Jerry Pickard

[Excise Tax Act, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the problem being faced by the prairie grain industry in getting grain to port position this winter is a very serious one.

The Canadian Wheat Board now estimates that it will have to roll 1.5 million tonnes from its January shipping program into the February program. The Canadian Wheat Board estimates this rollover may result in a deferred cash flow for prairie farmers of $285 million and that selling the 1.5 million tonne shortfall outside the premium old crop price months may result in a loss of approximately $50 million in revenue to the 1996-97 pool accounts.

This has been one of the worst winters in the last 100 years with respect to snowfall in the Rockies and the extreme cold on the prairies. While I agree that this has exacerbated the shipping problem, it does not account for the entire delay being experienced.

It is my understanding the current problems relate to the availability of locomotive power in the railway system.

Clearly this is a railroad responsibility and the railways have indicated they are taking steps to increase the availability of locomotives and to make the shipping of prairie grains a priority for them.

Rather than finger pointing and laying blame to the industry, we should take steps to working out this current problem and making certain that we deal with it on an urgent strategic action base to make sure that backlogs to not occur as they have in the past.

As members know, the legislative rule of the federal government is limited. However, the federal government can have a role in leading industry toward both a long and short term solution.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has already been in touch with many of the key players in the western grains industry. He is now pursuing further discussions on an urgent basis to get the grain moving faster through the system.

Canada's customers and prairie farmers should not be subjected to such recurring problems in our grain transportation system.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government does support Group No. 11, the technical amendment to Bill C-60. The amendment ensures that any money authority appropriated to existing departments, food inspection, health or other departments will be transferred to the agency early in 1997.

This is a technical amendment which is necessary for the parliamentary budget to be put in place. There is absolutely no question that when an agency is being set up it needs funding. It will be receiving its funding from the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Health and from other moneys which have already been put into the budget.

Some questions brought forth by the opposition suggest that new money is being placed within the system. That is totally not accurate. We have reassured everyone that the funding in this case is a technical amendment which will allow the moneys which have already been allocated in government departments to go into the agency so it will have funds to operate. As a result, we need to have the amendment passed.

I would again reassure everyone here that we are not talking about new money coming into the system. We are talking about transferring already approved funding into the new agency.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the comments of the last speaker that he shares the same concerns as our ministry, the safe food supply for Canadians. There is no question that issue will never be compromised by this government or any other group of people who represent people in this country. I would certainly say that we have shown a record in the past and we continue to show a record that the safety of Canadians is number one.

However, only in government would someone suggest that the people responsible for a whole operation, the people responsible for the operation of government, are not the people who should be setting fees, looking at the costs and looking at the expenses. But that they would take the setting of fees, they would take the operations and push them off to somebody else on a side group. I find that suggestion quite disconcerting.

There is no question that the minister must retain the responsibility of setting fees to any operations in government, not just this agency, but all other operations of government because circumstances change, times change and with those changes there need to be adjustments. Who better than one who consults with industry, the provincial parliaments across this country, with every part of the country to make certain they are up to date with all actions? Who better than the minister to set the fees and set a proper structure in place?

I certainly question the thought raised here that the minister should give up the whole operation of setting fees and making sure that our operations are efficient. At the same time I must point out very clearly that there were concerns raised about how quickly fees would be changed and therefore the minister made a very clear commitment that once the agency is up in operation, in order to study and analyze what is happening, internally with our fee structure, the kinds of consultations that are required, he would not

alter or change those fees until the year 2000, which is a pretty strong commitment by the minister.

The minister therefore has said once we have the agency up and operating we will look very carefully at how the system operates and we will take a long time to consult with people, making certain that the abuse of industry, other governments in the provinces and others who are affected across this country, namely the consumers, all have their voices heard and brought forward to the ministry.

It is consistent with our policies in health, in industry and in heritage. We have similar processes in place. As a result, the processes that we are talking about here are consistent with the other government agencies and therefore I believe it makes our whole operation in government much easier to understand.

The amendment to the bill suggests consultation is an important part of fee structuring. It suggests in that change that every group affected be consulted before any changes occur. Imagine the legal ramification if someone comes forward and says "I am a consumer and I was not consulted, therefore any change to that fee structure is illegitimate". It certainly does not make sense to say that every person who possibly could have a concern must be consulted.

At the same time, consultation is extremely important and we have various vehicles by which we do that consultation on a daily, monthly, weekly basis all weeks of the year.

There is no question we try to make certain the industry is kept aware by newsletters we send out, by professional publications and by gazetting information. We make certain we have face to face meetings with the people who are affected. Certainly if we make changes within any industry, we have consultations with them. We take their concerns into account. We definitely make certain that the consumer organizations are involved in these processes. There is no question the government takes very elaborate steps to make sure the consultation process is always ongoing and that the concerns of industry, governments and consumers are always filled.

