we can genuinely answer for actions first and foremost to our fellow citizens who are both clients and taxpayers". He is not showing his support for this bill. He is staying neutral because he says it is a private member's bill. He says it is the job of the standing committees to ask those questions about what a bill costs and what money is going to be spent.

My colleague from Lloydminster in a prior speech has pointed out how effective standing committees are in getting that kind of information. The minister says: "A cost analysis is given to cabinet confirming the financial impacts in a confidential memorandum". If it is already being done, then share it with the Canadian public

and the House of Commons. It should not be any big deal for the minister to support this.

I would just like to conclude with one comment by the member for Durham. I like this quote and will give him credit for it: "The forces that would turn government back on the road to fiscal irresponsibility are at work today", and they are still out there. "They ponder how to spend annualized surpluses, even though the debt stands at over $600 billion. This legislation will serve as a check on these forces".

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to express my views to the House during the debate on Bill C-214.

The bill proposes that the government make a declaration to Parliament of the estimated annual cost of every new program which it intends to implement. I welcome the opportunity the member for Durham has given me to remind the House of the progress the government has made in recent years and is continuing to pursue in this very important area.

As an example, I would cite the improved reporting to Parliament project. This initiative responds to the need for better accountability. It entails working with Parliament to provide good, meaningful information not only on the costs of government programs but on the results we achieve in relation to the goals and objectives we set for ourselves.

We would all agree on the importance of the initiative, given that these programs and the results are funded by the dollars which the taxpayers have entrusted to us to manage well and to deliver the services they expect and need from federal departments and agencies.

In the improved reporting to Parliament project, the government is endeavouring to draw on the expertise of all stakeholders, parliamentarians, public servants, interested professionals and the clients and constituents whom we serve.

Improved information to Parliament is also a key component of two other recent government initiatives, program review and getting government right.

Program review is now in its second phase. We have been scrutinizing all federal activities to ask the questions that are important to us all, questions such as: What activity should the federal government continue to be engaged in? How should these activities be delivered? By what level of government? If federal, by which department or agency and at what cost and for which level of service?

The results of the program review have been significant in a number of ways. We have clarified the roles, responsibilities and the priorities of federal departments and agencies. We have begun a thought process with respect to options for alternative organizational forums and mechanisms for program delivery.

The bottom line is that program review means that by 1998-99, annual spending on federal government programs are projected to fall by about $9 billion and will be delivered by a smaller, more effective and less costly public service.

Getting government right is a complementary initiative which involves the modernization of federal programs and services to meet our obligations as a government and the expectations of our clients today and in the years to come.

I would encourage any member who has not already done so to read the progress report on getting government right which was tabled in this House on March 7, 1996. It describes what we have accomplished in clarifying federal roles and responsibilities in making the federal government work better and in rethinking program delivery so as to adjust to today's reality and the challenges ahead.

More specifically, getting government right means ensuring that resources are devoted to the highest priorities, responding to the public demand for better and more accessible government and achieving more affordable government.

In moving forward on this agenda, the government is mindful of the need to ensure that the role of the national government is preserved to meet core responsibilities. These include: strengthening our economy and economic union to ensure a prosperous country for ourselves and our children; enhancing social solidarity in Canada; pooling our national resources to achieve common goals efficiently and effectively; defending Canada's sovereignty; and speaking for Canadians collectively on the world stage.

While I support the objective of Bill C-214, its enactment would only add to the cost of government without making any substantive improvement in the quantity and quality of information which the government is providing and plans to provide to Parliament.

Consider the changes we have already benefited from in the 1996-97 estimates documentation. In addition to part I of the estimates which provides an overview of federal spending, part II, the traditional blue book which supports the Appropriation Act, and the individual part IIIs, two important innovations were introduced.

First, the government tabled a new document entitled "Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending". This document, while not formally constituting part of the estimates, represented an important step forward in that it combines federal program spending detail which was previously presented in both part I of the estimates and the budget. This provides a bridge between the budget document and other estimate documents.

"Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending" gives Parliament both an overview of program spending within the context of part I and program review and more detailed information on program spending by sector and by federal department. Program review's principal achievement will be structural changes in the business of government, many of which are already visible to all parliamentarians and the Canadian public.

