[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 26, 1996
.0905 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. I welcome everyone here today. We have a very full session this morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are in clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
There are a number of amendments and every member has a package of them. Some were not received in time to get circulated ahead of today's meeting, but some were. They are there. The bottom line is that they are all in front of you today.
.0910
On clause 2 - Definitions
The Chairman: I see in the package that Mrs. Ur has an amendment to clause 2.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): Yes. The proposed amendment, as it states, designates the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food as the designate minister for the purpose of this act.
As we can recall, several witnesses who came before the committee felt this should be included. They would be more comfortable with the bill, and it would provide the answers that many of the witnesses had wanted the committee to put in the bill. It ensures continuity and stability of the provision of the inspection and the services. I think it's something we can all agree upon.
The Chairman: Mrs. Ur, in the package we have before us your motion is on page 2.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Mr. Chairman, that is the exact same amendment that I've made on page 1. Why did we not deal with number 1 rather than number 2?
The Chairman: I saw Mrs. Ur's hand. That's the only reason. It's the same thing.
Mr. Hermanson: I presumed we were going to go through the package. I didn't think you had to put up your hand.
The Chairman: My apologies.
Mr. Hermanson: Are we going to go to page 41 next, then? Are we going to bounce all over the place?
The Chairman: Number 1 and number 2 are the same. My apologies. It wasn't intentional.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment to clause 2?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): We shall vote against, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Let's back up then.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to
Clause 3 agreed to
On clause 4 - Minister responsible
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment we wanted to include in the preamble. Are we coming back to that at the end?
The Chairman: Yes. The amendments to the preamble are dealt with at the end.
There is a government amendment that was circulated previously for clause 4. It's on page 3 in your package. Are there any questions to our officials?
My apologies. I didn't welcome the officials to the table before. Welcome to you, Mr. Doering and your officials. You are here to help clarify any of these amendments or to speak to them. The members can feel free to raise any questions with the officials.
.0915
Will someone propose the amendment to clause 4 so we can discuss it?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I have a question.
[English]
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): I move the amendment.
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I'd like to add a comment before we vote on the amendment to clause 4. The addition is: "and the power to delegate under this subsection".
[English]
The Chairman: On page 3 of the package of amendments, the part that is underlined, ``and the power to delegate under this subsection'', is the addition to clause 4.
Mr. Hermanson: What exactly does that mean?
The Chairman: Mr. Doering, would you like to speak to the reason it's there?
Mr. Tom Beaver (Executive Coordinator, Accountability, Office of Food Inspection Systems, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): We have limited the delegation powers already; ``except the power to make regulations'' is already a limitation. We also wanted to add a limitation for greater certainty on the power to redelegate, so once something is delegated it cannot be redelegated further down the system. It further enhances the ministerial responsibility for the agency.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you mean, then, that if the minister delegates something to the advisory board or whatever, that board can't turn around and delegate it to -
Mr. Beaver: Someone else.
Mr. Hermanson: - some private...?
Mr. Beaver: That's correct. It's a principle in law as well that once delegated, a delegated power cannot be redelegated. We're putting it in here for greater certainty, but it really clarifies the role of the minister.
Mr. Hermanson: However, they can delegate it to anybody subservient to them.
Mr. Beaver: That's correct.
Mr. Hermanson: I mean their own staffers. Can they contract services if whomever the power is delegated to signs a contract for service?
Mr. Beaver: Yes. Through contract law you can delegate certain services and provisions.
Mr. Hermanson: But you can't go laterally.
Mr. Beaver: That's correct.
Mr. Hermanson: You can't delegate into another department under another minister.
Mr. Beaver: Once you delegate the power once, it cannot be redelegated at that point. For example, you could designate and delegate a service provider to conduct services on behalf of the agency, but that service provider couldn't then ask someone else to do it on their behalf. They are accountable to the minister for the delegated arrangement.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment to clause 4?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 4 as amended agreed to
On clause 5 - Appointment of Agency executives
The Chairman: On clause 5 there are a number of amendments. We'll go to the one on page 5 of the package so that I don't get in trouble again by going in the wrong order here.
Monsieur Chrétien, do you wish to move that amendment to clause 5?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Must I only move it or may I address the philosophy behind it?
[English]
The Chairman: You move the amendment and then you can speak to the amendment as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I move the amendment to clause 5. I'll give a bit of a simplistic explanation as to the purpose of the amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any questions on Monsieur Chrétien's amendment?
Do you wish to make more comments, Monsieur Chrétien? Please go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Here is the purpose of this amendment. We, the official opposition, fear those appointments might be used to partisan ends. For example, every time a government is defeated, new staff could be appointed, somewhat as was done in the case of the appointment of the 260 new returning officers or for the adjudication committee presidents in Canada employment centres.
.0920
We are suggesting that the Governor in Council accept to monitor the list of names the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agrifood might propose to him. We could also consult organizations with direct ties to this food inspection agency and, better yet, consult various provinces if not all of them so they might submit their suggestions if they have any.
As the saying goes, it's not because you're a member of the party in power that you have more and better brain cells. It's true that being a member of that party doesn't mean that you're not as competent. However, it is possible that someone from another party might be just as competent.
For the common good of all Canadians, it would be preferable to have the committee involved for once. Here, at this committee, the government side is always in a majority and it could easily exercise its rights as it always has, of course, but at least that would give opposition members the opportunity to suggest some names to the provinces and organizations.
Mr. Chairman, that is the real meaning of this amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any other comments on Monsieur Chrétien's amendment to clause 5?
Mr. McKinnon: I have a question for the officials. Is Mr. Chrétien's comment in line with any other agency of the government where new personnel are put in place? I'm just asking for a comment.
Mr. Ronald L. Doering (Executive Director, Office of Food Inspection Systems, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): As far as I know, Mr. McKinnon, this would be quite an extraordinary step to take. Government agency leaders are appointed through the Governor in Council. These appointments have been made analogous to the appointment of deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers.
Mr. McKinnon: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: I'm just trying to understand Mr. Chrétien's amendment a little better. I'm just trying to find out which committee he is suggesting should review the positions of president and executive vice-president.
He's saying that is the committee referred to in his amendment, that is:
- Such committee of the House...as is designated or established to consider
- So he's saying the agriculture committee, this committee.
Ms Sonya Dakers (Committee Researcher): It could be a designated committee.
The Chairman: Well, you have the same words in front of you that I have, so if Mr. Chrétien wants to clarify it, he can. He's the author of the amendment.
Do you wish to clarify that for Mr. Hermanson?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Hermanson, you are right. We should have been more specific: the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agrifood. It's probably an oversight on my part. So it's the committee we belong to with you two here and the eight on the other side.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Is it possible to amend that amendment right now to say:
- the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Hermanson: I would make that amendment.
The Chairman: How do you wish to do that, Mr. Hermanson?
Mr. Hermanson: Where the amendment says:
- Such committee of the House
- it should now say:
- The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of the House shall invite written
applications
.0925
The Chairman: Is everyone clear on the subamendment? Are there any comments on the subamendment?
Subamendment negatived
The Chairman: We'll now go to the original amendment. Is there any further discussion on the original amendment?
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: I'll move on to further amendments to clause 5. We have one before us on page 7 of our package. Mr. Hermanson, are you moving that one?
Mr. Hermanson: Yes. I move that clause 5 of Bill C-60 be amended by replacing line 15 on page 2 with the following:
- 5. Subject to section 5.1, the Governor in Council shall, after consulting with representatives of
Canadian industries, who have an interest in the matter, appoint a
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, the appointment of the president and executive vice-president should be done in consultation with the affected industries. I'm sure the officials will agree that it was well and proper.
Including this amendment in the bill would ensure that this consultation - which I know the department would, in all good conscience, undertake anyway - would in fact have to be carried out. Therefore I would ask the committee to endorse this amendment.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I would like to ask Mr. Hermanson where you start and where you stop.
Mr. Hermanson: I'm not sure I understand you.
Mr. Reed: Well, if you want to consult with representatives of Canadian industries who have an interest in the matter, where do you start and where do you stop?
Mr. Hermanson: I guess we could specify here which sector.... I think there are about 21 food processing agencies that -
Mr. Reed: Maybe this year, but next year there might be 35.
Mr. Hermanson: That's why it's not specifically put in here; it's just that the consultation has to take place.
Mr. Reed: And it doesn't say ``all''.
Mr. Hermanson: Well, you can amend it and say ``all'', if you like.
Mr. Reed: In my view, what you're doing is creating a base for chaos.
