[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We have a quorum, so we will continue our clause-by-clause of Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act.
We left off yesterday having carried clause 18. You all have a new set of amendments. They're the same ones, but they're updated, and some are pulled out that weren't going to be moved. Those that we looked after yesterday have been removed. There's a new package in front of each of you today on your desk, so we will start.
I think, ladies and gentlemen, that most of the amendments left today are technical. Not that we want to rush through unduly, but I think most of them are technical amendments, so we will hopefully move reasonably quickly, but to the satisfaction of everybody.
Clauses 19 to 21 inclusive agreed to
On clause 22 - Corporate business plan
The Chairman: There is an amendment before us. Shall clause 22 carry?
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): There's an amendment.
The Chairman: There is an amendment, but there's nobody here to move it.
Mr. Easter: We're long past when the meeting was going to start, Mr. Chairman. I would move the question. If they're not here, it's their tough luck.
The Chairman: May I make a suggestion out of courtesy, ladies and gentlemen? Shall we stand the clause for a few minutes just in case? We're not squeaky clean when it comes to always being here on time ourselves. Shall we stand clause 22?
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Sure, agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): He's coming, he's coming.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, would you like to move your amendment to clause 22?
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): You bet I would.
The Chairman: We want it to be on the record, Mr. Hermanson, that the committee, out of courtesy to you, was going to stand the clause and give you time to get here.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Saved by the bell!
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien, did you have a comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I would like it to be on the record that he has been saved by the bell.
Mr. Hermanson: Excuse me.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, we are on clause 22.
Mr. Hermanson: On clause 22, Mr. Chairman, I would move that Bill C-60 be amended by replacing line 6 on page 7 with the following:
- the plan in the House of Commons for approval by that House on any of
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The government has provided very few details on the agency's budget and personal requirements, and the agency has placed a great deal of emphasis on providing a business plan and operating in an efficient manner. There has been a lack of financial accountability, and this has been commented on by a number of witnesses. Therefore the agency should provide Parliament with a detailed business plan. Before it can proceed, it needs to have approval.
.1540
The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments on the amendment?
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Hermanson said has nothing to do with what the amendment says, however. That's the problem. The bill as it reads talks about tabling a plan in each House of Parliament. I can't see how the amendment adds anything to it. I think he's just trying to make a point that isn't related to the amendment.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is require that the House not just receive a report but give approval to it. That's the major change, and the hon. member from Malpeque doesn't realize that Parliament should have the power to approve. He thinks the government just should be able to run roughshod over us, but we disagree with that.
Mr. Easter: Never, never.
The Chairman: Any further comment on the amendment that is before us?
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: There are no further amendments to clause 22.
The Clerk of the Committee: There is another amendment here.
The Chairman: My apologies, we do have another one. It's a new clause. It's number 2 in the package we have before us.
Elwin, you have a new package before you today. We've started at number 1. I want you to notice that I did number 1 first today, Mr. Hermanson. That's in respect to your comment yesterday.
Now we're on number 2, and it's yours as well. Would you like to move that amendment,Mr. Hermanson?
Mr. Hermanson: All right, Mr. Chairman. Your sense of humour is overwhelming.
I would move that Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 7 the following new clause:
- 22.1 Notwithstanding any provision in this or any Act of Parliament, the Agency shall not
exercise any power under any such Act until such time as it has submitted its first corporate
business plan to the Minister under subsection 22(1) and that plan has been tabled in the House
of Commons in accordance with that subsection and approved by that House.
The Chairman: Any further comments or debate on the amendment? Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: I wonder if the officials might make a comment on that - the procedure as per the bill versus this amendment.
Mr. Gerry Derouin (Executive Adviser, Finance, Office of Food Inspection Systems, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr. Chairman, we have been working on the assumption that we would get started on April 1, but we've always couched that in obtaining parliamentary approval first; we never fixed a date. On the assumption that April 1 was the date, we've been planning to have a business plan tabled right after or soon after the start of business. Currently our efforts are based on legislation, and we're doing some work in terms of preparing the business plan.
But the agency doesn't exist, and won't exist until Parliament actually approves it. So the intent is to get the business plan in right after the agency starts running. There's not much more I can add, except that the current procedure for starting April 1 requires us to send out letters of offer 60 days beforehand and to have employees ready and lined up to do the work.
So once Parliament approves the legislation, we'll get on to finalizing the business plan. Once it starts operations - the date of proclamation - we'll have the business plan tabled soon after.
Mr. Easter: Thank you.
.1545
The Chairman: Is there any further comment or discussion on the new clause 22.1 that's before us?
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: I see Mr. McKinnon. The reason Mr. McKinnon is sitting back there - I'm not being personal, but he tells me he just had a root canal and he feels a little more comfortable back there. We will consider him as being at the table.
Mr. Hermanson: He can come and join us. We need a few taggers on this side.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, a root canal is bad enough. He doesn't have to go over there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: He's been through enough pain today.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): He just said he'd prefer the root canal.
The Chairman: He needs some comfort.
Clause 22 agreed to
On clause 23 - Annual report
The Chairman: On clause 23 there is an amendment before us, number 3 in the package, by Mr. Chrétien.
Do you wish comment or move that amendment, Mr. Chrétien?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: It is with pleasure that I put forward one of the rare amendments at the clause-by-clause stage of the bill. The object of this amendment will be to state, at line 27, page 7, of clause 23, that the President of the new Agency must, as provided for by the law, submit an annual report to the Minister of Agriculture, after September 30.
Therefore, I move the following:
- submit to the House of Commons Committee set up or designated to study matters relating to
agriculture and to the Minister, the annual report of...
Without seeming to boast, we all have a minimum amount of knowledge in agriculture and it might be a privilege for us if, at the same time as the Minister, we also read his famous report.
I would have difficulty seeing the members of our Committee disagree that the President of the Agency present the report to us at the same time. I see Wayne Easter who is an impassioned player in agriculture and I am going to watch him out of the corner of my eye when he votes on his amendment aimed at seeing that we all receive at the same time, this famous annual report that the President of the Food Inspection Agency will be sending us.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there discussion? Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I think we need to make an amendment to this motion to make it consistent with what we have done this far. Is it proper for me to make the amendment at this time?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: I move that we amend the amendment by, after the words ``preceding year to'', stroking out the words from ``such'' to ``matters'' and putting in its place the following:
- of the Standing Committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food
- In other words, I'm taking out ``such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or
established to consider agricultural matters'' and replacing it with ``the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food''.