For example, in the transportation sector shifting from owner, operator or subsidizer to regulator and policy maker; and in the agricultural sector, in partnership with the provinces, moving from commodity based agricultural subsidies to a whole farm safety net, focusing on income stabilization rather than income support.

Other important restructuring initiatives include withdrawing from programs which provide direct financial support to industry and addressing overlap and duplication to consolidate activities wherever possible, thereby making program delivery more efficient and more effective.

The second phase of the program review builds on the first. Specific measures resulting from program review II which affect primarily the 1998-99 fiscal year include the rationalization of subsidies, privatization and commercialization where feasible, and further reductions in spending.

While in some cases specific measures to implement program review II decisions will be developed over the next two years, it is clear to the government that innovation in service delivery is a key factor to our success.

We want to move away from traditional hierarchical delivery structures to forms which are more cost effective and more responsive to Canadians. The creation of the three agencies announced in the speech from the throne and the budget is well under way.

Another change which we saw in the 1996-97 main estimates in addition to the document profiling departmental spending was the tabling of six pilot part III of the estimates departmental expenditure plans. These documents are pilots or tests in the government's effort to address the concern of parliamentarians who have better information on the multi-year costs of government programs and constitute a key initiative in the improved reporting to Parliament project.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues that the progress which we have seen today is only the beginning. The estimated costs of a program represent only one side of equation. The government is equally concerned with reporting to Parliament on the results.

The government is currently considering mechanisms for reporting to Parliament on the performance of government programs in a more timely and complete manner; for example, the introduction of performance reports which would be tabled in the fall of each year rather than as a component of the planned expenditure information which we currently receive as parts of the estimates documentation.

This government has made a concerted and ongoing effort to involve parliamentarians in shaping the form and content of the information which is presented to us not only on the cost of government programs but on their results. I believe our participation in this process is the key to improving the information for Parliament. The member for Durham shares our objective. However, I believe that the legislation being proposed presents potentially costly and ineffective alternatives to the initiatives I have just outlined.

I believe that more focused, streamlined information to Parliament will make it easier to assess government programs. Information which is better organized and more user friendly will strengthen the accountability of government to all Canadians.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to address the House on this proposal. I too wish you all a Merry Christmas and prosperous new year.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. speaker, it is a pleasure today to debate Bill C-214, the program cost declaration act tabled by the hon. member for Durham.

Let me take a few minutes to outline the purpose of the act and what is behind it. The act, which is a votable item, would require departments of the government to provide a financial or cost analysis of each piece of legislation on its introduction to the House of Commons or at the time the minister or governor in council issues regulations or other instruments.

The auditor general would certify that the method used to arrive at this analysis was fair and reasonable under the circumstance. The cost would be disclosed in total as well as based on the per capita cost for each Canadian citizen.

This legislation would cause legislators and their departments to be more conscious of the financial impact their legislation would have. The PCDA, as it is called, would provide for a greater degree of disclosure and accountability for government programs and lead toward a more integrated expenditure system. It would give members of Parliament and the public more knowledge and to that extent more control and scrutiny over how government spends.

If this type of legislation had been in place years ago, I believe it is true that would not have so easily created the massive deficits and debt which the federal government is now forced to deal with.

That really is the purpose of the legislation, as stated by the member for Durham. I think it is transparent that the legislation is worthy of support. It has been supported in statements from the auditor general and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation. The retiring president, Mr. Jason Kenney, has said that he supports the legislation. James Forrest, the executive director of the Alberta Taxpayers' Federation, has indicated that they support it. During the first hour of debate it received fairly favourable reviews from MPs representing all the recognized parties in the House.

I could also note that professional accounting organizations have also indicated their support. Marcel Latouche, president of the Charted Association of Certified Accountants has indicated support; the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario; the Society of Management Accountants of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. They endorse the principles behind the bill, and I could go on.

I guess the real question is why anybody would do it any other way. When we think about it, it is quite extraordinary that in this day and age governments would think of tabling and publicly adopting legislation without providing assessed cost information as part of the process.

I do not believe there is any chief executive officer in this country who would go to his board or his shareholders and not be prepared to give a definitive cost assessment on a project that the company had undertaken. Nor would any intelligent head of a household enter into a major purchase, any purchase other than out of pocket, without making an assessment of the real costs over time.