Mr. Hermanson: Well, that's -
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien, for comments, and then back to Mr. Hermanson.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I think we should support this amendment suggested by the Reform Party. Of course, Mr. Reed is concerned because the consultation might be broadened, but your memory serves you well. In Room 237-C, our committee met a Toronto coalition representing 25 different organizations. So we can consult those major coalitions. It would at least serve to ease our conscience.
The concept of l'État c'est moi (I am the State) as Louis the Fourteenth once said, is slightly dated. It would be too bad for the minister and the Governor in Council to barricade themselves behind these powers and say: "I am the only one who is right. I have all power, all knowledge, I know everything better than anyone and I need not consult". Consultation is more and more important in our world. We should support this Reform Party amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to comment?
Mr. Hermanson: I just want to follow up again on what Mr. Reed was saying. I think he's being rather picky here, but if it would help, I would be open to someone making an amendment. If need be, I or Mr. Hoeppner could do that.
After the word ``after'' and before the word ``consulting'' we would say ``a reasonable amount''. I certainly don't want to put such a small stumbling block in front of my colleagues on the other side.
.0930
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: The problem I have is that if you use the word ``reasonable'', then you inject ambiguity into the thing. I do believe that, whoever he or she is in the future, the minister is the one accountable to the House and the people. It seems to me that accountability has to be sustained.
Mr. Hermanson: As you know, Mr. Reed, there has been less and less accountability in our parliamentary system over the last 30 years. The red book promises to bring back more accountability. I would think you would wear -
Mr. Reed: I rest my case.
Mr. Hermanson: - a different hat.
Mr. Reed: Exactly; happily.
Mr. Hermanson: It's because of moving in this direction that, without allowing for consultation and being a little more specific in these bills, we don't have any accountability in the Parliament of Canada.
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think ``a reasonable amount'' in that amendment would be very appropriate, because the appointed people would then have, more or less, the handshake, the confidence, of the industry. I think it would have worked a lot smoother if that had happened before, instead of trying to do it after they were appointed.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments on the amendment as it is before us on page 7 of the amendment package?
Mr. Doering.
Mr. Doering: Just to explain, as a matter of clarification, Mr. Chair, the agency would be representing all Canadians, not just Canadian industry. We're talking about the health and safety of Canadian food here, so it's more than just an industry mandate for the agency. I thought I would mention that just as a matter of clarification.
The Chairman: Okay. I have not heard a specific subamendment to the amendment.
Mr. Hoeppner: I'll make a subamendment, Mr. Chairman, for ``a reasonable amount''.
I'm just wondering if Mr. Doering -
The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Hoeppner. How do you want to do that?
Mr. Hoeppner: Enter it between ``after'' and ``consulting''. It would read:
- after a reasonable amount of consulting with representatives of Canadian industries
Mr. Hoeppner: Yes. I was just wondering if Mr. Doering could explain something to do with the industry.
Don't the consumers have representation on this advisory board?
Mr. Doering: The section provides for appointment of people from various sectors, including consumer groups, on the advisory committee, but we're not talking about the advisory committee here, Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner: Yes, but still they would have input into the other issues on the advisory board. So the president and the vice-president - or whatever you call it, the CEO or the vice-CEO - would also have to work with the advisory board. Right?
Mr. Doering: Sure. But I would just be clear that the appointment of the president and the executive vice-president is what we're talking about here. I wanted to be sure there wasn't some confusion. We're talking about the president and executive vice-president.
Mr. Hoeppner: Yes.
Mr. Doering: These people are appointed by Governor in Council to represent and carry out the activities of 12 pieces of legislation, which include health and safety for all Canadians. This isn't just a group that would be acting on behalf of industry. That's the only clarification I was making.
The Chairman: Mr. Calder wanted to speak first, Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is just getting more and more confused as we go into it. If we're going to bring forward amendments, the amendments should be well thought out.
We're now at ``after reasonable consulting''. What's reasonable? Is that six months, one year, two years, three years? We haven't even addressed the point Mr. Reed brought up, that is, when we're talking about representatives of the Canadian industry, who and how many?
This is getting more and more confusing. We're spinning our tires here.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Let me respond, first of all, to Mr. Calder. The regulations, the by-laws, the issues that are done through Order in Council, clarify those types of concerns. They're never put in the legislation. Liberals have never put those types of factors in the legislation.
What the legislation does more is give the minister and the agency the guidelines and direction they need. Sure, there are some specifics put in legislation, where that's required, but not all the specifics are put in. That's why there is some flexibility. So that argument doesn't really hold water.
.0935
I have one other comment. Including this amendment in the bill is a preventative -
Mr. Calder: It's not our amendment; it's your amendment.
Mr. Hermanson: I'm just copping your argument, which was -
Mr. Calder: Listen, you want the specifics in. It's your amendment; it's not ours. Do it.
Mr. Hermanson: We're putting in the amendments as specific as we believe they need to be. You're suggesting they're not specific enough, and I'm saying that's hogwash, because Liberals never put specific amendments in their legislation.
So you can't have it both ways. That's what I'm trying to say, Murray. I don't think it sinks in.
This amendment would also act as a deterrent against patronage, because there would be some industry consultation with the president and the executive, thereby not allowing the minister solely to designate who these people could be.
I think that would be a protection for the minister, and again it would restore some confidence to these positions.
The Chairman: All right. I think we've had sufficient discussion, so we'll move ahead, if there's no major objection, to vote on the subamendment.
If I understand it correctly, it would add the words ``a reasonable amount of'' following the word ``after''.
Subamendment negatived
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: We can't get much more open than democracy, Mr. Hermanson.
There's another amendment to clause 5. Just before we go to that, I want to make it clear that everybody who sent amendments to the clerk.... Those amendments are in this package today.
Let's make it clear that everybody knows that once you make an amendment here at committee, you cannot make the amendment again at report stage. So if it's dealt with here, it cannot be dealt with there.
I understand there was some confusion that they could be dealt with in both cases. If they're defeated here, that's it; that's all as far as that amendment is concerned. So if someone has an amendment in this package that they do not wish to move at committee, then it's up to them not to move it here. If it's before us, you just don't have to move it.
Turning to page 8, the clerk says that this is a new clause, so he's going to add further to our confusion by saying we have to take that up at the end. Committee members, remind me where I put that piece of paper, so we can come back to it.
Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Are you saying that we can't deal with this amendment now? It's very similar to the Bloc's amendment, which we dealt with.
The Chairman: Is there consent to deal with it now? If there's consent, we'll deal with it now.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: All right.
That's great. I remember where I put the paper, so I have it back already.
Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to speak to this amendment?
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Hoeppner said, you see what a little consultation can do here.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Hermanson: A ``reasonable'' amount of consultation.
I would move, Mr. Chairman, that Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 2 the following new clause:
- 5.1 No appointment shall be made under section 5 unless that appointment is approved by a
sub-committee of each of such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or
established to consider
(b) health matters; and
(c) fisheries matters.
I would comment that we supported the Bloc's amendment, which would have allowed this review to be done by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food; that would have been acceptable to us.
I think this is preferable, as this amendment would refer the matter to a subcommittee that would have representatives of agriculture, health and fisheries. As you know, this agency combines the food inspection services of those three federal departments, as they now exist, into one federal food inspection agency. Therefore, it seemed only appropriate that a subcommittee with representatives of those three areas be the body that would consider the appointments and approve them. So I'm very happy to move this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
.0940
The Chairman: Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to move to a U.S.-type system where every appointment is under scrutiny, and public scrutiny. I think we would have very few people come forward who would be interested in participating in such a committee or organization if we went that route. I have some real fears about that.
To my knowledge, the minister, in this case the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, does indeed consult very widely on appointments such as the ones we're discussing. The minister has done so in the past and I assume would be doing so in the future. If it is representation on a fisheries matter, the minister would certainly take into consideration that indeed input should be brought forward.
I would hesitate, Mr. Chair, to get into a scenario where every person whose name is brought forward would come before a committee to be discussed publicly. I think we're getting into a U.S. situation, and I think there would be very few people even interested in putting forward their names.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I think that public consultation here... It's true that it is public, but the audience isn't that broad. I would like to remind my distinguished colleague that if the prime minister had consulted a little before he appointed Quebec's lieutenant-governor he probably would have found out, because it's one of his friends, that when he was a student, he participated in...