The Chairman: Yes, as long as it doesn't change the intent of the original amendment. If it's okay with Mr. Chrétien, then I'll approve of it. Mr. Chrétien, is it okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Yes, that's all right, seeing that it is the same thing, but the legislative advisers who guided us in developing our amendments advised this wording, though Mr. Hermanson is in total agreement with my thoughts on this.
[English]
The Chairman: As a point of clarification, if I could ask the clerk, do the Standing Orders of the House at the present time give this committee the authority to review such reports that are tabled to the House of Commons and to the minister?
.1550
The Clerk: Under Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food would have an opportunity to review annual reports that are tabled in the House.
The Chairman: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. I thought we did have.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: So basically the committee itself, based on its schedule and all the other legislation and whatever it has before it, would have the purview to do what Mr. Chrétien wants to do in this amendment.
The Chairman: With or without the amendment?
Mr. Easter: Without having the amendment in.
The Chairman: That's my understanding. Is that right, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk: Under the Standing Orders, the committee has the power to review the operations of the Food Inspection Agency.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any further discussions on the amendment by the Bloc Québécois?
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): I'd just like to make an observation. If you do it for this committee, then you're setting a precedent that ought to be followed for every committee. In the government operations committee I feel we have a very responsible role as well and we're very passionate. So we also ought to want to have annual reports submitted to us, first and foremost.
However, I do point out that it's really not necessary if an annual report is tabled in the House. It is available to members at any time, not just the committee. Although I sympathize very much with where this suggestion is coming from, I'm not so sure it's not just going to add complications to how we conduct business in standing committees.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments?
Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I would only wish to add that sometimes some of our colleagues from all political groups, wrongly, I hope, say that committees are a bit of a day-care. We ``park'' members in the committees. When they work on committees they are less bothersome and not under our feet, especially in the case of groups that are in power, that find themselves with 200, 214 or 220 members and several backbenchers who aspire to becoming members of Cabinet or who deserve to be.
Therefore, if you want to grant members the part they have the right to play inside a committee, you have to give them the necessary tools and the chance to do so, as well.
You are absolutely right: once the report is tabled in the House, we can obtain copies. You are right, but I have already seen a minister, out of self-interest, keep a report on the shelf several weeks, even several months, before tabling it, or waiting until a particular event is past before bringing out the report. This could possibly happen.
You are in power today, but in a few years, you might be in my place and you are going to draw up the same request for the great good of agriculture, members of Parliament and all of the committees. If other committees are smart enough to try to copy us, so much the better, and if the majority wishes that the committee have a more rewarding role, so much the better.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any further comments on the amendment before us for clause 23?
Amendment negatived
Clause 23 agreed to
Ms Sonya Dakers (Committee Researcher): Did we vote on the subamendment?
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson's subamendment was done by unanimous consent. So we didn't have to vote on the subamendment as such.
On clause 24 - Fees for services or use of facilities
The Chairman: There is an amendment, number 4 in the package, by the Reform Party.Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to speak on that?
Mr. Hermanson: Are we looking at -
The Chairman: Clause 24.
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, I know we're on 24. I'm just making sure -
The Chairman: It's number four in the package in front of us today.
Mr. Hermanson: I just have to make sure the new package and my package are in the same order.
.1555
Mr. Chairman, I would move that clause 24 in Bill C-60 be amended (a) by replacing line 4 on page 8 with the following:
24.(1) Subject to the regulations and section 25.1, the
and (b) by replacing line 12 on page 8 with the following:
25. Subject to the regulations and section 25.1, the Minister
and (c) by adding after line 14 on page 8 the following:
25.1 One year after fees are first fixed under subsection (1) or (2) following the coming into force of those subsections, such committee of the House as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters shall, during the next twelve month period, conduct an examination of the consequences those fees and any changes the Minister proposes to make to those fees have or may have on the competitiveness of Canadian industries affected by those fees, during which time the Minister may not exercise any power under subsection (1) or (2).
I already see, Mr. Chairman, because we passed number 2 yesterday, that this amendment also needs to be amended to conform with the committee being the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The reason is -
The Chairman: I see what you're saying. The only problem I have, Mr. Hermanson, is that in the bill at the present time there is no clause 25.1. So your amendment to clause 24 is referring to a clause 25.1, which is not yet part of the bill or has not been considered to be part of the bill.
Mr. Hermanson: This is all one amendment.
The Chairman: So you're doing it all as one amendment, to change clause 24 and to add clause 25.1.
Mr. Hermanson: Clauses 25 and 25.1.
The Chairman: And to amend clause 25 and 25.1. Okay, as long as it's clear to everyone.
Mr. Hermanson: Yes. I would have to make a subamendment. Perhaps we could have unanimous consent for the sake of expediency that where it says a ``...committee of the House as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters...'', that again be the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The reason why these are all in the format they are is that we made that amendment at the beginning yesterday where we changed -
The Chairman: That's right, a technical amendment.
Mr. Hermanson: It's a technical thing and it's just unavoidable.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: If we could have unanimous consent every time we come across that to change that, I think it would speed up the proceedings.
The Chairman: I think it's understood that we can make that assumption.
Is there any other discussion on this amendment, number 4 in the package, which is an amendment to subclause 24(1), clause 25 and adding a new clause 25.1?
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: My question is to officials. When you do your business plan, is some of what is in this amendment covered in the business plan in terms of fees, examination of fees, etc.?
Mr. Derouin: What we intended to do in the business plan was to provide certain information on cost recovery. First, we intended to show a five-year plan on revenues, how revenues would be generated, and some of the principles we would apply on cost recovery. We would also lay out our consultation process so that it would be broadly distributed.
The way we had thought of handling this particular issue was that the impact on competitiveness would be discussed with industry through the consultation process of setting fees. So the officials would be putting forward what they think the impact is, and so would the industry through the consultation process. That would help determine what the fee would be when it is fully implemented.
Once the fee is established, that fee is referred to the joint committee. If it feels the process hasn't been followed, the joint committee could review how the fee was set up and review the impact on competitiveness at that time. That's what we were thinking when we went through this process.
.1600
Mr. Ronald L. Doering (Executive Director, Office of Food Inspection Systems, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): There is one other way this committee and the House could get a handle on that. The agency, under the legislation, is required to submit as part of its business plan certain performance indicators and performance criteria that the agency will meet.
