Debates of Oct. 26th, 1995

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

No, I do not want to get into a debate today. You have both made your points.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 21 and 22.

Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are resuming debate on report stage of Bill C-61. I believe we are at the final grouping of the amendments put forward by my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for Lotbinière. My colleagues and I can support the two amendments because they are amendments we considered. Had not the Bloc submitted them I believe we would have introduced them.

Prior to question period I listened to debate on the two amendments by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. I confess that I disagree with almost everything the hon. member said.

He did not seem to want more accountability in our system. He did not want public servants in quasi-judicial bodies to be accountable or more accountable to Parliament. He did not want the role of members of Parliament in committees to be increased. It seems it would be too burdensome for the hon. member and too onerous for this astute body to look into the affairs of government, hold it accountable and diligently watch what it is doing.

The red book, if I recall correctly, promised some parliamentary reform. We got into that issue to a degree earlier in question period. Perhaps it is appropriate to raise the subject at this time. The red book talked about parliamentary reform and about strengthening the roles of parliamentary committees.

The two amendments the hon. member put forward would cause the appointment of members to the tribunal to be ratified or reviewed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. In my eyes that would seem to comply with the red book promise of giving the committees more responsibility and giving the committees a more meaningful role, making them more than window dressing as they have been notoriously described in the past.

I expected members on the other side to have applauded the proposal, but the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River seemed disconcerted by the suggestion that standing committees would have more work to do and would play a more responsible role in the life of Parliament.

The role of parliamentary committees is more of a babysitting service for Liberal backbenchers. And prior to that it was a

babysitting service for the Conservative backbenchers, something to keep them busy while those in the cabinet ran the affairs of the country, something to keep them away from the decision-making process, something to keep them away from the actual development of legislation, the meaningful review of bills in the committee and meaningful clause-by-clause study of bills and an interest builder in the actual departments of government that were held responsible to review and investigate and monitor.

In our particular committee, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we received wrong information from the parliamentary secretary, which seems to indicate to me that the department, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or whoever was responsible did not feel the work of the committee was that important. They did not really do their homework that well.

We went through clause by clause on Bill C-61. It was kind of a scripted thing where the member for Dauphin-Swan River jumped in at the appropriate time with the amendments that were supported by the government and Liberal members sort of turned off their minds. We could see the lights going out, that they were going to accept these amendments and no others. In fact that is why we brought our amendments to report stage rather than in the committee. Experience has taught us that introducing meaningful amendments in the committee is a waste of time. The minister is not there to review the amendments to see if they are acceptable. The government does not want any possible changes to the legislation without a lot of scrutiny. It does not trust backbenchers to have minds that could actually propose some constructive amendments in clause-by-clause or in the committee stage. This is just a make-work project for the backbenchers.

What these amendments put forward in Group 5 would in fact accomplish is the committee would have a meaningful job to do of reviewing appointments to the tribunal that would be an appeal body for the administrative monetary penalties should someone who has violated the regulations of Agriculture Canada so appeal to that tribunal. That makes a lot of sense. That is moving this House of Commons and the members of Parliament to more meaningful work, a more direct contact with the administration of government. It is more of a hands on role. It is a role with which members can go back to their constituents and say they have something to do that counts and is important.

The Liberal government does not seem willing to give the committees the added responsibility. The promises in the red book ring pretty hollow if in fact these two amendments are not passed.

The minister and his departmental officials have said that the spirit of Bill C-61 is good, that they have good intent. I believe them. I believe they have good intent. I believe they want this new process of administrative monetary penalties and compliance agreements to work to reduce the onerous burden on our justice system. I believe they do want it to work. I believe it is also paramount that in giving these powers to his department, his public servants, and to himself as minister, it is also responsible to put some parameters around that authority and responsibility that are reasonable and responsible.