It's quite acceptable for a subcommittee to be consulted, especially if it's the steering committee of each of the committees interested in the new agency. I think we should support the Reform Party's amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to respond to Mr. Culbert, I believe several appointments can be referred to this committee right now. We can review appointments to the Farm Credit Corporation -
The Chairman: All Order in Council appointments, Mr. Hermanson, can be reviewed by this committee. My understanding would be that so would this one.
Mr. Hermanson: Does that mean that people are afraid to let their name stand as a director of the Farm Credit Corporation or the Farm Debt Review...? That argument doesn't hold water,Mr. Culbert. I don't see why we don't begin to open up government, make these committees more worthwhile, and bring a little bit of accountability back into our parliamentary system. Why are you not open to it?
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just looking out for the interests of the Liberal government. They could be in opposition all of a sudden, and, as you know, they do change their minds. Just look at the CF-18 contract we had taken away from Manitoba. Now we see that we can extend that contract without any consultation or tendering.
So they could be in opposition, and they might have to eat their words. I wouldn't want to see that.
Amendment negatived
Clause 5 agreed to on division
Clause 6 agreed to
On clause 7 - Delegation by President
Mr. Hermanson: Is this the other area where delegation is involved? Mr. Chairman, you said it was in another part of the bill. We needed the other -
.0945
Mr. Beaver: The earlier reference was to a delegation of the minister, and this is the delegation of the president.
Mr. Hermanson: So this means he can delegate?
Mr. Beaver: Yes. We wouldn't want the president to be inspecting every chicken carcass. So he would have to delegate rather broadly.
Mr. Hermanson: Can he delegate anywhere?
Mr. Beaver: I think the principle in law would still apply here. We put it in the above section for greater certainty, but it would apply here. You have instruments of delegation, of which this is one, and delegated power generally cannot be redelegated.
Mr. Peter Sylvester (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Health): I have a point of clarification on that one. The other thing to note in this provision is that it refers to the powers, duties or functions that are conferred on the president under this act.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to
On clause 9 - Head office
The Chairman: There are two amendments to clause 9. The first one is number 9 in your package.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Chrétien: At this stage, I am not moving the motion I presented last October 31.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. There is another amendment to clause 9 on page 11 of the package.
Mr. McKinnon, were you going to move the amendment to clause 9?
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment, as proposed, is that there appears to be some concern about the flexibility component being used for partisan purposes. It was not the intent of the minister to locate the head office in any particular place in Canada for a partisan intent.
There is also a need for liaison among all the departments that tie in with the agency, such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, and for that matter, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. So the proposed amendment will simply state that the head office of the agency would remain in the national capital region.
The Chairman: So it removes everything in the clause after the words ``NationalCapital Act''.
Mr. McKinnon: Right.
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Am I to understand that everything will be removed after ``or in any other location in Canada that the Governor in Council may, by order, direct''?
[English]
The Chairman: Everything in clause 9 after the words ``National Capital Act''. The clause would end there. The rest would be removed.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: So unless I am mistaken, the head office of the agency shall be in the National Capital. It could be in Gatineau or Hull and will remain there as long as the agency exists. And this could not be changed at the whim of a minister living in whatever riding, for example, in my riding and who might want to say: ``I'm setting this up in my neck of the woods''. That's what it is?
The Chairman: Exactly.
[English]
Mr. McKinnon: Or Vegreville, Alberta.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, you wished to speak.
Mr. Hermanson: Basically this amendment means that the agency has to be located here in Ottawa -
The Chairman: In the national capital region.
Mr. Hermanson: - and at no time can it be moved anywhere else in Canada, unless -
The Chairman: I think it's very clear. It says:
- shall be in the National Capital Region
Mr. Hermanson: No, no, I understand.
The Chairman: - then I think that's very clear.
Mr. Hermanson: What is the rationale for locking the agency into the national capital region? It would seem to me that obviously the Parliament of Canada has to be locked into the national capital region. That makes sense, because the infrastructure is here, and this is the capital city.
We have the Farm Credit Corporation in Regina. We have other things in Halifax. Why are we saying that this agency has to be locked into the national capital region?
.0950
The Chairman: Are there any comments from the members?
Mr. McKinnon, do you wish to speak on it again?
Mr. McKinnon: I'll attempt to articulate the position. That would be that with so many other departments involved in the outcomes of the deliberations of the agency, it was felt that the best and speediest communication would be if the head office were located here in the capital region.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification. You've been saying that clause 9 would end at ``National Capital Region''. That's not what the amendments say.
The Chairman: No, it would end after the words ``National Capital Act''.
Mr. Easter: Okay, I'm clear. Thank you.
The Chairman: That's what the amendment says.
If I might speak, a number of presenters and MPs raised the point that when the clause says ``or in any other location'', it would allow for a minister to move it to any part. The minister could move it to Glace Bay, Vancouver, Belleville; the minister could move it anywhere at all and for whatever reason he or she so desires to do so. I understand this was an attempt to clarify that it can't be moved for those reasons.
Is there any further...? Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Does the government have guidelines on what agencies should be centred in the national capital region and which ones should be established elsewhere?
They do get moved around once in a while. I brought up the Farm Credit Corporation, which I believe used to be here in Ottawa. Under the previous government it was moved to Regina, probably for election purposes.
The Chairman: It didn't go to Regina. Was it Regina?
Mr. Hermanson: Yes.
The Chairman: I'm sorry; I thought it was Winnipeg.
Mr. Hermanson: Are there guidelines? Is this kind of an ad hoc thing? Let's leave this one in Ottawa; let this one be moved around. How does the government make these types of decisions?
You've decided now to move from allowing it to be anywhere to suggesting it should be in the national capital region, I guess for the reasons outlined by Mr. McKinnon, who says that there are enough departments involved so that it needs to be in quite a stable location and can't be moved around. How does your government decide whether it's going to be under the schedule of the National Capital Act or whether it's going to be allowed to move?
The Chairman: I can't tell you, whether I should be speaking as chair or not. All I can say is that obviously the government and the members of the government have decided that's how they want it decided in this case, and they put it in the legislation.
Mr. Hermanson: So it's ad hoc?
The Chairman: I don't know whether you'd call it ad hoc or not. I don't know what's in the other legislation. I don't know when the previous government redid.... I can't remember,Mr. Hermanson, when the Farm Credit Act was amended during the term of the previous government, whether that was addressed or how it is. I'd have to go back and look at the Farm Credit Corporation Act to see whether there was any reference to where the head office should be. I don't know. I can't remember.
Mr. Reed: I think, Mr. Hermanson, you answered your own question. When you spoke of moving a particular agency to some place else, I think you used the words ``for election purposes''.
Now, obviously our government is trying to get away from that. One of the ways to do it is to fix this so that should I become - God forbid - Minister of Agriculture, then I can't move the head office to Georgetown.
The Chairman: Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Mr. Chairman, for some time now we've been talking about efficiencies, how we'll streamline, and all of a sudden we get into a logjam. It just makes good bloody, common sense that we have it in the capital region.
One of the members here said, look, we're bringing a number of agencies under one specific minister. We don't want it all over the place. So, in doing that, hopefully we're going to have the approval of everybody who.... We have come together as a group, and we say this makes good sense. Let's get on with it.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Well, Bernie pretty well made my point, Mr. Chair. But I think it prevents the political opportunism of moving agencies across the country. We've seen Immigration go to Vegreville, we've seen Farm Credit go to Regina -
Mr. Hermanson: GST to Summerside.
Mr. Easter: - and GST to Summerside, yes.
.0955
The problem is, if you're a farm leader, for instance, coming to Ottawa to meet the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and you want to meet a number of other agencies.... I know I used to have the opportunity to meet people from Farm Credit all the time when I came to Ottawa. You don't have that opportunity now. You'd have to go from here to Regina.
So I think it only makes sense to have an agency as all-encompassing as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in Ottawa, and to have it in the act that it's not open to political manipulations out of here for reasons some future government may have.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to prolong this, but I am trying to get it clear in my mind how the department decides whether it should be here or whether it should be allowed to be outside of the capital region. I still haven't gotten a response from the officials as to why -
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, one of the members moved the amendment, and four or more want to speak on it. I don't know how much more you want on that. I'm not going to go much longer.
Mr. Hermanson: I just wanted to -
The Chairman: If any of the officials wish to make a comment, go ahead, and then I'm going to Mr. Calder.
Mr. Doering: This is not a legal matter; it's a policy question. One of the members has suggested, I guess in response to a number of submissions made in the course of committee hearings, that one way to deal with this is to make this change. The suggestion has been made. This is neither a departmental initiative nor a government matter.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you. That clarifies it.