As we have here in this committee, the minister has undertaken that part of this will deal with how much cost recovery is a part of what the agency does, etc. The adequacy of that material will be reviewed by the Auditor General. So there is also another way this matter can come here.
There is also, of course, the annual report, which we'll deal with. You could have the agency before this committee on its annual report, on the whole question of fees and where our funds come from.
There are at least two good ways in addition to the business plan. Much of the intent of what is seen here could be derived from that.
Mr. Easter: Since we're into the topic of cost recovery, we had said earlier that the Auditor General may have to be a little bit broader in terms of how they look at these agencies and departments that are in fact utilizing cost recovery. We're all concerned about cost recovery. It's a problem to get a handle on the cumulative impact coming from not just one single agency but also a number of departments and agencies, and on the fees impacting on the farm community.
What I'm trying to get at here is whether or not this amendment is complicating further what we're trying to do. Is it adequate enough to just go with the Auditor General on the agency and find another way of getting the cumulative impact on the farm community across the departments?
Mr. Doering: Mr. Easter, it's the intention of this committee to deal with the matter of cost recovery in a round table at the first opportunity that this committee has to look at it. Part of the intention of that, as the chair indicated, would be to try to get a good handle on the cumulative impact. Everyone is concerned with this. We've had evidence as well that the Treasury Board is trying to do this.
There are at least three other ways this committee could in a sense hold the agency accountable for what it's doing in the area of cost recovery. These are as follows: first, through the business plan that Mr. Derouin has indicated; second, through the performance indicators and the role of the Auditor General under clause 32; and third, on the actual annual report itself.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Easter brings up a good point. It's interesting in the Auditor General's report yesterday or the day before that when they audited the western grain transition payments program, they indicated that it was very difficult. The department had told them this. They recognized it was very difficult for them, given their resources, to determine whether or not that program has fulfilled its objectives of bringing transportation efficiencies and encouraging diversification in the agriculture sector of the prairies.
Again, what we're talking about here is whether or not the Auditor General will be able to evaluate the impact of cost recovery. In light of what Mr. Easter said, often one agency's cost recovery can't be considered a loan. There are cost recoveries not only in other agencies under the control of the Department of Agriculture but also in transportation and health and the environment. We have to take all these into consideration.
We heard a number of complaints from witnesses about the cost recovery plans of the government. Therefore this amendment, which would allow our committee to examine the consequences of existing and proposed fees on the competitiveness of the industry, is very relevant. Until there has been a full analysis of the government's cost recovery targets and more study on the agency's business plan, there should be a one-year moratorium on new fees.
I strongly recommend that the committee accept this amendment.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Hermanson: You'll have to go to the NFU convention here pretty soon, Wayne. You'd better vote for it.
Mr. Easter: We'd be proud to.
Amendment negatived
Mr. Hermanson: I wonder if we could have a recorded vote on that one, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We've already had the vote. It's on the record. I saw three in favour and six opposed. If you want a recorded vote, you should jump in a little quicker.
.1605
Mr. Hermanson: Is it on the record that all the Liberals voted against this amendment?
The Chairman: It's there, Mr. Hermanson.
There's another amendment to clause 24. Go ahead, Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move that Bill C-60 in clause 24 be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 8 with the following:
- exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or use of
The Chairman: Are there any comments on adding the word ``reasonable'' to that clause? Are there any comments on the amendment?
Mr. Collins: No, let's vote.
Amendment negatived
Clause 24 agreed to on division
Clause 25 agreed to
On clause 26 - Consultation
The Chairman: There is an amendment. It is number 7 in your package. Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to speak to that?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I would move that Bill C-60 in clause 26 be amended (a) by replacing line 15 on page 8 with the following:
26.(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), before fixing a fee under section
and (b) by adding after line 18 on page 8 the following:
(1.1) Before fixing a fee under section 24 or 25, the Minister must consult with representatives of those Canadian industries that will be affected by the fee.
Mr. Chairman, the minister should be required to conduct consultations with the affected industries. The red book did make a promise that there would be greater consultation.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments on the amendment before us for clause 26?
Mr. Easter: Can someone explain to me the difference between the two? The clause 26 that's already there basically says the minister must consult with persons or organizations that the minister considers to be interested in the matter. This would certainly be the Canadian industries affected by the fee, I expect. What are you adding that's not in effect already there?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, it makes it clear that the minister must consult with representatives of those Canadian industries that would be affected by the fee. The current bill does not make that clear. There's also a difference where it says ``organizations that the Minister considers''.
In other words, the minister can decide he wants to consider one source but not another source. That's very dangerous. This makes it very clear that the minister must consult with a representative of those Canadian industries that would be affected by the fee, not just those the minister considers that he should consult with or feels comfortable consulting with.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments?
Amendment negatived
Clause 26 agreed to on division
.1610
Mr. Hermanson: What are we doing here?
The Chairman: There are no amendments before the committee, Mr. Hermanson, for the next three clauses, 27, 28 and 29.
Mr. Hermanson: I think that's okay.
Mr. Easter: I have a question on clause 27.
The Chairman: Okay.
On clause 27 - Regulations
Mr. Easter: In a matter of process, maybe the officials can tell me how in fact that is done. The Treasury Board makes those regulations, as I understand it, based on the recommendations of the minister after he or she has consulted with the industry. That's the procedure; it's not just Treasury Board on its own?
Mr. Derouin: Treasury Board can initiate a regulation, and usually it's based on something that triggers the regulation, either consultation with industry or an interested party making a request to the Treasury Board to initiate it.
The Treasury Board authority comes from the FAA, the Financial Administration Act, section 7, which enables it to make regulations on anything it deems appropriate. That's where the power comes from.
Mr. Easter: So it's still related in part to cost recovery. If Treasury Board then makes a regulation that we have severe problems with, how do we get at it? I'm concerned about the amount of authority Treasury Board has over everything we do in this town.
Mr. Derouin: That authority is vested through the Financial Administration Act to the Treasury Board.
How does it involve standing committees? It's through the cabinet process, for one, and then through the regulatory process, which I believe goes through the joint committee that reviews regulations.
Perhaps Ron could explain.
Mr. Doering: Mr. Chair, there is a well-established procedure for Treasury Board regulation-making power in terms of notice and follow-through on that. There are all kinds of opportunities for members of this House to have their views expressed on this matter.
Maybe our lawyer could explain the process followed in that regard.