In summing up my response not only to these two amendments but to the entire bill, it all fits together. What we have tried to do is build those reasonable fences around the bill that allow enough latitude within for the minister and his department to effectively administer the powers they receive under Bill C-64.

Why they would not want the committee on agriculture and agri-food to play a more meaningful role in the ratification of appointees to the tribunal is beyond my understanding. It just seems to be the mindset of this government. I think it is wrong. I think it is unfortunate. It is sad. Perhaps it is even part of the reason we are experiencing some trouble right now.

I would appeal to the minister and the members to reverse this trend, to start to make government more open, more transparent, to make the public service more accessible and accountable to not only the ministers but to all members of Parliament. Therefore, I would support these two amendments. I would heartily endorse these two amendments and ask other members in the House to do the same.

[The Speaker]

We are discussing Group 5, Motions 21 and 22.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to deal with Motions 21 and 22, but I do want to take issue with a couple of the comments made by the last speaker, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Earlier today we were talking about being reasonable in this House. We did in fact agree with some of the amendments put forward by the hon. member in the third party. After the comments he made in his last remarks, one would wonder why we would be reasonable. He commented that in putting amendments forward on behalf of the government the Liberal members merely put them forward and the lights went out. Those amendments had taken serious consideration of the discussions, what the department had said and what our members had said, the discussion that Reform members had brought forward before the committee. Those amendments were given due consideration and were well thought out and do indeed improve the bill, as do some of the amendments put forward by the third party.

He also alluded to, and I want to take issue with it, the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. I want to say, having sat in on those meetings, that the parliamentary secretary tried to provide the comments from the community. In response to the member that night, when Bill C-61 came out the department issued a release to quite a number of organizations that had raised concerns. It issued an overview of that particular bill. Having been a leader in the farm community myself for a number of years, I know organizations look at that overview, look at the draft legislation, and respond

accordingly. I believe they did have the opportunity to respond, and the parliamentary secretary was trying to outline to committee members the views of the community. I respect him for having done that.

I do want to say that we on the government side of that committee have considered these amendments very seriously, including those from the third party.

As to the motions we are now debating, I want to state that I oppose those particular amendments. The minister spoke earlier on another amendment and I think his comments apply to these particular amendments. The manner of appointments of members of the review tribunal by the governor in council that is set out in this bill follows a well established practice, endorsed by courts of law, of assuring the independence of the tribunal from outside interference.

This is what is so important in terms of the appointment of members to committees. I know from previous experience that there is nothing more difficult than appointing members and trying to do it in a balanced, fair, and equitable way. If we had members of the committee trying to push certain members to be appointed to committees for political or other reasons, we would be into very great difficulty indeed in terms of trying to find balance on committees.

In terms of appointments to tribunals and so on, the minister is always accountable and responsible. Therefore, he takes a great deal of discretion in terms of making those appointments. I can tell you that if the minister appointed the wrong individual, the first ones standing up in this House would be members of the opposition, complaining about that appointment and trying to hold the minister accountable and responsible. But how could the minister be held accountable and responsible for appointments pushed by committee members and sometimes by the opposition parties? I think that as a committee we would be in difficulty.

I know the intent of the member for Lotbinière is good. The objective he is putting forward is good. However, it is very problematic in terms of how it would work in practice. Let me give an example.

I am from P.E.I. and the hon. member is from Quebec and we both might be pushing two individuals for our own reasons for our own provinces. It could create confusion and problems on the committee. It would take a lot of committee time unnecessarily. I prefer the present approach: hold the minister accountable and responsible for those appointments. That is how it should be.

Let me make a couple of other comments in opposition to the amendments.

The bill does require that members of the tribunal have technical qualifications related to the area of agriculture and agri-food and are not in a position of conflict of interest relative to the matters before them. To ensure that people are not found to be in a conflict of interest, it means their backgrounds and résumés must be examined. It is much better to do that in a private forum, rather than in the public forum the committee entails.