The Chairman: Mr. Calder.
Mr. Calder: To me, it makes common sense that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is in Ottawa, because it represents Canada internationally. Our food standards are known around the world. Why would you want to play political games with this?
As to the FCC and the GST and the issues with that, those are domestic. Those are within the country. This agency right here is going to represent us on the world stage with Canadian quality.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Calder.
If there are no further comments we will vote on the amendment before us, which is on page 11 of the package.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 9 as amended agreed to
On clause 10 - Appointment of members
The Chairman: I believe there are a number of amendments on clause 10, ladies and gentlemen. We will go to the first one in the package, on page 12.
Is there a mover for that amendment?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend Bill C-60 in clause 10 by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:
- 10.(1) Subject to section 10.1, the Minister shall, in consultation with the representatives of
Canadian industries that have an interest in the matter, appoint an
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is made in the same spirit as the other one that was mentioned - I forget which number it was - in consultation with representatives of Canadian industries. I think it was pointed out very clearly that Canadian industries are not the only stakeholders in this game. There is also the public consumer.
.1000
So it seems to me that the same argument we've put forward before really also applies to this one as well.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, in response, with what we know of the industry, the industry itself is more concerned about the safety of our food than any other component of Canadian society is, simply because of the fact that if it's not safe they lose their business. The problem is that there may be a few within the industry who would take short cuts. The industry itself would make sure that it has the very best food inspection agency possible. There's a far greater danger of a slack food inspection agency if patronage plays a role in the selection of these advisory board members than there would be if the industry is consulted.
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I will vote in favour of this amendment moved by the Reform Party. The reasons I'm voting in favour are somewhat like the ones raised earlier to move the agency. You gave up the possibility of being able to move the agency exactly by arguing that favouritism would be avoided then.
So if ever Mr. Reed were to become Minister of Agriculture, he would not be able to move the head office of the agency into his riding. Here, in setting up this advisory committee, we could do a little to eliminate favouritism in the appointment of the advisory committee through ``consultation'' as the minister is not bound by whatever consultation is undertaken. We should support this Reform Party amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm going to call the question on the amendment, if there are no further comments.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: We have another amendment to clause 10. It's on page 13 and it's moved by Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I will not move this amendment at this stage.
[English]
The Chairman: I believe the next one is on page 15 of the package. It's another amendment put before us by Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I am not moving this amendment at this stage.
[English]
The Chairman: The next one is a government amendment and it's on page 16. Is there a mover for that amendment on page 16 and do the officials wish to then speak to it?
Mr. McKinnon: I so move.
The Chairman: Mr. Doering, do you wish to clarify the purpose of that one?
Mr. Doering: Actually, Mr. Chair, this is not a departmental motion. This is a motion made by Mr. McKinnon. As I understand it, it relates to the matter that was raised: that the advisory board's jurisdiction was too limited by limiting it to only those matters that the minister submits to it. This is an effort to address the complaints that were made, as I understand it. What the member must have had in mind was that this is an effort to address the dilemma that the role of the committee was too restricted.
The Chairman: Just for clarification, then, what the amendment does is end subclause 10(2) after the word ``Agency''. It removes the words ``that the Minister submits to it''.
Anyone else? Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, it was recommended to the committee by one of the witnesses that this phrase in fact be removed simply because the advisory board would only be able to act upon direction from the minister and would have no ability to take any initiative on its own.
.1005
Again, I think this is a constructive move similar to the amendments that we have put forward, and therefore we would support the amendment.
The Chairman: Is there anything further?
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Monsieur Chrétien, do you wish to speak to page 17 of the package?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I am not moving this amendment at this stage.
[English]
The Chairman: What about page 18, Monsieur Chrétien?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Same comment, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Page 19, Monsieur Chrétien?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Same comment, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to address page 20?
Mr. Hermanson: Which one are we on? Are we on page 20 or 21?
The Chairman: Page 20.
The clerk informs me that it's another new clause. To save confusion, do we have consent from the committee members that we deal with it here?
Go ahead, Mr. Hermanson. Do you see how caring and cooperative we are?
Mr. Hermanson: After that little blunder at the start, you've been very considerate. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Are you sure it was a blunder? You weren't too sure that it was a blunder earlier, but thank you very much for recognizing it as such.
Mr. Hermanson: I'm still not sure it was a blunder.
Mr. Chairman, I would move that Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 30, on page 3, the following new clause:
- 10.1 No appointment shall be made under subsection 10(1) unless it is approved by a
subcommittee of each of such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or
established to consider
(b) health matters; and
(c) fisheries matters.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the rationale for this amendment is similar to the rationale for the other amendment that we proposed. It would make appointments subject to scrutiny by a subcommittee composed of members from these three areas of interest or responsibility. The purpose again is to bring accountability and to bring purpose to the work of this committee, and to remove the temptation of patronage on the part of the minister when he is putting in place his advisory board.
The Chairman: Do any members wish to speak to that? Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: It's the same debate, so why don't we call the question?
The Chairman: The question has been called.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: I believe that concludes all the amendments before us on clause 10 today. Shall clause 10 as amended carry?
Mr. Hermanson: I'd like a recorded vote, please.
Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4
On clause 11 - Administration and enforcement
The Chairman: We have a number of amendments. On page 21 there is a government amendment, and Mr. Doering may have some comments. Is there a mover for the amendment?
Mr. Collins: I so move.
The Chairman: Mr. Doering, do you or one of your officials wish to speak to that?
Mr. Sylvester: The amendment is necessary because the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act essentially is fed by the other statutes that are listed at clause 11, so it just makes logical sense that this statute should also be administered by the agency.
.1010
The Chairman: Are there any further comments? All those in favour of the -
Mr. Hermanson: Whoa! I have a question here. I just want to make sure that I understand what's happening here. We're adding another act to the list. What additional power or ability does this give this agency to have this act included?
Mr. Sylvester: It's not so much a question of giving it power, if you want to describe it that way, but it gives the agency the administrative function for the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. That act really is an act that's in place to allow for resolution of contraventions flowing from all of these other acts that are listed at clause 11.
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, we just passed this act a few months ago.
Mr. Sylvester: That's correct.
Mr. Hermanson: It actually keeps some infractions out of the court system and allows the minister to impose fines.
Mr. Sylvester: That's correct.
Mr. Hermanson: Is the agency going to be imposing these fines on behalf of the minister?
Mr. Sylvester: The minister retains his role under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, but the agency will administer the mechanics of that act. So this is really just to reflect the change of the minister to the minister responsible -
Mr. Hermanson: Who's the dog and who's the tail here when it comes to imposing these penalties, the minister or the agency?
Mr. Sylvester: It's not affecting any change to the authorities under the AMP Act. Those will remain with the minister.
Mr. Hermanson: So why are we including this act?
Mr. Sylvester: Because the minister's officials responsible for the administration of that act will be housed in the agency, not in the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Hermanson: I understand that.
The Chairman: Hearing nothing further, all those in - oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Are we not including monetary administrative sanctions in this legislation with a view to accelerating the penalties in the case of an offence within the context of this legislation?
Mr. Sylvester: No, I don't think that's the objective. The objective was purely of an administrative order in other words to ensure that the agency's officials had the necessary tools to see to the enforcement and administration of this Act.
Mr. Chrétien: Will only the officials of the new agency come under this act or will the whole industry come under it also?
Mr. Sylvester: Nothing is changed in the legislation as such. It applies as it applied before. There is no substantive change to the Act.
Mr. Chrétien: It was forgotten.
Mr. Sylvester: It's mainly been an oversight, yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any further comments? If not, I'll call the question on this amendment, which is on page 21 in the package.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: The next one is on page 23, since page 22 is the French version of page 21. Page 23 is an amendment put before us by Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Chrétien, do you wish to speak to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: For the same reasons, I shall not introduce this amendment this morning.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. I believe that's the last one before us on clause 11. Shall clause 11 as amended carry?
Clause 11 as amended agreed to
On clause 12 - Separate employer
The Chairman: I'm not aware of any amendments before us on clause 12.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I still have a question on that. I wanted to -
The Chairman: On which one?
Mr. Easter: On clause 12, the separate employer.
I think I raised this with Mr. Doering the other day. I wanted to get the minutes and review what was said on that because I still have the uncanny feeling that labour out there is going to be left in limbo in terms of where they fall. It might have an impact on their collective bargaining rights, so I wonder if you can run through the explanation again. Just where does the separate employer status of this agency leave them under the Public Service Staff Relations Act?