Mr. Easter: Just before you do, the difference we're dealing with here, in my opinion, is that in the traditional sense of things you've been dealing with public moneys, taxpayer moneys, but with cost recovery in place throughout, you're dealing with an added cost to the users within that industry, and I worry about the impact the Treasury Board decision may have on an industry without really understanding that industry. They need another dime, they put another dime on, and I'm worried about how easy or how difficult that is to do and what say we have in the matter.
Mr. Peter Sylvester (Legal Counsel, Department of Health): Mr. Easter, the opportunity for comment is built into the regulatory process, so you would have a pre-publication process where it would go out accompanied with the regulatory impact statement, which analyses the impact on competitiveness and so on and so forth. So that's included in the package. Typically, it's a 60-day period that's allowed to people for notice and comment before the regulation is made. Once it's made, it goes into Canada Gazette part II and it's in force.
So the process has allowed for this kind of front-end consultation for regulations, and these Treasury Board regulations would be included in that process.
Mr. Doering: I have an additional clarification, Mr. Easter, because I want you to feel comfortable in this. It has not been the practice of Treasury Board to set fees; that has been done through the process of individual ministers setting fees. Treasury Board has the power now under the Financial Administration Act to do this.
What this says is that if the Treasury Board wanted to pass regulations in relation to these matters, they would have that power, but of course it would be subject to all of the notice provisions that are provided here.
I'll give you an example of where it could be a positive effect. Suppose, for example, there was a view that the cumulative impact of fees was problematic. The way to deal with that if you were doing it with a cross-departmental problem would be to have a comprehensive Treasury Board regulation that didn't just deal with regulations coming from Agriculture but could also deal with more than one department. This is really out of an abundance of caution to permit that kind of thing, I would guess.
.1615
Mr. Hermanson: I would like to ask the witnesses about this. You're doing your job as a service of the government, and we recognize that, but try to put on a different hat. You could even be hobby farmers, and you certainly are taxpayers.
Here we are as parliamentarians on a standing committee dealing with matters that are, to a large degree, controlled by arms of government that we have no communication with, no interaction with, no ability to influence. In fact, a lot of the parliamentary committees can't influence some of these decisions.
Take the committee on scrutiny of regulations; it's a technical committee. They can't deal with policy. Take the public accounts committee; it's very unlikely they would even have much knowledge of the damage or the harm to the industry that some of these fee structures could impose.
Even the estimates - we can adjust the estimates in committee but it's all wiped out when the estimates are brought back to the House of Commons. It's as though we never even looked at the estimates.
How can this committee hold you and your department, and the agencies we create, more accountable? Take off your civil servant hat - which I respect, you have a job to do and you usually do a very good job - but put on your taxpayer's hat, your farmer's hat, your parliamentarian's hat. What can we do to fix this frustration we feel of not being able to get our teeth in and effect change and have consideration for fee structures and so on and so forth?
Mr. Doering: It's not hard to put on my farmer's hat; I was born and raised on a farm and I understand the frustration that members of Parliament and all kinds of people have felt about cost recovery.
Our role here is to explain technical matters as opposed to debating a question of policy, so I have to be cognizant of what our role is here today on clause-by-clause. I can say though, just to repeat a point raised with Mr. Easter, that there are many opportunities for this committee, for members of Parliament - and I'm not just saying that because I'm an official or to be argumentative, technical or narrow - to hold the government accountable on the issue of cost recovery.
One of them you're exercising in two weeks' time if you organize a round table to get a good handle on this matter, so, as the chair put it, we don't have one person saying something and then someone else saying something else. This came up in quite a vigorous discussion when the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council was here, in Mr. Anderson's conversation.
One of the ways to begin in a very significant and useful way is with the round table that has been planned. A second way is through the normal process of parliamentary accountability. The minister has to come here every year with his annual report speaking for this agency, and you have many opportunities to hold that minister accountable for what's happening. If you're not content you can bring him back, as I understand it.
The provisions for the business plan and the Auditor General's review of the performance of the agency in this regard is another additional opportunity you have to hold the government more accountable; in fact, it's an improvement over your situation today. Right now there is no performance indicator, there is no business plan process that the department has to do, to bring forward on an annual basis. Now the agency must; so in a sense I'm certain that your position is stronger under this legislation than it is under the current arrangements.
But again, this is really a matter of policy for members of Parliament to consider. I'm speaking by way of a direct answer to your question. I think there are three or four excellent opportunities to hold the government accountable. The minister is accountable for this agency. If you're not happy you can...that's the normal parliamentary Westminster model to deal with accountability. I understand your frustration.
The Chairman: This is an excellent discussion and it is somewhat relevant here, but as the committee members know, if the steering committee so decides tomorrow morning.... I would be surprised, given the comments I'm hearing around the table, if they did not agree to go ahead with it.
I suggested that we maybe consider having Treasury Board, the department, and some people, at a round table to talk about cost recovery, how it's done, and how it's accountable or could be accountable or more accountable than it may or may not be at the present time.
.1620
It's not that the officials present today can't answer those questions, but it would maybe be nice to have Treasury Board people at the table. If the steering committee decides to do that, we will have this.
So if you wish to talk about it for a little bit here, fine and dandy, but I would like to see if we could move through and have this debate in that forum rather than here.
Mr. Hermanson: I understand what you're saying. I understand what Mr. Doering is saying. I understand that, but I think it does again point out the importance of some of the amendments we're proposing that would make his agency more accountable and more answerable to the committee as well as to the minister.
Yes, the minister can and has appeared before our committee, but to tell you the truth, he never tells us anything. He's not required under the act to tell us a whole lot. We can ask him the questions, but he doesn't have to give us the answers.
Clause 27 agreed to on division
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to
On clause 30 - Expenditure
The Chairman: In clause 30, there is an amendment on page 8 of the package. It is a government amendment. Do we have a mover for that amendment?
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): I so move.
The Chairman: Mr. Doering, do you wish to speak to that amendment?
Mr. Doering: Only if members want some clarification. This is a purely technical, very narrow legal amendment being offered here. We can explain it.
Mr. Hermanson: Maybe we could have a brief explanation as to what it's dealing with.
Mr. Doering: Clause 30 defines what revenue is to the agency. It defines the sale, exchange and lease of personal or movable property.