Having the standing committee approve all appointments would raise a number of concerns. First, the time required to deal with the committee recommendations might add considerably to the length of time required to make the appointments.

Second, the committee might refuse to recommend any of the incumbents to these positions, effectively preventing the positions from being filled. As I mentioned earlier, the opposition to incumbents might be based purely on political reasons rather than sound judgment in terms of the ability of the individual to do the job.

Third, I think this kind of amendment would be a move toward a more American style of government. In the past we have seen what incumbents who are looking for positions go through when they appear before boards and committees. Sometimes individuals who could do an effective job are lost because of the process. I think that is wrong.

Finally, a committee debate on the selection of tribunal members could be conducted in public and might involve hearing witnesses, raising privacy concerns, and possibly deterring applicants from even considering sitting on these tribunals.

I know the amendments are put forward in good will. I know the intent to be more productive is there, but I believe they would be problematic. On those grounds, I oppose these amendments.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, we have been considering the various amendments to Bill C-61 at report stage since 10 a.m., which has given us over four hours of very detailed discussion. For the most part, that discussion has been quite useful.

As the member for Malpeque mentioned, during the course of the debate and discussion the government has in fact accepted at least three of the proposals put forward by the opposition pertaining to various administrative matters in the legislation.

On the final two motions that are now before the House, Motions 21 and 22, I think the arguments advanced by the member for Malpeque are very convincing and sustainable arguments as to why these two motions should not be among those that are accepted.

I might elaborate on one of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Malpeque, which is the distinction between the Canadian parliamentary system of government and the American congressional system of government.

Under the American system there is a certain method for making appointments. It involves in certain circumstances public hearings before congressional committees. In Canada traditionally we have not taken that approach. One of the reasons we have not taken that approach is the difference between the congressional system in the U.S., which has a different system of checks and balance on the whole executive authority of government, and our parliamentary system, which has a very fundamental rudder to it. You see it from your chair every day, Mr. Speaker, in question period. That is a characteristic absolutely unique to our system.

Members of the U.S. cabinet never have to appear in a public forum like the House of Commons. They appear from time to time in carefully controlled circumstances before congressional committees. Members of the American cabinet are not members of the American Congress and therefore are not present in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. They are aloof, separate and apart from the legislative branch of the American government.

The Americans have an array of checks and balances they believe holds their system together quite appropriately. That is their system. It is a different system. They do not have the open forum of Parliament in which every day Parliament sits the ministers of the crown are in the House to face the accountability of the opposition in the open question period. It is a unique feature of our system, one that argues very well for our system as compared to theirs.

That distinction, among others, is one of the reasons we should reject the kind of administrative suggestions proposed in these two motions and stick to the bill as it is presently before the House.

Earlier in the day the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster raised questions about certain comments made in committee by my parliamentary secretary. I answered fully those questions with respect to the views expressed by my parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has once again in his most recent intervention repeated the allegations without indicating that those allegations have already been completely and fully answered in the House. They ought not to be repeated without the indication that they have been answered. I answered them earlier today. He was not paying attention.

The hon. gentleman also engaged in general criticism. I hope he did not mean it seriously. It was general criticism about the conduct of government members with respect to the work done on the bill in committee.

From my experience as a minister the government members who worked very hard on the bill took their responsibility very seriously. Apart from the hours they spent working on the bill in committee, they spent additional hours doing their homework in their offices, writing letters, asking questions, getting answers and understanding the legislation so that when they went to the committee they were well prepared to deal with the issues in a thoroughly conscientious and efficient manner.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster criticized them for being "well organized". I commend our members for being well organized. I know the depth in which they studied the legislation because I was the one inundated by their questions as to how to put the legislation together in the best and most proper fashion.

Government members have done extraordinarily well in ensuring the legislation came out in a way which serves the national interest.

[The Speaker]

We are dealing with group No. 5, Motion No. 21. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We are now dealing with Motion No. 22. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.