.1015
Mr. Doering: Mr. Chair, I can do that. I'll also ask Ms Pollock to elaborate on my remarks in a moment.
Clause 12, which gives to the agency the automatic right to be a separate employer, means that the agency then has the ability to move to, in effect, clause 13, which is where a variety of other powers would also go. But the policy has already been stated that it is the intention of the government to not proclaim clause 13 - that is, the section that relates to the actual movement to outside of the Public Service Employment Act.
So the effect is that in terms of the actual employees, in the first year there would be no significant change to their situation or to their rights. After that year, when clause 13 is proclaimed, by that time the agency will have done the necessary work in order to take over a number of activities that are currently done under the Public Service Employment Act, primarily by the Public Service Commission.
Did you want me to go back to the basic question, Mr. Easter, about there being three ways to have people stay public servants? They stay under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. There's no change in their status under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The government has persuaded, with respect to one matter relating to redress that could be addressed by Order in Council, that we should deal with that in that way, and there is correspondence being developed in this regard, as we indicated to you last week. But their rights are maintained. The change in the first year is very, very modest.
Ms Pollock.
Ms Sylvia Pollock (Executive Coordinator, Human Resources, Office of Food Inspection Systems, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): If I could help in that matter, the Public Service Staff Relations Act governs most government departments. The agency will fall under that act.
In fact, what that means is that rather than the Treasury Board negotiating with the union, the agency has delegated a number of the powers of the Treasury Board to handle its human resources management matters. So, in fact, the whole collective bargaining process, the rights of employees under that act, are maintained. It's a matter of the agency taking on the authority of the Treasury Board in this regard, but it's all subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, so there are not different rules in terms of collective bargaining and labour management relations in that regard.
The Chairman: Go ahead, and then Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Easter: That clarifies it for me. So basically clause 13 is set aside for a year. Is that what you're saying?
Ms Pollock: Yes.
Mr. Easter: How is that accomplished? Is it by letter exchange at the moment? What assurances do we have that's being done?
Mr. Doering: As a matter of law, Mr. Chairman, the bill will be proclaimed by the government after royal assent. Another clause provides here that it will come into effect at a date to be fixed for proclamation by the government. So after this act receives royal assent, it doesn't come into effect until it's proclaimed. At the time that happens, it is the intention, stated by the government publicly, not to proclaim clause 13. That's the way to achieve the object of having separate employer status provided for under clause 12 but the change relative to the Public Service Employment Act not to take effect for one year.
Mr. Easter: Where do I find that statement?
Mr. Doering: It's in statements by the minister in a variety of places, statements by officials here in this committee on more than one occasion, and letters from the minister to the unions involved. This has been fairly widely distributed. It's contained in the deck that was tabled with this committee in witness and reply on the last day as well, Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: I have a quick question. Does the amendment proposed by the government in clause 16 have any impact on clause 12, on the Public Service Staff Relations Act?
That amendment says:
- Notwithstanding section 9 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act,
the Agency may
Mr. Doering: No, those are separate matters, Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: They don't impact one another?
Mr. Doering: No, we'll explain that in a moment.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you.
.1020
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: It says the president has the authority to appoint the employees of the agency. That would be valid...
[English]
The Chairman: No. We're discussing clause 12.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: - for a year. If I were an official inspecting food, would I have any reason to be concerned? A lot of them are.
As the President has the authority to appoint, will he proceed on the basis of seniority? Will he proceed on the basis of competence or even friendship as the President or first Vice-President and his advisory board are to be appointed by the Governor in Council? How will these appointments be made? There are 3,500. He can ``pack'' those 3,500 the first year and then say that's enough.
[English]
Ms Pollock: We stated in a number of documents, and the minister has confirmed, that the appointment system for the agency will respect the fundamental principles and values that are found in government, i.e., that they'll be made on the basis of merit, that there will be redress for employees, and that the processes will be fair and transparent.
What is happening is the employees, the unions and management, are working on working groups to develop the staffing policy for the agency, so they will have input into this process to ensure that the agency does have a fair and equitable staffing process.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: If I understand fully, the officials with the new agency won't be covered by the old collective agreement of all Canadian public servants. Is that correct?
[English]
Ms Pollock: No. In fact, the collective agreements that they have do go with them to the agency. They have successor rights. The same unions are representing them in the agency.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: With all the benefits?
[English]
Ms Pollock: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: That is an assurance?
[English]
Ms Pollock: Yes. They have a two-year job guarantee as well, which is something additional to any other public servant.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: If, for any reason, the employee were to refuse to follow the new agency, could he remain in a position similar to the one he's in presently with the same benefits?
[English]
Ms Pollock: In terms of what will happen to the employees who refuse job offers, the government policy on that is these are considered reasonable job offers. The employees will have a priority for appointment elsewhere in the government, but should they not find a job, they will no longer be employed in the government after a notice period. So in fact government policy is that these are reasonable jobs, because they have the same benefits and the same duties, and if an employee refuses it, it's considered to have been a reasonable job.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Will the grievance system be usable and used in the way it is presently?
[English]
Ms Pollock: Yes. The grievance procedures are covered under the collective agreements and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which are the same for the employees of the agency.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: The new employees of the agency will be able to use the present grievance system the way they are using it now?
[English]
Ms Pollock: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, and then Mr. Easter.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, clause 12 says the Public Service Staff Relations Act controls the employees. Why did you need clause 13 at all? When does it come into effect? To me it seems to contradict clause 12.
Ms Pollock: Clause 12 relates to all labour relations matters. It deals with classification, pay, and training of employees. Clause 13 relates to the Public Service Employment Act, which relates to all the hiring in government. So they're two different pieces of legislation governing different human resources matters. The second one, subclause 13(1), deals only with the hiring process under the Public Service Employment Act.
Mr. Hoeppner: So that comes into effect when? You're guaranteeing there that -
.1025
Ms Pollock: It will remain for one year, so there's no change in terms of the process for employees. Within that year period, through a process of collaboration between ourselves, the unions, and employees and management, we're developing the new staffing regime for the agency.
Mr. Hoeppner: To me that sounds like it could cause problems, because there are no guidelines set about who is going to have control. It says here:
- The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.
- There's no negotiating, is there?
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, my question would be better under clause 13.
The Chairman: Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions, but I'll just address the one under clause 12 at this point.
I'm wondering if our witnesses could give me a clarification from their perspective of what ``separate employer'' entails in this particular case. Separate from what, for example? I realize we're bringing three departments' officials together in the one agency, but in this case separate from what? They'll be under the same jurisdiction as any other department would be. Can you explain that to me?
Ms Pollock: Yes, I hope in a nutshell.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act has a provision for delegating the authorities of the Treasury Board to what they call a separate employer. All that in essence means is the human resources that the Treasury Board would normally be concerned with, such as collective bargaining and developing all of the human resources policy for all departments, is delegated to a separate employer. All it means is the organization has the powers of the Treasury Board that deal with collective bargaining and developing human resources policy for an organization. But it's all within the established rules, procedures, and regulations of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It's a delegation process of giving an organization the same powers; that's what it is in a nutshell.
Mr. Culbert: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Where is the agreement that the employees will be guaranteed employment for two years?
Ms Pollock: That falls under the workforce adjustment directive of government and the changes that were made as a result of Bill C-31 this summer, changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Hermanson: When does the two years commence? From the time that this agency comes into being?
Ms Pollock: From the time the employees join the agency.
Mr. Hermanson: So if they join the agency in three years, unless that act has been changed -
Ms Pollock: This is applicable to employees who are moving over to the agency now, not to new employees joining the agency.
Mr. Hermanson: But there are some circumstances where they could lose their employment, say, for failure to perform their duties -
Ms Pollock: Yes, the same as they would in the current system.
The Chairman: There were no amendments to clause 12.
Clause 12 agreed to
On clause 13 - President's authority to appoint employees
The Chairman: There is an amendment in our package on page 24 from Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I shall not move that amendment today.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: For the people working for the agency, what legal authority will workers have at that stage to protect themselves? What legal authority do they come under should they have a problem?
Ms Pollock: They will continue to have the legal authorities under their collective agreements and under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Those are the legal authorities. The staffing policy of the agency will be the policy of the agency and they will have rights under that, but it's not a legal authority, so to speak. Their collective agreements and the staff relations act give them the legal authority.
.1030
The Chairman: Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Chairman, to our witnesses, it refers to it in subclauses 13(1), (2) and (3). In the first one:
- (1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.
- - and so on, as everyone reads there in front of them. In many cases - and I just ask the
question - that would say the president or the president's designate would have such authority.