We always intended to include the rental and sale of property as revenue for the agency. For some reason, it slipped out when we were doing the final amendment. We're just now including it. It simply defines what revenue is.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 30 as amended agreed to
Clause 31 agreed to
On clause 32 - Annual audit
The Chairman: On clause 32, there is an amendment before us. Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to speak to this?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-60, in clause 32, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 9 the following:
(a.1) provide an opinion as to whether fees established under section 24 or 25 are reasonable and cost-effective;
Mr. Chairman, any new cost recovery initiatives and fee structures should be published in the Canada Gazette and reviewed annually by the Auditor General. That should ensure cost-effectiveness and a reasonable cost of the agency's services.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: There's another amendment. It's a new clause from the government, clause 32.1. Is there a mover for that clause?
Mr. Pickard: I so move.
The Chairman: Mr. Doering, would you like to speak to that? It's a whole new clause. Maybe you or one of your officials or colleagues could explain it, please.
Mr. Derouin: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the agency will have funds available to spend when it starts its operations. At the moment, it doesn't look like the agency will be in the estimates, or it may even be approved in this fiscal year but it doesn't have any estimates at all. So this allows the agency to draw from the funds in the three departments to spend on its operation once it gets going. It's a technical amendment.
.1625
The Chairman: Could I ask a question of the officials, with some legal advice at the disposal of the chair? If this clause is not approved, can the agency operate?
Let me just make another comment. I've discussed with the legal adviser whether we can move this amendment now or whether this amendment should be moved at report stage. Maybe I'll ask the legal adviser to make a comment so we can get this on the record.
Go ahead.
The Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As opposed to a legal opinion, it will be a procedural opinion.
The Chairman: Okay, sorry.
The Clerk: In my estimation, it offends the royal recommendation in that it goes to get money from the department to allow the agency to operate. If such is the case, this particular amendment would be better moved at report stage, with the proper royal recommendation at that time.
Mr. Derouin: I would agree with you, except there's one part that I think we should consider. The three departments already have the power to do what the agency will do. So when the agency is up and running, it will be using powers that have already been approved by Parliament through other appropriation acts that will enable the agency to use those moneys for the purposes it already intended.
It's not a case of voting new money. The money has already been voted for purposes of food inspection. It's that the agency will now spend it on behalf of those three departments.
Mr. Hermanson: On the same line of questioning, can new funds be expended as a result of this clause, other than what is budgeted for these purposes under Agriculture, Health and Fisheries? How do we know they can't be expended?
How can we be assured that the budget for the agency will not be greater? We don't have the business plan yet, so how can we trust that it's not going to be greater than what is currently budgeted? And how do we know that the budgeting process in those three departments can be accurately ascribed to this new agency?
Mr. Derouin: The way new funds would be voted for food inspection is through supplementary estimates, and that requires the approval of Parliament. The agency would only draw on the funds that have been approved in previous estimates. I believe that's what the words say - that they are deemed to be the funds available to the agency.
.1630
What Parliament's already appropriated are the ones that are available to the agency. If new ones are required, then supplementary estimates would be entered.
Mr. Hermanson: Okay, then you should be able to tell me how many dollars would be coming out of each of those three departments to fund this agency.
Mr. Derouin: We sent the committee our estimate of the amounts the agency will have available to it from the three departments to operate. It will be the food inspection budgets of the three departments plus some overhead money. We think it will be around $300 million. We're still finalizing those numbers.
Mr. Hermanson: So you don't know the exact numbers.
Mr. Derouin: At this point in time, no, but by the time the agency's up and running, we'll have Treasury Board approval for the amount that's available to the agency. That will be the amount signed off by the three ministers; they will say what amount they deem available for food inspection and to the agency for its operations.
Mr. Hermanson: It sounds a little shaky to me.
The other question I have is why does this appropriation of funds come under the clause that deals with what the Auditor General does annually?
Mr. Tom Beaver (Executive Coordinator, Accountability/Legislation, Office of Food Inspection Systems, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): It actually doesn't. Because there was no clause 32, this should start -
Mr. Hermanson: It should be clause 33, but there's already a clause 33, and rather than move everyone back -
Mr. Beaver: Yes, so when the bill is renumbered, it will end up clause 33. It will fall under what we call transitional amendments and will only be used if necessary, if the estimates for the agency are not approved before March 31.
That process of estimates starts pretty soon now. It starts in December. If we don't get the bills through the House and the agency up and running, there will be no estimates for the agency.
So they have to use existing estimates that are already invested in three departments. It's just taking the moneys out from the three departments.
Mr. Doering: If I could just explain further, this is purely because of the month we're dealing with here. If this were June, there would be no trouble, because we would pass the stuff, the act would be proclaimed and then you'd have a process to deal with it.
It's because we now have to respect Parliament. We can't be sure what day Parliament will pass this, or when we'll receive royal assent, or when we will be able to proclaim the bill. It just happens it's the month of March that will be the critical month for the tabling of estimates.
We can't be sure whether there will have been royal assent prior to that time. If there is, there's no problem. If there isn't and the estimates have already been tabled, then we have a problem. The money will have been appropriated for three different departments, but there will be a new agency that doesn't have any money.
Is that lay explanation accurate?
Witnesses: Yes.
Mr. Doering: This is a purely technical matter that flows from the fact that we're dealing with the month of March as opposed to some other month, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Okay. The procedural advisers at the table feel strongly that because of that, it needs a royal recommendation. That can be done at report stage, but I question if it's the right thing for us to do it here at this committee.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Basically I was asking for a point of clarification, Mr. Chair. I wanted to know if the same thing you want to accomplish here could be accomplished at report stage, once we get further clarification on it.
The Chairman: At this stage I'm going to rule this amendment out -
The Clerk: It might be easier to just withdraw it.
The Chairman: But even though it's moved, if I rule it out -
The Clerk: It can be brought back at report stage, Mr. Chairman, because it will have royal recommendation at that time. There's no problem.
The Chairman: Okay. I'm going to rule that we not deal with this one at this time.
We have not adopted clause 32 yet. Shall clause 32 carry?
Mr. Hermanson: Can we adopt clause 32 when new clause 32.1 - ?
The Chairman: I ruled new clause 32.1 out of order, so now we're on clause 32 as it is. If something comes back in report stage to change that or whatever, that would be okay.
Mr. Hermanson: So by adopting clause 32, it's clear that we're only adopting -
The Chairman: This is withdrawn. This was not allowed.
Mr. Easter: I have a further question on clause 32, Mr. Chairman, before your final question.
