Evidence of meeting #94 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was version.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you for that.
Before I go to Mr. Moore, I just want to say that I think the explanation Madam Shen gave was very helpful for me and the committee in understanding the differences between English and French, the fact that legislation is prepared at the same time, and that these are not translations.
A lot of times, the members or the public think you prepare it in one language and then translate it, so why are there inconsistencies if you're translating it? However, the fact is that both languages are prepared at the same time by different people, with the aim of trying to produce the same kind of document. As you said, we're not machines. Sometimes a different word here or there is not exactly perfect.
The other thing you said was that these texts were prepared a few decades ago. The language changes and gets modified. That's in any language, not just English or French or whatever language it is. I think that was very helpful to hear.
We're now on a different topic, but I did want to make that comment and also, quite frankly, to thank you and all the team who've come here to help us with what's in front of us. I think it was last done in 2017, which was many years ago, so I thank you for that.
I will now go to Mr. Moore.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have a question for our witnesses, but I'll maybe turn back to you too with regard to the process.
If we as a committee flag a particular clause that we wish to not advance, what is the amending process on that? How do we pull that clause and say that we will pass the bill except for that clause?
Clauses 13, 33 and 34 have been flagged.
First, clause 13 relates to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act:
A member of the Commission ceases to hold office on reaching the age of seventy years.
That would be repealed.
Likewise, clause 33 relates to the Farm Products Agencies Act:
A person who has reached the age of seventy years is not eligible to be appointed a member of the Council and a member thereof ceases to hold office on reaching the age of seventy years.
Clause 33 and 34 remove that requirement.
Our witnesses said that they can be substantive. That's substantive. To say that someone has to retire upon turning 70 or 71, or that they can continue on in their role, is a substantive change. I'm not saying we couldn't make that substantive change, but it's up to us to balance what is substantive and what isn't and what is controversial and what isn't. If you're someone who's waiting for someone's mandatory retirement before your appointment to one of these commissions, and then we change the rule or don't change the rule, it has an impact on that individual.
If the explanation is that removing this requirement around age is the direct result of perhaps a court case—maybe someone challenged the mandatory retirement and the court struck it down and now we're just simply reflecting the decision of the court—that's one thing, but to me, these three particular amendments are substantive, number one, and they could also be controversial. Mandatory retirement in many different fields can become a controversial subject. Even here, we have mandatory retirement for senators at age 75.
Unless there is an explanation, Madam Chair, I think that crosses the line. The amount of time we're focusing on this is just one day. I would want to consult here more broadly, with experts, unless it's simply a matter of reflecting what is currently the case. Otherwise, if it's changing the law, I think we would have to reject it.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you.
Are there any comments on that point? If there's anything further to clarify on that specific point, I would say that it would be very helpful for the committee.
I believe I said this last time, but this is just to be clear and to answer your question on the process. I want to remind you that what we do here has to be adopted unanimously, meaning unanimously, by all committee members in order to be carried in the bill and introduced in the House. If any change is not unanimous, it will be reported to the House and it will not be in the bill to follow.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
No. It's that whatever is not unanimous in here will not be part of the bill.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Someone would have to move a motion that we adopt this unanimously, save—
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Save exactly what is not.... That's correct.
Ms. McAteer, perhaps you have some clarification or something to help us.
11:50 a.m.
Julie McAteer Director, Parliamentary Relations and Portfolio Coordination, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Good morning. Thank you for the question.
My name is Julie McAteer. I'm the director of parliamentary affairs and portfolio coordination with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.
It's the department's position that the mandatory age requirement that is currently in the legislation isn't compliant with the Canadian Human Rights Act, given that the section that previously allowed mandatory retirement as an exception to discrimination in employment was repealed in 2011.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Director, Parliamentary Relations and Portfolio Coordination, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
It's currently in the Farm Products Agencies Act as well as the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, although I do understand the one pertaining to the Canadian Dairy Commission was brought up in the Senate. From what I understand, it has been removed. Today we are specifically speaking of only the Farm Products Council.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
That raises the question of.... The Senate considered this. I didn't watch the Senate hearings, believe it or not, but somehow they chose to pull the mandatory requirement for dairy and yet left it in for the Farm Products Agencies Act. Senators who may not be involved in either of those areas at all—in dairy or farm products—somehow made the decision to pull this change for the dairy side.