Ms Pollock: In most of the human resources processes there is normally a delegation of authorities to appropriate levels in the organization. I would see that occurring here as well.
Mr. Culbert: So by just stating ``the President'', does that allow for that to happen, in your opinion, without indicating the president or the...?
The Chairman: If we go back to clause 7, which we already discussed, I think it would be covered there, it states:
- 7. The President may delegate to any person any power, duty or function conferred on the
President
Mr. Culbert: Yes, if it's the feeling that that is satisfactory, it covers it.
The Chairman: Clause 7 says ``the President may delegate''.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, getting a kick in the rear from one or the other, it's a kick in the rear nonetheless. If I were an employee directly bound to the future agency, I'd be very concerned with the wording here. I would have even more concerns.
Clause 7 says that the president may delegate his powers, but he is being given a lot here. For example, the president has the authority to appoint the employees and set the terms and conditions of employment and assign duties. The president may designate any person or class of persons as inspectors, veterinaries and so forth.
The lady reassured me somewhat about the employees and how whatever grievances or discontent might arise during the setting up of a new agency would be handled. I know there are many public service employees who are presently worried concerning the setting up of this new agency, and you have reassured me somewhat, but in rereading clause 13 with Mr. Harold Culbert, all of a sudden I'm very worried indeed for any future agency employees.
Could you guarantee, for a second time, that the employees, will be able to regain all the rights they had acquired in the past during previous negotiations between the government and the public service?
[English]
Ms Pollock: In terms of collective bargaining, the rights employees currently have, a collective bargaining process can adjust those rights in the current system even as they would in a system where an agency is delegated the powers of the Treasury Board. If we're talking about inherent rights, things like the right to compete, the right to have fair and transparent human resources processes, the right to redress, those are fundamental things that do not change.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: The government expects it will have saved $44 million after the agency has been in operation for three years. I think that staff will be sacrificed on the altar.
.1035
It was said that 500 employees might eventually lose their jobs with the consolidation of these three departments to set up the new agency. I suppose these 500 people will be the last hired if seniority is taken into account even so slightly in the collective agreements. They will be sacrificed on the altar.
[English]
Ms Pollock: I should confirm again that there are no job losses in the two-year period. The$44 million is within the first year, but for two years employees have guaranteed job security. So they cannot be downsized or laid off. If some employees wish to leave, we can look at options for departures. We have a number of employees who've said they would like to leave. So we feel we will be able to manage that process through the volunteers who wish to leave.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: The Bloc are saving their amendments for report stage, but the amendment does bring up an interesting question under clause 13. They are suggesting the president provide our committee with a detailed report respecting the criteria used in making appointments under subclause 13(1).
How much latitude does the president have and how much is his hiring of staff dictated to him by acts such as the Public Service Staff Relations Act? If he brought a report to this committee, how much of it would be what we already know because he had no choice in the matter, and how much latitude does the president have in the hiring of staff, who he needs, what the responsibilities are and what the terms of employment are - how they were chosen?
Ms Pollock: In fact, I think the annual report of the agency and the business plan of the agency intend to cover off a number of these issues in terms of the human resources strategies of the agency, the charter or code of conduct. They will be put, I guess, before Parliament, because we are tabling the business plan and the annual report in Parliament. They will in fact confirm the criteria or the values, the principles, the agency will use in terms of its human resources management decision-making.
Mr. Hermanson: So there is some latitude.
Ms Pollock: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: That will be in the report to Parliament.
Ms Pollock: Yes, on an annual basis. That report is in fact verified by the Auditor General, if I'm correct, as well.
Mr. Hermanson: That's after the bill is passed.
Ms Pollock: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: Or after the agency comes into being.
Ms Pollock: Timing-wise....
Mr. Doering: Again, Mr. Hermanson, much of the intent - this is an amendment we're not discussing now - of that amendment would be achieved, and was intended to be achieved, through the annual report to Parliament that the agency would be making. It reports every year.
In addition to that, the agency will also have presented, will table - a rather unusual technique, but it's really an effort to enhance its accountability to Parliament - in its business plan in the first year its performance criteria in terms of what it intends to do. Obviously the agency will include in that its HR regime and the criteria it has for staffing. The business plan will have contained within it the code we would use for these matters.
At the end of the first year that will be tabled with the House and the material the agency provides will be subject to review by the Auditor General. So your agent will be able to report to you as well on the adequacy of the information the agency provided. The agency will actually have an enhanced accountability reporting role that does not now exist in regular government departments.
Mr. Hermanson: When do you expect this first report will actually be tabled in the House?
Mr. Doering: As soon as possible after the agency is created. As I said to Mr. Chrétien the other day, it will probably be in March or April.
Mr. Hermanson: Then the first annual report would be the year following.
Mr. Doering: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: It would be March or April of 1998.
The Chairman: Just a second. We have a change in interpretation staff. Do you want to repeat that, Mr. Doering?
.1040
Mr. Doering: We would want the business plan as soon as possible once the agency is created, and then every year the agency will report to the department. Each fall the agency will table its annual report to Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I was listening to the interpretation, but I missed an important point. Could you repeat what you said about two minutes ago?
Mr. Doering: Probably in February or March for the business plan.
[English]
and then each year thereafter there's the regular annual report to Parliament each fall.
Mr. Hermanson: So would the first annual report be in the fall of 1997 or 1998?
Mr. Doering: It would be 1998.
Mr. Hermanson: So the business plan would be in the spring of 1998.
Mr. Doering: No, the spring of 1997.
Mr. Hermanson: So it would be a year and a half.
Mr. Doering: Yes, for the first report. Every year thereafter the agency would make an annual report, as is done now with departments. In that report, according to the act, the agency would be required to give an annual report on how it's doing in terms of the performance indicators it set out in its business plan.
Mr. Hermanson: The business report will be tabled in the House?
Mr. Doering: Yes, by the minister.
Mr. Hermanson: That's in about six months?
Mr. Doering: The way I recall it, it says as soon as possible after the agency is up and running.
Mr. Hermanson: If there's real concern with the business plan, is there enough flexibility in the agency that it can be changed, or is it locked in stone once it's tabled in the House?
Mr. Gerry Derouin (Executive Adviser, Finance, Office of Food Inspection Systems, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): If there are concerns about the business plan, you can invite witnesses and discuss it. I'm not sure what you mean by locked in stone. You can influence the minister as much as you can, but it's tabled and discussed in the same way as the crown corporation's business plan would be discussed.
The appropriations that are laid out in the business plan are appropriations you vote on through the main estimates. You also have another opportunity to call the minister to discuss the main estimates of the agency.
On your question about when the business plan is tabled, we'll have a date of proclamation on the assumption that the first day of operations is April 1, and right after that the business plan will be tabled in the House. We'll allow a full year's operation to go through, and that will allow for about three months of accounting at the end of the fiscal year. We would table the annual report in early fall. I think it's September or October when the public accounts are done, and we'll be in at about the same time.
Mr. Hermanson: So the operating year for the agency would be April to March.
Mr. Derouin: That's right.
The Chairman: Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the union perspective, having served five years in unions, I think the transition they're making is a fair and equitable one. As you go through any transition, there is always a point in time where you've provided for a discussion. You're doing it within the regulations, which are very specific for unions. They have the grievance procedure if they wish to use it. They certainly have every opportunity throughout that year to work out the arrangement that will make a transition fair and reasonable.
My question is this. At the end of that year, if those people who are acting as union negotiators in making this transition cannot come to some reasonable agreement, then what happens? I think that's important for these people to know. At that juncture, does government just proceed and say we've attempted to resolve this, or is there some mechanism for a union to carry that on?
Secondly, as we go through the downsizing, is downsizing included in this group so that they will be dealt with like any other department as that agency has to be reviewed? If it is, I think that would address the concerns of some of these people in committee.
Ms Pollock: With respect to your first question on what happens at the end of the year if there is no compromise or decision, I think we need to continue to work until we come to a point where we have a system that's going to work for all the interested parties. Ultimately, as is the case now, the government or agency could decide to go ahead with the policy that is the best that can be put in place at the time. I suppose that's the fundamental answer to that question.
.1045
The unions still have the right to grieve, to question what has happened. We do not see that occurring. We're working right now on some other policy matters, and we've managed to come to some good agreements in terms of those issues. We see this process is working for us, and we anticipate that it will continue to work for us.
