Mr. Speaker, again it is a pleasure to rise on debate and for a change it seems we have a real debate in the House. We have reasoned proposals, in this case from both sides of the House. We get to debate back and forth with a give and take that I had hoped would be more common in the House of Commons. It has been a good exercise and I hope the government is listening attentively.
We should realize the intent of this amendment is to clarify and to specify the powers that the minister would have. It is not an effort to take away or make the minister ineffective. It is only an effort to clarify the powers that he would have.
I would like to point out the necessity of this. We think back even just a few weeks ago of a case where a producer had his records seized. Someone came right into his home, seized his records and used what in essence was another department or another agency as an excuse to enter someone's home, confiscate their records on the chance there might be something in there and really indirectly get at a producer who is trying to get some work done, get some sales done.
Whenever we have inspection services or other intrusive government policies, some of which we all admit are necessary, they need to be very specific because if they are not they can be used in a roundabout way to affect producers in a negative fashion.
I would hope that the government and the members on the government side would realize that this amendment is not an effort to take away all the powers of the minister. It is merely an effort to specify those powers so that producers, people within the department of agriculture covered by these 35 acts that were spoken of earlier will all know what those powers are. I would support this motion. I think it is an excellent one and I have enjoyed the debate. I hope the government side has been listening closely.