I must say that this consultation has proven to be very good for the government. As I stated before, with this legislation coming forward we know we have all provincial governments onside, we have the industry itself onside. We have allowed it to come and consult. We also had open hearings at the House of Commons agriculture committee in which all kinds of concerns came forward. The government acted upon those concerns and tried to make certain that those concerns raised were dealt with properly in this legislation.

There is no question we look at this in a very serious way. We want to make certain that everyone in this country who is affected is treated properly with open information and that we act upon their concerns. There is no question the minister places a priority in making certain that the health of this industry is maintained. Through his consultations he takes into account their concerns and acts upon them in a very quick and important way.

When we deal with issues that affect public safety though, we must make certain that all cautions are there to make certain we still maintain as a world reputation food safety and we make certain that the supply of food is there. From our track record over the years, we have and are looked upon as the best food production country in the world. That is why we can ship products anywhere in the world. Certainly they are well respected and well received everywhere they go. There has never been a question nor will there be a question because we put a top priority on inspection and safety.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the opposition for bringing forth amendments which they feel will improve the bill. That being said, there is a little misinformation about what the roles in Parliament are and the latitudes each has.

When we look at the bill and the agency which is being formed in this case, the ultimate person responsible is the minister. There is absolutely no question that if there is a problem with the agency, if corrections have to made, if budgets have to be altered and if some things have to be changed, the ultimate responsibility falls on the minister and the government. In the amendment the suggestion is that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be the committee to deal with the approval of the administrative budgets and the approval of the annual reports.

Quite frankly, it is the responsibility of the committee of the House of Commons to examine every aspect of operations in government affairs. Very clearly, the standing committee on agriculture can bring forth any issue. It can bring forward the issue of a business plan. It can deal with that with every industry across the country. It can deal with that with every provincial government across the country. And it can clearly deal with the agency. It is the standing committee's authority given by the House to deal with those issues and bring them forward to the public, discuss them and allow public input.

In fact what is being suggested in the bill goes beyond the latitude of standing committee operations. It is being suggested that the standing committee must approve government operations for which it is not responsible if something goes wrong. It is responsible to the House to investigate issues and make recommendations to the ministry and to the House. There is a misconception about the responsible role of each person in this type of government. That is unfortunate. Again I would point out it is extremely important that the final approval be given to the minister so that the minister can act very quickly.

Food inspection is very, very important to that industry in this country. There is no question that when we ran into some difficulties over food inspection, the minister and his ministry acted very quickly and immediately to make certain the problems were dealt with properly. That is why it is important for the minister to be

ready to act at any time. We do not put other vehicles in the way of swift action.

The Canadian government has always put food safety as a priority and will continue to do so. There is no question that we have a worldwide reputation for dealing with issues swiftly and conclusively and making certain that Canadians have the safest and best food supply in the world. The minister and his ministry are responsible for that.

If it happened that the House of Commons standing committee would deal with those issues as has been suggested by the opposition, we would have to set up a very large portion of full time staff to deal with consultations across the country, with added expenses to the government and to make certain that hearings are held across the country.

This has been particularly well set out in Bill C-60. It is my understanding that every province in the country supports the fact that this agency will be of crucial importance to the agricultural community in those provinces. All industries across this country support our position with regard to agencies. When we look at it, we have consulted with all of the provinces and the industry. We are accountable through the minister and through the questioning in this House as well as the public hearings that are carried on in the House of Commons standing committee.

Clearly, the support of the provinces and industry in this agency is very important. I might underline the fact too that there is no question that outside reporting agencies such as the auditor general have to comment on the concerns within this bill. Therefore, there is no question that the accountability for this agency is there through the minister's office, through the auditor general's office, through the processes of public consultation, through the department as well as through the standing committee.

I cannot see how we can support this motion. It certainly does not fulfil what I would suggest is the role of responsible government.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 13th, 1996]

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.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, many things have been said today that need to be clarified and corrected to a great degree.

When the hon. member concluded his speech he suggested that the government would not ensure that qualified, well respected people will get the jobs. In fact, that is exactly what will happen. We will make certain that qualified well respected people are doing the inspection jobs for food.

It has not been by error or by mistake, or any other way but good, strategic planning that Canada is recognized around the world as one of the countries with the safest food supply in the world. The federal inspection agency has been and shall continue to be the best inspection agency that the country can possibly put forward.

We know that when problems have occurred in other countries, Canada has been on the side of extra caution. We shall remain on the side of extra caution.

We are not talking here about political, partisan appointments. We are talking about a lack of arguments by the opposition to bring forward criticism that is valid for this bill.