In terms of downsizing, the employees are treated identically to employees in other organizations, with the exception that they have the added protection of the two-year job guarantee. We are also attempting to provide them with some of the departure incentive packages because, as I mentioned, a number of employees wish to leave. If we do look at the $44 million, that may be an option the organization might want to take advantage of. In essence, they would have the same provisions as employees now have in regular government, with the added two-year job guarantee, which is something that no other organization has.
The Chairman: Mr. Collins, do you have a further comment?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Chair, I think that's an element that a lot of people are missing in this whole debate. You have the two-year transition period and it's guaranteed; it's locked in.
I would like to ask one other thing. Is seniority the merit factor you're talking about, or is merit -
Ms Pollock: Merit is based on the competence of the individual. They must meet the qualifications of the job. That's the same process that is now in government and the Public Service Employment Act, and will continue with the agency.
Mr. Collins: I think it's very reasonable.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 16 - Choice of service providers
The Chairman: The amendments to clause 16 are on page 25. There is more than one, I believe. The first one is G-3 on page 25. Is there a mover for that amendment?
Mr. Collins: I so move the amendment on clause 16.
The Chairman: Mr. Doering, would you or one of your officials explain that?
Mr. Doering: It's a very technical amendment. I'd ask our lawyer to speak to it briefly.
Mr. Sylvester: Mr. Chair, this amendment is to reconcile the clause 16 that is in the bill with a provision in the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, which provides that the exclusive responsibility for procuring goods and services rests with the Department of Public Works and Government Services. In order to recognize that role, we've included the notwithstanding language so that we reconcile these two and there aren't any inherent contradictions.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Clause 16 says the agency may be able to procure goods and services, including legal services. What services can the agency procure other than legal services?
Mr. Sylvester: There's a whole variety of services that departments have traditionally procured, as I mentioned, through the Department of Public Works and Government Services. This ranges from maintenance-type services for buildings, paper supplies, and anything you can imagine that the government needs to procure in order to do its business.
The reason legal services is set apart is that there are government contracting regulations stipulating that if you were to seek legal services from outside of the Department of Justice, you would need approval of the Department of Justice to do that. There's some question that the Department of Justice Act also creates a monopoly for the Department of Justice. In order to get around those ambiguities or uncertainties, this specific language was inserted to cover off legal services.
Mr. Hermanson: Are there other services that cannot be procured because of the Public Services Employment Act or other acts, as far as contracting services?
Mr. Derouin: Not that we're aware of. There are several common service providers like Public Works and Government Services in terms of property management. There's Crown Assets Disposal and a few others. The ones that departments and agencies don't have access to are subject to Treasury Board approval, except for two - the procurement one and the justice one. So we need this clause in order to allow the agency to have the option on the full range of services provided by government service providers.
.1050
Mr. Hermanson: I asked that question because if the employees are guaranteed employment for two years and at the same time services can be contracted out, is there any chance that some employees will be underemployed because the agency feels it could procure those services better outside the agency?
Mr. Derouin: Just to remove the ambiguity here, the common service providers we're discussing here are other departments. For example, Public Works does the property management of all of the facilities. The agency, if it chooses, can find a better or more efficient way of having property management done by another agency or private sector firm. It could have the option of finding that other way of doing it. This is not related to the employees of the agency. This is related to common service providers.
Mr. Hermanson: That's what I'm trying to find out. Are there services that they can contract here that normally would be provided by the employees working for the agency?
Mr. Derouin: I don't think so.
Mr. Hermanson: You don't think so?
Mr. Derouin: These are employees of Public Works, Justice and other -
Mr. Hermanson: Those are the only services that come under the Treasury Board.
Mr. Derouin: No, we have Public Works and Government Services to buy our pens and paper and rent our properties. This section allows the agency to find a better and more efficient way to deliver those services and deliver the service itself.
Mr. Hermanson: So the Treasury Board can't recommend services that are currently provided by or would be provided by the employees of the agency. They are restricted from doing that.
Mr. Derouin: No, this clause would allow us to have the employees do that service. Right now it's done by another government department. This gives us the option of finding the best way of doing it.
Mr. Hermanson: To do it within house.
Mr. Derouin: It could be within. It could be getting a private sector firm to come in and manage the properties for us instead of Public Works.
Mr. Hermanson: Does this clause just deal with properties and legal...?
Mr. Derouin: Just the two common service providers - Public Works and Government Services on the procurement side, and the Department of Justice for legal services.
Mr. Hermanson: Where is it stipulated that those are the only services under this clause?
Mr. Derouin: Right here it says ``procure goods and services'' under PWGSC.
Mr. Hermanson: But it doesn't say that in this clause.
Mr. Derouin: PWGSC is the only department that can procure goods and services for the government. And legal services, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, is the Department of Justice.
Mr. Hermanson: So there's no problem of overlap or...?
Mr. Derouin: No.
Mr. Doering: That is what this technical amendment is intended to address, Mr. Hermanson. There is no overlap. It's clear that this is what would prevail here. As well, nothing in this section affects the two-year job guarantee.
Mr. Hermanson: Okay.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Chrétien: I still have concerns. With this amendment, the government could buy goods and services everywhere in Canada and you wouldn't even have to call for tenders.
I remember that during the 1993 election campaign, the Prime Minister wanted to do better than the Conservatives in his Red book but, three years later, we can see that he's doing worse than the Conservatives and, with this clause 16, we're helping him to do worse still. Do you agree with me?
Mr. Sylvester: There are two things to be said about clause 16. Please note that at the beginning of the clause it spells out that it is ``with the approval of the Governor in Council given on the recommendation of the Treasury Board'' that this will be done on this clause 16. Before giving that approval, Treasury Board will surely see to it that the regulations applying to calls for tender will also apply to the calls for tender issued by the agency.
Mr. Chrétien: Are you serious? You believe everything you're saying? It's going to be done in that way?
Mr. Sylvester: It's going to be done in that way. That is the intent of clause 16. That's why that clause was put in at the front end of the bill. It's to give reassurance.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
.1055
Mr. Easter: Mr. Doering, you said nothing in this clause affects the two-year job guarantee. If Public Works is now doing the work, say, at the lab in Charlottetown, are they protected as well under the two-year job guarantee, or is it only those employees? I assume that work is under Public Works and wouldn't be under the agency.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, on a point of clarification, are you talking about employees in the lab or the services that Public Works provides the lab?
Mr. Easter: I'm talking about the services provided by Public Works now at that lab.
Does that two-year job guarantee apply to them or just to those who are currently in the employ of the agency?
Mr. Doering: Just under the agency, Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter: Okay, thanks.
Mr. Doering: But the people who are actually working in the labs will be working for the agency.
Mr. Easter: Yes, I realize that, but I just misinterpreted what you were saying.
Mr. Hermanson: They're all going to have to move to Ottawa anyway.
Mr. Doering: Just the headquarters, Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Easter: Yes, just the headquarters.
Mr. Hermanson: Oh, they'll move it all here; just watch.
Mr. Easter: They couldn't move the best lab in the country here.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions on the amendment to clause 16, number 25 in the package?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: On page 27 there's a further amendment to clause 16.
Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: At this stage, I will abstain from supporting or introducing this motion.
[English]
Clause 16 as amended agreed to
On clause 17 - Intellectual property
The Chairman: There's an amendment in our package from Mr. Chrétien.
It's a new clause, is it?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I will not move my motion today.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay.
Clause 17 agreed to
On clause 18 - Interim injunction
Mr. Hermanson: I just want to get some clarification on clause 18. It says:
- The Agency may apply to a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction for an interim injunction
enjoining any person from contravening an Act or provision that the Agency enforces or
administers by virtue of section 11, whether or not a prosecution is being instituted in respect of
that contravention.
- Section 11 lists all those acts, doesn't it?
Mr. Hermanson: We talked earlier about the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Would this short-circuit that act? Would they be taking some legal action that would somehow have a bearing on the ability of penalties to be imposed under AMPs?
Mr. Sylvester: No, I don't think so, Mr. Hermanson.
The Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, as you know, is not in force yet. Regulations will be developed to designate certain contraventions as being AMP-able, if I can use that language, but there is no intersection here between the two.
This clause 18, the interim injunction, is made available really for those situations where we can't enforce the way one would traditionally enforce, through a prosecution or through AMPs, for example, because of the circumstances surrounding the incident leading to the allegation that there's been an offence.
We're providing an opportunity to apply for an interim injunction to prevent contravention from taking place. It's situated a little bit before we get into the enforcement stage, which is when we would use AMPs or prosecution, either one of those streams.