We talked while some of the witnesses were here and we questioned you before, Mr. Doering, on the Auditor General. In the annual report the Auditor General would be required to report on the cost-effectiveness, the cost of service and the public good versus the private good. I'm sure this one is not in there - the comparative cost of services in other countries - but are the first two covered under this clause?
.1635
Mr. Beaver: Mr. Chairman, the annual report will contain a section called performance information of the agency. The agency will determine, through deliberation and discussion, what objectives it's trying to achieve. Those objectives will be in the business plan and will be subject to public scrutiny. The agency will assess its own performance against those objectives. They could relate to a broad range of operational, human resource and financial issues that we've already discussed, and then the Auditor General would come in and confirm that the assessment done by the agency was reliable and accurate.
All of those matters that you discussed could be contained in the annual report. The performance of the agency against those issues could be contained in the annual report.
Mr. Easter: One of the concerns you get into with cost recovery is what is deemed to be a user versus benefactor kind of thing. What's the public benefit and cost versus the private or user benefit and the cost? So that we have it clear on the record, is it your expectation that this can be done under the process?
Mr. Beaver: Absolutely. The Treasury Board policy that the Auditor General would be auditing against goes into some definitions. It's currently under review and I think Treasury Board is proposing some change to that policy, but no doubt they would try to better define some of those matters, such as public good or reasonable cost. Once those criteria are established by the board, the Auditor General could use them for their review. The agency could also use those criteria to assess their own achievements.
So the answer again is yes.
Mr. Doering: Mr. Easter, from my point of view, that is an expectation. You do know, though, that this is a difficult thing to do. Mr. Hoeppner rather eloquently asked witness after witness whether they could describe the difference between private good and public good. He raised this kind of stuff. Witness after witness, even industry people who have complained about this, have had a hard time conceptualizing this and dealing with it in a concrete way, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep on trying. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be back and accountable to you on that score.
Mr. Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 32 agreed to on division
Clauses 33 to 37 inclusive agreed to
On clause 38
The Chairman: We move on to clause 38, which is page 13 of your package. I believe the officials want to comment on this one.
Mr. Doering, you or one of your colleagues wish to comment?
Mr. Beaver: Yes. The proposed amendment is not technically correct. Because we changed clause 2 to add the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, you do not need this amendment. The proper way to proceed with this is to defeat this clause.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Hermanson: Could I get more clarification from our legal counsel?
The Chairman: It's not that he wouldn't like to be a legal counsel, but he's a procedural counsel.
.1640
The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, the question before the committee is whether the clause shall stand part of the bill. An amendment to delete the clause becomes an expanded negative, because the same results are achieved by voting against the clause when the question is put, ``Shall clause38 carry?''
Mr. Hermanson: No, this is an amendment to put the rest of the bill in sync with Mrs. Ur's amendment, which we passed yesterday, that it would be the Minister of Agriculture. Before it just said a designated minister. I wouldn't mind if we lumped all of these together, because they make the entire bill conform to what we did in clause 2.
The Chairman: Mr. Beaver, go head.
Mr. Beaver: The current AAAMP Act, to use the short form, already designates the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food as the designated minister. What we did in the bill up to this point was change that designation. All we're doing by removing this is to put it back the way it currently stands in the AAAMP Act.
Mr. Hermanson: You lost me there.
Mr. Beaver: The AAAMP Act passed by Parliament designates the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. What we did in Bill C-60 was to change that to the designated minister, moving it away from the agriculture and agri-food minister. If you defeat clause 38, it remains as it stands now in the AAAMP Act.
The Chairman: To put it in my words, we do not need clause 38 because of what we did in clause 2.
Mr. Beaver: Correct.
Mr. Hermanson: In other words, you're suggesting that we defeat all of these clauses because they're not needed any more.
The Chairman: Because it's already in that bill.
Mr. Hermanson: If I withdraw all of my amendments, because I think the rest of them deal with this issue...?
The Chairman: No, clause 38 only deals with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Because of what we did earlier, we do not have to refer specifically to this act in clause 38. Because of what we did earlier in another amendment, clause 38 is now redundant.
Mr. Hermanson: Oh, I understand now. The light's on. I understand.
The Chairman: Shall clause 38 carry?
Clause 38 negatived
The Chairman: There is another amendment to clause 38 from the Reform Party. I would have to assume that at this stage, Mr. Hermanson, that amendment is redundant too since there is no clause 38 now.
On clause 39
The Chairman: On page 15 of our package is a technical amendment by the government.Mr. Doering, do you wish to speak to that?
Mr. Doering: You may recall that Mrs. Ur, in response to several witnesses and statements from all parties, moved that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food be specifically designated. As a result of having done that, there are a number of other places in the bill where we will have to make a consequential amendment.
Mr. Chairman, they're contained in clauses 39, 41, 46, 49, 53, 65, 67, 68, 73, 76, 82 and 88. I think members almost unanimously voted to have the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food as the designated minister, so all of these are consequential to that earlier amendment to clause 2.
The Chairman: Elwin.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I think I've been making these motions. I'd rather it be my motion than Mr. Pickard's motion. Maybe we could redress the wrong you committed yesterday by accepting my motion.
The Chairman: You chastized me severely. I don't know whether I'd dare do that or not.
Mr. Hermanson: We did all the homework on this.
.1645
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, in clause 39 and all the other clauses you named - I'm not going to go into them at the moment - what you would be left with is the analyst, grader and inspector designated pursuant to section 19.
Question, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: I don't think it's going to have a bearing on the discussion on the next amendment, Mr. Hermanson, but we'll need to clarify it based on the discussion we had a minute ago.
All those in favour of the amendment -
Mr. Hermanson: What are you saying?
The Chairman: I don't think how we deal with this one will have a bearing on the other amendment you may have to this clause.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you mean that Mr. Pickard's amendment is different from my amendment?
The Chairman: I read it as different, unless I can be enlightened.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Pickard's -
The Chairman: The one on page 15, replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 11 with the following....
Mr. Hermanson: All right.
The Chairman: They've taken out the word ``Minister''.
Go ahead.
Mr. Beaver: Mr. Chairman, the current wording in clause 39 includes the word ``Minister'' in that grouping, and we don't want that there.
The Chairman: It's already in that act. We're back to the discussion we had on clause 38, that it's already in that act, so it doesn't need to be repeated here.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: There is another amendment to clause 39 by the Reform Party. I assume that amendment is not necessary since we removed the word ``Minister'', because it's already in that particular act referred to in clause 39.
Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Does that mean that all of the remaining motions and clauses are redundant?