If anything, I think the bill probably does not go far enough. This is absolute bare bones, as some of my colleagues have pointed out. There are other things that could be done with the bill but which have not been done. There are no sunset clauses on any of these expenditures. There is actually no provision for making the targets that are assessed by the auditor general mandatory or for any amendment if the costs are out of range from the original estimate. There is no assessment required of benefits or of the present value of the cost stream. There is no requirement to indicate what the source of the income would be to cover the cost or how precisely these sources are related to the benefits and the beneficiaries of any of the projects.

This is a very small step, one that is worth pursuing and I believe ultimately worth adopting. However, it is not putting any kind of undue restrain on government, nor is it even challenging some of the basic Liberal philosophy that I think is ultimately the problem here. I may get into this later if I have time.

This is what the member himself is ultimately up against because $600 billion in debt was not run up in this country by accident. It may have been run up through incompetence but it really came down to the heart of the Liberal Party philosophy and the philosophy of modern liberalism which is that government exists to spend, to transfer money from some people to other people for the benefit of politicians and bureaucrats, and ultimately it is a political and not an economic question on how resources are allocated. That is the philosophy of modern liberalism, not just to serve a dependency but to create it, to nurture it and to build big government around it.

That is why we have the problems we do in this country. That is ultimately what the hon. member is up against in trying to move this bill forward not just with the philosophy of liberalism but, frankly, with a political party and a leadership that have to justify the last 30 years, justify the way things have been run. They surround themselves with the representatives of the old way of doing things. That is a problem when getting the House to look at this kind of measure.

I would point out in the few moments I have left that this is not by any means the only measure that parliamentarians of various parties have tabled in this Parliament to attempt to bring modern cost evaluation and cost control to the federal government.

I will mention a few of the private members' bills that are on the Order Paper right now, all of which relate to this kind of matter: Bill C-213 put forward by the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound to amend the Constitution Act to require balanced budgeting and spending limitations; Bill C-294 by the hon. member for St. Albert which would require the periodic evaluation of statutory programs, two-thirds of federal spending not subject to a regular review process; Bill C-342 by the hon. member for North Vancouver would require stated principles of fiscal management from the Minister of Finance consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and would require public periodic reports that deal with approaches to debt reduction, to balanced budgeting, contingency for risk and stable tax rules; Bill C-349 by the hon. member for Medicine Hat to require public disclosure and parliamentary scrutiny of federal user fees; Bill C-361 by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the people's tax form act, which would give

voters and taxpayers a say on their tax forms in terms of what kind of federal government programs are supported and with what kind of tax dollars.

There are various other propositions. I think all the ones I mentioned are reform propositions but there are others from Liberal members which deal with not just reforming spending directly but making government more accountable, whether it is through giving people more say on their tax form or through referendums or through reforms of the House of Commons. There are endless numbers of propositions. None of these has been addressed so far in this Parliament or seriously entertained.

I would like to review some of the objections that have been raised to this type of legislation if I have time. Let me say before I get to that in summary that what all of these objections have in common, and I am sure we will hear this from the parliamentary secretary later, is somehow the theme that we are doing it right now. Everything is just fine the way it is. Cost control is really terrific. We now have only a $30 billion deficit this year. Therefore what are we really worried about when it comes to taxpayer dollars? The other objection is how can we afford to spend this money to control federal spending and to control the federal budget.

These people never have any problem with spending money at the front end. They always find it very expensive to monitor. They can always afford to spend the money. They can never afford to have the accountant to keep the records. That is an amazing philosophy but it will come out in all the objections.

As I say, there is really no valid reason for opposing this type of bill. It is standard practice in every other institution. The auditor general knows this is consistent with modern accounting practices and would like to see his office handle this sort of role.

I commend this bill to the House. I know that many Liberal members support it. They reject the old philosophy. I ask them to vote in favour of this legislation.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill of the hon. member for Durham. Essentially the bill calls for a full disclosure of costs for any legislation brought before the House, any regulations that are enacted or any other instruments that are implemented by the government.

This bill should be applauded. Canadians are demanding more accountability from their parliamentarians. I salute the hon. member for Durham for bringing this bill forward.