Mr. Hermanson: That's why I asked the question. When you talk about interim injunction, you're thinking about an emergency. You have to act quickly.
Mr. Sylvester: That's correct.
Mr. Hermanson: I'm wondering if, in such cases where you have to act quickly, that would somehow have an impact on the administrative monetary penalties. Perhaps if you implement an interim injunction, you will throw something into the legal system that would have otherwise gone into AMPs, and you will short-circuit the AMPs process as a result.
.1100
Mr. Sylvester: I would come back to the point I made that this is an extraordinary remedy designed for extraordinary circumstances. The AMPs system is certainly available. You will note that at the tail end of clause 18, we can use the interim injunction ``whether or not a prosecution has been instituted in respect of that contravention''. So it doesn't bar resolving the issue later through either the traditional prosecution stream or through AMPs. The idea is to freeze circumstances as they are through the interim injunction to prevent a serious situation from occurring.
Mr. Hermanson: Give me an example of where this may come into play. We've just got the E. coli bacteria in apple juice coming into Vancouver. Is that an instance where something like an injunction may be put in place, to stop that if the store wouldn't take it off the shelf or something?
Mr. Sylvester: I think the officials from the agency have a couple of examples of why this injunctive relief power was desirable.
Mr. Beaver: There are no specific examples, but these are extraordinary measures. Where there is a fundamental disagreement between the importer or the company and the government as to the danger, the minister would, under this provision, have at his disposal a measure that could be used very quickly. The dispute wouldn't drag on and public safety wouldn't be at risk. The minister can go to the court and ask the court to impose an injunction to get the product off the market.
In most cases it's voluntarily handled and the system works reasonably well. As we were going through the summer and collecting together our best thoughts for how the agency would work, the injunction and the next clause, clause 19, which applies to recall orders, were two areas where the Canadian law is not as good as it could be. We're using this opportunity to set that straight.
Mr. Hermanson: So if this injunction is used to pull that apple juice off the shelf and it looks like that company, that distributor or that grocery store should be fined under the AMPs, the act can still kick into place even though there's some legal wrangling going on under this because of this injunction, and there may be suits and countersuits and who knows what all.
Mr. Beaver: That's correct. You're just applying to the court. All the rights of individuals and companies are protected by the court, but you have to act quickly. In a dangerous situation when you can't get the company to do what you're asking them to do, you can ask the court to help you along with that. After that process, you can use the courts and other means to continue the discussion with the company.
Mr. Hermanson: If the injunction is still in place, can AMPs be initiated? Or does the injunction have to be settled and then you go to the other act?
Mr. Sylvester: Let's remember, it's an interim injunction. It's the kind of thing that in my view would not be granted for a long period of time. It would be a short-term response to a crisis situation, and then you'd go back to your traditional methods of enforcement.
We should also note that there's a test for the issuance of injunctions. The courts will not issue them in a casual way. They'll have to be satisfied that there is a serious issue before them, that the balance of convenience is in favour of issuing the injunction, and also that the question of irreparable harm is considered. There's a standard test that the courts have developed for issuing injunctions. The party who is a subject to this kind of order will of course have an opportunity to make representations as to whether or not the injunction should be issued.
It really is a temporary measure for when we are not able to pursue the traditional enforcement mechanisms because of difficult circumstances in the field.
Mr. Hermanson: If this wasn't in here, what would we be doing in the interim?
Mr. Sylvester: I think it could be argued that the Attorney General could always go, as a matter of common law, before the courts to seek an injunction. This is for greater certainty. It gets us past one of those loops where the agency actually can go and apply. Again, it allows for speedy action when speedy action is necessary.
Mr. Hermanson: If the agency fails to act under this power, does the government or does someone still have the power to intervene? If the agency doesn't act, is there no other avenue we can take to deal with such a matter?
Mr. Sylvester: Again, as a matter of common law, I would think the Attorney General could seek an injunction in its own right. This ability to go and seek an injunction, strictly speaking, isn't limited to the agency. The idea here is to situate that lever with the agency, with those who are responsible for ensuring public health and safety.
Mr. Hermanson: It's very likely, though, that if the agency has this power, the agency would be the one to use it.
Mr. Sylvester: I would think so, but again it's a very extraordinary measure that would be used only in exceptional circumstances.
The Chairman: Mr. Collins.
.1105
Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, for the members of the committee, let me just cite an example, and maybe you can help me. I can understand the expediency of implementing this kind of thing.
For example, say someone's bringing llamas into Canada and he gets them here and then somebody says, just a minute, we did another check and this isn't copacetic; we want you to ship them all back. In the area of fairness, I want to be assured that it's fairness on both sides of the fence, fair for the government and fair for that private citizen. What I have seen is that in this particular case, this fellow has been virtually stalled for eight months while somebody's doing a review. Then when the review is done, somebody says there's just one other little area that we'd like you to throw in here.
I don't mind, and I commend government officials. All I'm saying is that every time we get something cleared away we find somebody who asks them to do something else. Here is a person who has spent a hell of a lot of money, come up with his game plan and gotten it all in place, and then we threw another wrinkle in. Where do we see the fairness? I used that example because I think it's one that highlights the other side of the argument. We want to move expediently to put this in place and say hold it; we need a court injunction. But where's the reasonableness?
Mr. Sylvester: I would respond to that question simply by pointing to the courts and the tests for issuance of injunctions, which I adverted to in my previous comments. The courts will only issue an injunction where they're satisfied that there is a serious issue, grounds for issuing an injunction in the exceptional circumstances to stop the activity, as you say.
Secondly, there's a balance of convenience. In other words, whose ox is going to get gored the deepest here? The courts will weigh that and finally they'll look at the question of irreparable harm. If the party who is the subject of the injunction would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were issued, then the courts will certainly weigh that before they issue that injunction. So the fairness comes into it from the bench.
Mr. Collins: May I just go on to one other point?
The Chairman: Very quickly, please. We're already over our time. We'd better discuss how long we're going to stay here.
Mr. Collins: In a particular case in point, the individual went to court and got a ruling and then government comes back and says it's not happy with the ruling, so it's going to have another go at him. I'm just saying that if that's the mechanism, I have a tad of concern. I don't suggest that it shouldn't be there, but I think we'd better be using it with a hell of a lot of discretion. When you talk about whose ox is being gored, the guy who's paying big bills down there feels you're after him. I just throw that in.
The Chairman: There were no amendments to clause 18. Shall clause 18 carry?
Mr. Hermanson: I have a comment here. Do you want to carry on and finish clause 18 or do you want to come back to it?
The Chairman: We're going to finish it.
Mr. Hermanson: This clause was considered in the brief by the Canadian Food, Beverage, Consumer Goods and Services Industry Coalition. They state that the statutes enforced by the agency all contain powers of seizure and the provision of an explicit injunction power is considered to be excessive. In other words, they say you already have the power to go in and seize any goods. Why are you asking for this additional power on top of the powers already given to the agency? It seems like a reasonable question on their part. They said in their brief that we have an effective system now, so why are we adding this additional power of an interim injunction?
Mr. Beaver: Seizure is a remedy that's still available and would still be available after injunction. Injunction is a different form of remedy. It's where you seek action through the courts. The problem with seizure is often that the way it's applied now, in some cases, it's relatively difficult to identify whether the product has been distributed.
.1110
So there are some problems with seizure, but it really is another remedy. This is a case where you're trying to prevent shipping or distribution.
Mr. Hermanson: You don't feel this is excessive.
Mr. Beaver: These are fairly excessive measures, yes, but we're dealing with public health and safety here, and sometimes excessive measures are needed. That's the rationale that's put before us today.
Mr. Hermanson: I think I'd have to look at this clause a little bit more before I'd be prepared to support it.
If you're going to call the vote, it would be on division.
The Chairman: Okay.
Clause 18 agreed to on division.
The Chairman: Members, we have gone past the time you probably had allocated for the meeting today, 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. The room is available for a little longer. Could I ask for an indication from members as to how many can stay until 11:30 a.m.?
Mr. Hermanson: I'd rather we adjourned. I understand the Auditor General is looking at the Western Grain advance payments, and we'd like to have a little time to review that.
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: I am now late for another standing committee meeting. I suggest we reschedule this meeting.
The Chairman: Okay.
I want to keep going on this, so this is what we will do. We will set aside the presentation that was to be made at the meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. and we will continue with the clause-by-clause on this bill.
As much as we'd like to get through this, in fairness to members, usually we only have the room for two hours. We found out only later today that it was available past 11 a.m.
We will now adjourn and resume clause-by-clause tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.