A very partisan approach has been taken in the House today. I am certain not one person from the government, not one person in the House, and I do not care on which side of the House they sit, would jeopardize the safety of the food supply, food source for Canadians or internationally. That is paramount. That must be stated now.

Amendments have been put forward. Those amendments are in some degree to Americanize our system. The suggestion that an agriculture committee start holding hearings on people who will be coming to certain boards, going into the detail of how our system operates is somewhat different from a parliamentary system.

The responsible person in all the inspection systems in Canada is the Prime Minister, going down to his cabinet and to the ministers who are appointed to carry out that responsibility.

This agency is not being formed on a whim. A tremendous amount of consultation has taken place across the country. Well over a year has been spent looking at different aspects of agriculture, health, fishing as well as the inspection agencies that exist at the present time.

I know very well that some of our officials have been on this case over two years, trying to make certain that all the steps that are being put forward are done in consultation with the industry, in consultation with all the inspection services in the country, in consultation with all the departments in government to make sure a good, positive, protective system that will make certain our food supply is the best in the world is established.

The agency will make certain consistency is there and one source can be responsible for the inspection systems in the country. There is no question that there is overlap when you have three separate departments functioning with one agency to do the inspections.

Certainly, if there are laboratories that are doing the same work, if there are facilities that we have in an area that could do both the agriculture, the fishing and the health inspections at one time that is the most efficient way to do.

By forming an agency under the minister of agriculture, we have formed a single inspection agency reporting to one minister and one group of people who can look at the system and come up with solutions that would better the delivery of inspections across the country.

That is what has happened. We feel it is extremely important to have the proper steps in place, the proper people doing the job. Quite frankly, it is not an area where we are looking at partisanship. We are looking at placing the best qualified people in those positions that we can get. I believe that is most important for all Canadians.

I would like to address a few of the motions put forward that I have not addressed to this point. One has to do with common service providers.

A series of motions were brought forward. The purpose of the government's proposal was to give the agency the opportunity to find a cost effective way to deliver services in the program. However, before proceeding, the agency must seek Treasury Board and council approval to pay for those costs as the business proceeds. This is an area with a cross-governmental implication and therefore the minister should require and seek concurrence of his colleagues.

It is important that we look very carefully at the human resources issue with regard to this bill. The intention of clause 12 is to provide the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with separate employer status and not to make changes to collective agreements which are a framework for the public service. With the addition of subsection 12(a), this proposed amendment would open all matters to the bargaining process that are now within the employer's responsibility in the public service. In other words, some of the

amendments are opening up doors to employee-employer problems which may come in the future.

Certainly the department has looked very carefully at how the bill should be structured in order to make certain that there is a harmonious, fair way flowing from the present inspection system to the new agency so that all employees will have a reasonable understanding of what is happening and will be able to move from their present jobs into the inspection agency if they so desire.

I was a bit astounded when the member for Richelieu stood today. I recall the member for Richelieu being a very staunch member of the Conservative Party when Mr. Mulroney was here. It is not proper for him to stand and criticize the present government for partisan appointments. It seems that no one was more partisan, more prone to be dictatorial and oppressive than the former prime minister. It is very unfair for a person who sat in his caucus to go after the government for the policies and the issues we have brought forward.

Clearly the direction of this bill is to have the best possible inspection agency in the most cost effective and efficient way we can. We are looking at cost controls when we put an inspection agency in place. I have heard from the agriculture community, the fishing community and from all others that it will be a very positive move if we can save money.

One of the greatest considerations the industry has had in the past several months is the PMRA. The question of the PMRA is a matter of the industry being very concerned about cost and cost effectiveness. If this agency is put in place with a savings of $44 million, that will address cost savings and effectiveness not only for all Canadians but for the industry itself.

Although many criticisms have been brought forward, I believe unfairly, about some of the today's issues, the central focus of the government is on the efficient delivery of service and top quality service inspection. Food inspection is our number one priority. The people receiving that food inspection are the people who must be protected. It is important for this country to have the safest food inspection service in the world. We are here to deliver it.

[Points Of Order, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to prolong this discussion but as I was sitting in this place near your chair, I observed the member for York South-Weston standing. No one else in this House stood at that time.

As a matter of fact, you did not directly point him out. If the tapes are reviewed they would show there was a pause while you looked through the House. There was no indication that another member wished to speak at that point in time.

I certainly do not understand the accusation brought from the member for Sherbrooke in that case because you had no choice at that time but to recognize the standing member.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, several points have been brought forward by the leader of the official opposition which we agree are very important to the system.