Mr. Collins: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Doering.
Mr. Doering: There is another drafting method here, Mr. Hermanson. If you'd made the amendment under clause 2, that would have been one way to draft it. The way it's been done here is simply a drafting matter. All of these achieve exactly the same object; to wit, the designated minister is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Hermanson: I understand.
The Chairman: So we will not deal with that one.
There is a drafting amendment on page 17. Is there a mover for that? Mrs. Ur. That's another drafting one, deleting lines 26 to 29 on page 11.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 39 as amended agreed to
Clause 40 agreed to
On clause 41
The Chairman: There is an amendment to clause 41 by the Reform Party. What we have between pages 18 and 19 in our package, if I could ask the officials, is two ways of doing the same thing.
Mr. Hermanson.
.1650
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I again need clarification from our procedural expert, but my suspicion is that by the way in which we have handled this, the remainder of my motions could be withdrawn and the Minister of Agriculture would still be responsible for these -
The Chairman: But these weren't moved. Are the remainder of yours in a similar vein,Mr. Hermanson?
Mr. Hermanson: I believe so, yes, except that I have an amendment to the preamble that I want left on the record. But I will withdraw the rest of the amendments.
The Chairman: Okay, so you just won't move them. But I will ask you each time just so that you can....
On page 19, there is an amendment to clause 41. Is there a mover?
Mr. Collins: I so move.
The Chairman: Are there any comments to the officials or Mr. Doering? It's a technical amendment along the same line of what we're doing.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 41 as amended agreed to
Clauses 42 to 45 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 46
The Chairman: There are two amendments to clause 46 before us. I believe they are along the same line that we've been discussing. The first one is a government amendment on the technicalities. Do I have a mover?
Mr. Calder: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: On to page 21 in our package, Mr. Hermanson, am I being presumptuous if I say you do not wish to move that?
Mr. Hermanson: Right.
The Chairman: Okay.
There's another one on page 22 in the package. It's another government amendment to clause 46. It is technical, so it's the same as we've been doing. Is there a mover?
Mr. Calder: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 46 as amended agreed to
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to
On clause 49
The Chairman: In clause 49, there are amendments similar to those that we've been making in the previous clauses.
Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: I withdraw.
The Chairman: The amendment on page 25 of the package is a government amendment. It's a technical amendment. Is there a mover?
Mr. Pickard: I so move.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: I actually just have a comment, Mr. Chairman. Wherever we're having these two, we should move the government amendments first because they delete the lines that my amendments actually amend. If we do that, then mine are redundant and we would withdraw them.
The Chairman: Okay, I won't comment.
Mr. Hermanson: It's just the right way to do it, that's all.
The Chairman: That's right.
Is there any discussion on the amendment to clause 49? Yes, Mr. Calder.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): I have a point of clarification. The amendment on page 23 is also an amendment to clause 49.
The Chairman: Did we miss it?
Ms Dakers: Yes.
The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you very much.
So page 23 is the technical amendment. We'll go back to that one in the package.
Okay, the other one was already moved by Mr. Pickard, so we'd better do it. Shall the amendment on page 25 of the package carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We'll now go back to the one on page 23. Is there a mover?
Mr. Collins: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 49 as amended agreed to
Clauses 50 to 52 inclusive agreed to
.1655
On clause 53
The Chairman: There is a government amendment before us, moved by Mr. Collins. It's another technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 53 as amended agreed to
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to
On clause 56
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, you have a question.
Mr. Easter: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doering, I know you or one of your people explained ``other things'' the other day. At this stage I'm not going to move an amendment, but I am concerned about the fact that ``other things'' is not defined in some way as to what they specifically mean by it, because right now it's as broad as the ocean.
I know that what you said the other day is on the record in terms of what that's supposed to mean, but if you get an overambitious inspector out there, or whatever, then.... I know what you're trying to do here, but I don't want to find one of my constituents.... For instance, there was an incident at a poultry plant the other day, and if the inspector had had that clause...it could have been fairly serious.
So I guess I'm looking for advice on how we can handle that without getting into definitions of what ``other things'' may mean.
Mr. Sylvester: If I can be of help, Mr. Easter, I think you're correct in looking at ``other things'' as a very broad category. It's probably as broad as it can get. However, in consultation with the drafters, it was deemed preferable to do that than to go through an exhaustive list of items.
If I can give you some comfort, I suppose it would be in pointing to the rules of interpretation, the ejusdem generis rule, which puts some constraints on the interpretations such that you'd be looking at fish in containers and ``other things of that class''.
So it's not quite as broad as including such things as bank accounts, as Mr. Hoeppner suggested. We're really talking about fish containers and other things that are in that class of things. Namely, containers are what this is pointing to.
Mr. Doering: Just to explain further, Mr. Easter, in more lay terms, if you have in a legislation a series of words and then a bracket, catch-all word at the end of it, there's a statute interpretation, ejusdem generis, that you define the scope of the last word by the words that preceded it.
So you cannot reasonably interpret ``other things'' as something other than fish or containers. If we're talking about the container here, it would be the truck, as in Mr. Bourque's example to you. That is, if someone had a truck full of fish, you could seize the fish but you couldn't seize the truck for that time.
Of course, of further assistance to you is that if this were done inappropriately, there would remedies through the courts. As well, proposed subsection 7(2) provides that anything seized under this act shall be given back quickly.
So it's really to address a problem in the Fish Inspection Act that they've had in the past. There's also an assumption of reasonableness in the exercise of these powers. If there is not a reasonable exercise of power, a variety of common law remedies are available to a citizen.
We have the director general of the fish inspection group here with us - Mr. Bourque's boss, actually - Mr. Rideout, if you want further assurance in this regard.
Mr. Easter: Okay. We'll sit on it for the moment.
The Chairman: We'll continue, then. Shall clauses 56 through 64 carry?
Clauses 56 to 64 inclusive agreed to
On clause 65
The Chairman: Are the amendments on pages 28 and 29 identical in wording and everything?
Mr. Doering: Yes, they're identical. They're to the same effect.
Mr. Hermanson: I move my motion.
The Chairman: Here we go. I wondered how long it would be before you caught on,Mr. Hermanson. I gave you a little time.
.1700
Number 28 in the package is moved by Mr. Hermanson.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Then that negates the necessity, I believe, of number 29 in the package.
Clause 65 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: The bell has begun to ring. It's a 30-minute bell. I don't know what effect that will have on us.