In the spirit of the bill, I am sure the member looked at the costs of implementing this particular bill. I would say that the costs of implementing this bill would be very limited. I am sure the member will bring forward those costs at a later date.

Most departments and most ministers do some kind of accounting or cost estimating of what the implementation of proposed measures will cost. I am sure those numbers are reasonably available. What the member is saying in this bill is that those costs should be brought before the House.

Too often in the past legislation has come before the House and has been passed without members knowing fully what the costs and the impacts of the legislation will be. In my view, there are different kinds of legislation. Some legislation costs a lot of money to implement and some costs very little. However, if the costs are not known, it is very difficult to make any kind of judgment.

Another element can creep into legislation and that is the problem of incremental costs. A small piece of legislation on its own may not be that costly to implement, but given other legislation and other initiatives, the cumulative costs can be quite significant. The bill would provide a very transparent process. It would ensure that members of the House would know what the implementation costs of the legislation would be.

This bill calls for that information to be prospective, not retrospective. What good does it do if the auditor general comes along later and says that a program cost X dollars and the benefits were less than the cost? At that point it is too late. This bill demands accountability up front in terms of disclosure. It is a much more appropriate way to deal with the issue.

I echo what other members have said before me. The bill is a start. It is certainly not the full solution. It is a first step in a very important process.

Other questions need to be answered when legislation is introduced and when regulations are implemented. For example, what would be the impact of legislation on other stakeholders? Other stakeholders could include other orders of government. It could mean the business community. It could mean a whole host of things. While the bill deals with the cost of implementing legislation within the federal government, we also have an obligation to analyse what legislation will do to other orders of government and to the business community.

For example, a tool has been developed by treasury board and Industry Canada which is called the business impact test. It is used to assist legislators and departments to assess the impact of proposed legislation on business. The business impact test is affectionately referred to as the BIT. It is an important tool which parliamentarians should encourage. There is nothing to stop that information from being presented in the House when other legislation and costs are presented.

When we look at the impact of legislation we should also be looking at alternatives. What alternatives were looked at before the department brought in the legislation? Are there market instru-

ments that could be used as effectively? Are there voluntary means that could be implemented to achieve the same goals?

We have a habit of bringing in laws and legislation telling business how to run and operate its business instead of putting in legislation which sets certain standards and criteria that are required and allowing the business community to develop the processes by which it could meet those standards. When that is not done, it adds another cost to the burdens of government. It also makes business more inefficient.

The way that laws and regulations are brought forward, developed and implemented are very complex. A number of processes are in place. Sometimes legislation is driven by the bureaucracy. Sometimes legislation is driven at the political level. Sometimes it is driven by stakeholder groups that create a demand.

We need to be very cautious that we do not fall into the trap of building empires, whether it is building empires for bureaucrats, special interest groups or politicians. This legislation really provides a vehicle for a full debate, full disclosure and full accountability at the start of any proposed initiative.

Often we debate legislation and the issues of public policy and law in this House. That is very important but too often we do not debate the fiscal impact of some of the initiatives that are brought forward.

Perhaps if we had done more of this in the past, we would not be facing the fiscal challenges we face today. Now is the time to start on a new program, on a new footing. This bill allows us to do that.

The effect of this bill, in my view, is that it will have a large deterrent effect that would be positive. In other words, private members or the government of the day will be reluctant to bring forward bills that have a heavy cost associated with them, and where the benefits are not clearly defined.

Government is not like business. It cannot always put legislation in the context of cost and benefit in the same kind of quantifiable way that can be done in business. However, it does not preclude governments from adopting some of that rigour and applying it in any way it can.

I applaud the member for bringing this forward. Legislation and regulations have a huge impact on the competitiveness of our industries. The market does not solve everything. We know that, and governments have a role to play.

We need to really examine carefully the impact that regulations and legislation have on businesses because the capacity and the ability of businesses to develop jobs and economic activity will be partly a function of the regulatory environment and the legislative environment in which they work and how that compares with those environments in the countries where competitors are domiciled.

If we do not really look at those elements on an incremental basis or on another basis, we can put businesses on a footing where they are not competitive to deal internationally or even within our own domestic markets.

