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.