Do you know what rationale there was for them to pull one and allow the other? Was it just an oversight because they were focused on the dairy aspect and didn't focus on the other?
I understand what you're saying, which is that it's in compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act, or it may be in compliance with it, but to me, this one is a bit more substantive.
There are a lot of changes in law that a department could make, purporting to stay in line with human rights legislation or judicial decisions, etc., but they are pretty substantive for us to deal with. There was a rationale at some point for why that was put in there. There's a rationale for why we have a mandatory retirement age for senators and for airline pilots. Why it applies to the dairy commission, I don't know.
Do you know why the one was pulled and the others were allowed to advance? Was it really considered at all?
11:50 a.m.
Director, Parliamentary Relations and Portfolio Coordination, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Unfortunately, I can't speculate as to the motive behind that motion that was put forward by the Senate.
February 12th, 2024 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm back on clause 35. I understand from the response that you were going to get back to me.
I went to look into section 2 of the Farm Products Agencies Act, which is the reasoning behind this change from people “engaged in the marketing of any regulated product” to anybody who is “engaged in the growing, production or marketing of” the product.
Under section 2 of the Farm Products Agencies Act today, a “marketing plan means a plan relating to the promotion, regulation and control of the marketing of any regulated product” including the following: “the determination of those persons engaged“ in the regulated product, “the specifications of those acts that constitute the marketing of the regulated product” and “the marketing of the regulated product on a basis that enables the agency” that is implementing the plan, etc.
To me, it's clear that this is focused entirely on marketing and marketing agencies, an agency that markets, an office of commercialization. All of these references don't include growing. I think that's a huge creep in scope.
I think the reference to producing is also potentially problematic. I think the packaging of things can be considered part of marketing, but producing things is not. I'm not comfortable at all with clause 35 and I would make a motion that we not include it.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Do any other members, virtually or in person, have any questions?
Go ahead, Mr. Fortin.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am in fact in favour of what our colleague Mr. Moore was asking about.
I also think that the bill that would enable us to make the requested corrections would apply to those on which we managed to agree unanimously, as you said, Madam Chair, because they are not on substantive issues.
As for amending the retirement age, I too understand that the charters are a good reason to make this correction. However, shouldn't it go through the usual legislative process, meaning the introduction of a bill that goes through all the reading phases in the House, the review in committee, and so on?
I understand from Ms. McAteer's testimony that we don't have any explanation of why the mandatory retirement age was repealed in one instance but not the other, and yet we're prepared to make this correction. Isn't that a little reckless? Shouldn't we take the time to do things properly, even though there is a 95% likelihood that at the end of the exercise, we would agree to the amendment you moved this morning?
I'm somewhat ill at ease with making the change simply because it appears to make sense on the surface. I' d like to hear arguments both for and against this correction.
What do you think?
11:55 a.m.
Director, Parliamentary Relations and Portfolio Coordination, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Thank you.
Thank you for the question.
Given that it wasn't compliant with the Canadian Human Rights Act, we asked that it be included. However, we will respect the wishes of the committee should it be seen that it is better placed elsewhere.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you for your answer, but that wasn't exactly my question. In your opinion, would it not be a little careless of us to agree to this amendment before it was studied at all phases of the process to ensure that we understand the situation?
The courts often strike down provisions on various grounds, such as being contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, that's precisely what courts do. Our role is to be legislators. If we decide to change the retirement age simply because we think that a court might at some point order such a change, then it seems to me that we're not doing our job.
Don't you think we should be able, in our legislative capacity, to understand why we have ended up with a change to one statute but not another, to ensure that we come to the right decision?
Am I being overly cautious about this?
11:55 a.m.
Director, Parliamentary Relations and Portfolio Coordination, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I wouldn't ever comment on whether you're being cautious or not. As a public servant, I can't necessarily give you my opinion. What I do is present facts, which is what we have been doing here.
11:55 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
I'd like to add that this is precisely why the process exists. If there is an objection to a proposal, it will be withdrawn. It's up to the legislator to decide whether a proposal should be discussed in greater depth.