This bill is a giant step forward. I applaud the member again for bringing it forward. I certainly will support it. I hope other members will.

I too would like to take this opportunity to wish everybody a very happy and safe holiday and a prosperous new year.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Program Cost Declaration Act, Bill C-214.

It is said that the Canadian public is becoming cynical about the political process. I believe it was the American humorist Mark Twain who said that a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but knows the value of nothing.

What the hon. member for Durham is trying to do with this bill is to put two concepts together. If we know the price of something and we know we are getting a good buy for the price then we are quite willing to pay for it. This bill is about how to determine the price and whether value for money is being given.

I will give an example. If one was to go down to one of the luxury car lots not far from Parliament Hill, no doubt a car could be found that was worth $75,000. That is a lot of money. However, if I take the car out and test drive it, I may begin to feel that with all the bells and whistles and all the good things that are included, $75,000 is not a lot of money to pay for the vehicle. In my opinion, $75,000 is a lot of money for a car but if someone can afford it and it is good value, they will pay for it because it is not a problem.

As legislators, we often get into programs that cost money but, at the same time, are good value. I am not quite as cynical as some of the earlier speakers from the Reform who only talked about the price and did not want to talk about the value. They were only interested in the cost because it is a personal lifestyle issue to them as opposed to what it means to us as Canadians or to the country as a whole.

At the same time, as individuals, collectively we are entitled to know what the large picture cost is of this and what the individual or per capita cost is of the particular program.

As an example, a couple of years ago in the province of British Columbia, the then minister of the environment in that province wanted to introduce environmental legislation that sounded great. It was reformulated gasoline. It was a wonderful idea which would

have wonderful effects on the environment. People thought it was just what they needed and that the government should proceed with it.

However, when the people of British Columbia found out that it was going to cost them eight cents a litre more to buy reformulated gasoline, they had very severe reservations and told the minister of the environment to back off because they wanted to think about it. Once the price had been leaked to them, they started to realize that maybe under those circumstances they were not getting good value.

There is another side to this. As Canadians we know that health care costs a lot of money. Despite the fact that health care, no matter what country one lives in, has a large price tag attached to it, Canadians know that they are getting good value. If we compare ourselves to what I heard earlier from the Reform members, they are only interested in the price. They would prefer to adopt the American model which suggests that as an individual it does not matter what the price is as long as it is affordable. It does not matter if it is good value or not.

In the United States we know they are spending at least 2 per cent to 3 per cent more of GDP on a per capita basis for health care, whereas we know in Canada it is expensive but collectively we get a better deal and it is better value. That is where we differ from the Reform Party in the role of government.

However, that does not detract from what the hon. member for Durham is saying. I can recall in Ontario a number of years ago when government was growing that it was introducing all kinds of programs and would say: "This is a great program and it will only cost you 15 cents a week or 15 cents a month". That was one little department of the government keeping 15 cents here and 15 cents there. It all adds up at the end of the year when somebody has to pay for it. We know that the somebody at the end of the year is you, me and everyone else who was involved in the taxation system.

I want to point out one other thing. We have also heard from the Reform members. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

I would like to point out a strange twist in their philosophy. They stand in their places here and talk about getting tough with criminals: "Let us lock them up, do not give anyone the benefit of the doubt, do not consider the value of rehabilitation. Let us not say to a person: You have served your time, we will give you a second chance. I am a Reformer and I want to lock you up".

Maybe we should start costing what their criminal law amendments would add up to. Maybe we should sit down and ask: What is the price that the Reform Party is putting on the criminal justice system? To you, Mr. Canadian Taxpayer, is it good value? Does it mean a whole lot to you that a person will be locked up forever? What does it mean to you as a taxpayer when we do the collective routine?

I am not a cynic in the sense of the Reform philosophy that there is a price. I am saying to tie the two of them together. Let us look at the price and let us look at the value we will get from it. What is the overall cost and is it good value? Is it something Canadians want? Canadians will have to know what they are paying for.

I realize a number of groups have endorsed this. The present auditor general has said that he shares the view that the cost of government programs and operations should be made more visible to Parliament and to taxpayers.

Today I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour talk about program review and that programs are being made more cost efficient. That is the right thing to do and as a member of the government I applaud that. We must do that. We have no choice. And we are doing that.