However, we feel that most of the issues that he mentioned have been dealt with very clearly within the legislation. I know people can talk about patronage appointments and a wide variety of things, such as the offices and positions that people have, but the reality is there are four or five political parties in this House.

If we look at the representation of the people across the country, there are always going to be some Liberals who are appointed to positions. There are going to be some Bloc members who are appointed to positions. There are going to be some Reform members who are appointed to positions. Those appointments must be on merit. On this side of the House we do not question the fact that people are to be appointed on merit.

We feel that this legislation provides for an appointment process of the president and the executive vice-president on the same basis as we would appoint a deputy minister and associate deputy minister. The process ensures that knowledgeable, well qualified people will be selected for those positions. The legislation also allows for the renewal of the appointment of the president or the executive vice-president for one or more terms as appropriate. As such it will provide the government with the flexibility to ensure a consistent and continuous senior management structure in the agency.

With respect to the role identified for the Standing Committee of the House of Commons in the selection of advisory board members, there is no legislative precedent in the Canadian parliamentary system for having a committee involved with that type of detail. Yes, we have seen the fiascos of committees getting involved in the scrutiny of appointments in the United States. Quite frankly, it is a political tear down when we look at it. I think the public watches with interest when parties start that process. In reality, I am certain that the United States is very envious of the system we have in this country. It is very clear from the people we have in appointed positions that they do an extremely good job.

The minister is responsible and accountable to Parliament for the agency and its administration. As we look at it the minister is the end of those responsibilities. Quite frankly, he has the responsibility to consult very widely, check with as many people as possible and make certain the operation is running properly.

The purpose of the advisory board is clearly to provide the minister with advice with respect to matters relating to food inspection. Provinces, unions, and others will continue to seek input from a host of sources that will help the minister with his decisions.

With respect to the selection of the advisory board members, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that the minister can choose an advisory board from as wide a selection of individuals as possible. We do not wish to inadvertently limit or curtail the possibilities of choice of that board. Rather than mandating representation from specific interested parties, it is preferable to have a broad source of knowledgeable people, including the possibility of representation from the unions.

With respect to fees paid to the advisory board members, these fees will be subject to Treasury Board guidelines that are in place in this country.

With respect to the reporting on intellectual property, this information is currently available and reported annually. For example, the food production and inspection agency of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada issued 1,621 fresh fruit and vegetable dealer licences in 1996 and is part of the summary list in part III of the main estimates. This reporting will continue in the agency. Furthermore, committees of the House will continue to review this sort of information as part of the main estimates process through the Appropriations Act.

I reiterate as well that where concerns come up and Parliament wishes to deal with them, we do have the committee process in place. That committee process is to allow members of this House to investigate whatever issues they feel necessary to further investigate. It will involve members of Parliament. Through that process I believe the House is well protected too.

The minister who is virtually responsible in the end must take the resource of what is going on, take the circumstances of the agency and make certain it is running properly. The House at the same time has its vehicle through the committees to investigate any concerns. Quite frankly, both sides of the House have a full opportunity in committee to voice concerns and bring forward witnesses to discuss issues that are pertinent.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that the federal government gives a great deal of consideration to the jurisdiction of the provinces and believes that the jurisdiction of the provinces is the provincial responsibility. We also believe very strongly in the process of consultation with the provinces and with all the stakeholders in the industry. There is no question that is important.

As well, this government has certainly set forward the committee's ability to deal with all issues and all matters that come to its concern that it wishes to further explore. A committee certainly has the ability to deal with issues such as PMRA, provincial-federal agreements and any other issue that comes forward.

There is no way that this government wishes to infringe upon the provincial ability. However, we feel that the amendments which are being put forward at present are really not needed within the bill. This government has and will continue to respect the jurisdictional legislative authority of the provinces. Indeed, clauses 14, 20 and 21 of Bill C-60 significantly enhance the ability of the federal government to collaborate with the provinces while fully respecting the provincial jurisdictions.

With respect to entering into agreements with the provinces, such federal-provincial corporations may be involved with matters of potential financial liability. These arrangements will have to be reviewed by the finance minister.

Clearly, the government will enter into agreements only which explicitly allow provincial agreement by the provinces. In other words, we are not going to enter into an agreement with the province and say the federal side wants this, but the province has no say. An agreement is an agreement; it is an agreement between two parties. As a result, the federal government and the provincial governments will agree before a document is signed.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada will continue to respect the jurisdictional level of all governments. I should note with respect to the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Health that the intent of clause 11(4) is to clarify and not alter the role of the Minister of Health in establishing food safety standards. The current process of establishing food health and safety standards already provides for consultations with stakeholders and includes the provinces.

The federal jurisdiction includes setting food safety standards for all Canadians under the Food and Drugs Act.