There are no amendments to clause 66.
Clause 66 agreed to
On clause 67
The Chairman: There are amendments to clause 67. We will go to number 30 in the book.
Mr. Hermanson: Shall I do the same again? I so move.
Mr. Easter: You're on a roll, Elwin.
The Chairman: We did have number 30 before us. Moved by Mr. Hermanson, the one on number 30 in our package.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Then number 31 is not necessary.
Clause 67 as amended agreed to
On clause 68
The Chairman: Clause 68, number 32 in the package. Is there a mover?
Mr. Collins: I so move.
The Chairman: It's moved by Mr. Collins. It's a technical amendment again.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but according to what you said earlier, Mr. Hermanson, you probably do not wish to move number 33 in the package.
Mr. Hermanson: Right.
The Chairman: Then shall clause 68 carry as amended?
A voice: There's another part.
The Chairman: I'm sorry. Number 34, a government amendment, is moved by Mrs. Ur.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 68 as amended agreed to
Clause 69 agreed to
On clause 70
The Chairman: On clause 70, there is an amendment number 35. Is there a mover?
Mr. Pickard: I so move.
The Chairman: It's moved by Mr. Pickard. Shall the amendment carry?
Some hon. members: Carried.
Mr. Hermanson: Hold it. It says ``The Minister may order''. I just want to see what the minister may order here. Any time I see ``The Minister may order'', I want to have a little bit of a look. We're on clause 70.
The Chairman: Clause 70. It says ``the Minister'' rather than the Governor in Council.
Mr. Hermanson: Okay. That is again because we've designated which minister. I understand.
The Chairman: Is that right, Mr. Doering?
Mr. Doering: It's also for another reason. This avoids going to Governor in Council.
You may remember that some witnesses, Mr. Hermanson, to be fair, came in and said it was too problematic to have the Governor in Council for compensation payable to people under these various acts. So it's simpler if it's just ``the Minister''.
The Chairman: One of the witnesses was the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which had a concern that in the compensation package the minister could make that decision without having to go to the Governor in Council. That's a response to a request they had.
Mr. Doering: Out of an abundance of caution, clauses 70, 71 and 84, those three amendments, are really an effort to accommodate the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's concern.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 70 as amended agreed to
On clause 71
The Chairman: Clause 71 is the very same thing as we just did. Is there a mover for number 37 in the book?
Mr. Easter: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1705
The Chairman: ``The minister may order''; it's the same thing.
Clause 71 as amended agreed to
Clause 72 agreed to
On clause 73
The Chairman: Is there a mover for amendment number 39? Mr. Calder. It's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We'll skip to number 41. Is there a mover for amendment number 41 in the package to clause 73? Mr. Pickard.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: I'll withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman: You'll withdraw yours that we had.
Clause 73 as amended agreed to
Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to
On clause 76
The Chairman: On clause 76 there are two government amendments. One is number 42 in the package, moved by Mr. Easter. This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I'll skip to number 44 in the package, another amendment to clause 76. This is a technical amendment, moved by Mr. Collins.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 76 as amended agreed to
Clauses 77 to 81 inclusive agreed to
On clause 82
The Chairman: Number 45 in the package is a government amendment, moved by Mr. Calder. This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Skipping to number 47, we have another amendment to clause 82. It's moved by Mrs. Ur.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 82 as amended agreed to
Clause 83 agreed to
On clause 84
The Chairman: We have number 48 in the package before us. This is a government amendment, again a technical one. It's a clarification based on the concerns of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It's moved by Mr. Easter.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 84 as amended agreed to
Clauses 85 to 87 inclusive agreed to
On clause 88
The Chairman: There is an amendment, number 50 in our package, to clause 88. This is a technical amendment, moved by Mr. Collins.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We're going to number 52 in the package. Moved by Mr. Calder, this is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 88 as amended agreed to
Clauses 89 to 94 inclusive agreed to
.1710
Clause 1 agreed to
The Chairman: There are amendments to the preamble. The first amendment before us in the package is number 53. Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to deal with that?
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move that Bill C-60, in the preamble, be amended by adding, after line 11 on page 1, the following:
- WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to have that food inspection agency deliver
those services in a cost effective manner;
It's important for farmers, for the industry, to know that the government supports providing services in a cost-effective manner. They're not sure right now; they've seen some evidence where that isn't happening, and where the entire costs are being passed on to producers. It's cost recovery rather than cost avoidance and cost reduction, and that's wrong.
This, while it's not all we would have wanted to see changed in the bill.... We have tried to make some amendments throughout the clauses that would have made it easier to ensure that costs were delivered in an effective manner, which have been rejected by the government. Nevertheless if that is in the preamble, it is a guideline. It's like a mission statement for the agency that this is a paramount objective it needs to meet. I can't say any more strongly how I feel about this. I suggest that all members should support this very simple but very important change to the preamble.
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: There's a further amendment to the preamble. Mr. Chrétien, do you wish to speak to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Even if we are tired, I am going to ask my colleagues to make an effort to try to pay close attention, because this amendment deserves to be adopted as well, even if only on division.
The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Easter, is very simply to remove lines 14, 15 and 16. It is about the Food Inspection Agency. It is not the Export Development Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, I call for your diligence in maintaining order. I have not always listened, but I have always been polite towards those who had the floor. Therefore, I would ask you, also, to be kind to me, in calling to order your colleagues in the Liberal Party.
In the view of the fact that we can recover the costs, it might even be disadvantageous to us, in certain cases, in our exports. We are talking out of both sides of the mouth here, considering the fact that there might be an increase in value for the products once they have been inspected for exportation purposes.
.1715
Therefore, I recommend that lines 14, 15 and 16 simply be deleted.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Chrétien?Mr. Hermanson
Mr. Hermanson: Could I ask him a question, or maybe the officials can answer? I'm thinking that by including this in the preamble what it's indicating is that this Food Inspection Agency would ensure Canada's reputation as an exporter of food and therefore enhance trade and net income to our producers. I'm wondering if in that light Mr. Chrétien would reconsider his amendment and withdraw, because I think it's not a very wise amendment. I can't support it.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Shall the preamble as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at the Commons report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen of the committee and officials, I thank you very much for your cooperation. As soon as possible, we will report the bill to the House.
I remind committee members that we have a meeting tomorrow morning. We have clause-by-clause of Bill C-38 and a very important meeting of the steering committee tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Have a good evening. The meeting is adjourned.