But this is not a question of making programs more efficient. It is a question of telling people up front, right then when we introduce a law what it is going to cost the country and what it will mean to every man, woman and child in the country. Legislation has many yardsticks which can be applied to it. We put legislation to all kinds of tests, but this is the one test that has obviously been missing.

I realize that this may impose an onerous burden on certain departments. After having heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour speak, I think it is like a scene out of "My Fair Lady" where Eliza Doolittle was being taught English and she did not want to continue any more. She said that she was tired, fed up and could not carry on. In this case I would suggest that the department has no reason to be tired. It can carry on and it ought to carry on in the vein and with the intent, purpose and thrust of what the hon. member for Durham has proposed in the bill.

It is ironic that the Alberta Taxpayers' Association has said that the bill is a good first kick at the can and deserves the consideration of members of Parliament. This is what the member has succeeded in doing by getting this bill to the floor of this Chamber.

I know there are others who will speak to the bill today and in the future. At the same time I believe it is incumbent upon us to thoroughly examine the bill. In the end I believe we on this side of the House at least will conclude that we are not cynics but we do want to know the price and then we as legislators can determine whether this is good value for the people of Canada.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to congratulate our colleague from Durham, for taking the initiative to introduce a bill to improve information on the cost of programs proposed by the government.

Our fellow countrymen, administrators, a list of accountants, which we have seen, and even the office of the auditor general have said that this initiative would be welcome. When we look at the enormous expenditures of the government, it is clear that we need mechanisms to ensure program costs are made public at least in general terms, given that it is impossible to have precise information and figures for a five-year period.

But the primary initiative of this bill will be to help bureaucrats realize that Parliament, which has the last word on programs, requires information that is as precise information as possible, because we are aware of the impact, the ramifications, of program expenditures and do not like to find out, a year or two down the road, that certain programs have ended up doubling or tripling the original estimates.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. This is an initiative I like very much. There is no doubt that many mechanisms do exist, as our hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island has said. There are mechanisms in place to control, if you will, or to give some idea of the costs of programs.

However, I think that this proposal by the member for Durham would put our bureaucrats and, of course, ministers and deputy ministers, who are responsible for the various departments, on the alert, forcing them to make sure that the information provided is as accurate as possible, otherwise we are the ones who are going to incur the wrath of our fellow Canadians if they realize that expenditures were higher than anticipated.

In the short time I had, I just wanted to draw the attention of my colleagues to this aspect of the bill. Such legislation deserves a lot of attention and certainly deserves to be debated. I hope it will help those responsible for program analysis to realize that we have the last word and that we need information that is as accurate as possible.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by wishing happy holidays to everybody, to all Canadians including my constituents, and of course a very Happy New Year.

I wish a Happy New Year and a good holiday to all Canadians and to my colleagues. I also say to all my Italian friends: Buon anno a tutti miei amici italiani.

I congratulate the hon. member for tabling a rather important bill. We need to have details when we vote as members of Parliament, and we also need to be convinced that the legislation is an important one for our communities.

My only concern relates to the auditor general's involvement, since it could delay the passage of an act that can be extremely important for the country.

Private members' bills are extremely important for the backbenchers who speak to their constituents and know what their problems are. There seem to be a lot of constraints on private members' bills. A private member's bill is the only tool a backbencher has. From my own experience I have introduced three private members' bills. They were intended to address injustices in the electoral act.

Some people may not know that a private member's bill first has to be introduced. Then the member's name has to be drawn and eventually the votability of the bill has to be established. I do not think that the votability should have to be established. We should be able to present and discuss the bill and then if the debate collapses, it collapses.

My first bill related to an injustice regarding political parties losing their party status. They had to decertify because they did not have 50 candidates. In British Columbia if we were to create a party, it would never become national because there are only 34 seats, whereas in Quebec for instance, a provincial party could be made national because there are 75 seats. That is something which should have been addressed but unfortunately the debate collapsed.

I would like to support this bill. It is important that there be more accountability in what is presented to the House and I am prepared to support that idea. It is a good idea that we all know what we are voting on and we know from the beginning what the costs are going to be.

Again, a very happy holiday to everybody and particularly to you, Mr. Speaker.