Question.
House of Commons Hansard #248 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was privacy.
House of Commons Hansard #248 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was privacy.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Question.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
The question is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Nay.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the yeas have it. That was easy. The yeas have it.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
I declare the motion carried on division.
(Motion No. 20 agreed to.)
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Nay.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-61, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 14, with the following:
"nor in Council with the approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural matters, one of whom shall be ap-".
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-61 in Clause 29 be amended by adding immediately after line 6, on page 14, the following:
"(1.1) No person may be appointed to the Tribunal by the Governor in Council without the prior approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to agriculture."
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-61, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.
I will explain Motions Nos. 21 and 22, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. These motions seek to limit the discretionary power of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Clause 29 of Bill C-61 provides that the chairperson and members of the review tribunal are appointed by the governor in council. Motion No. 21, tabled by us, provides that Bill C-61, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 14, with the following:
"nor in Council with the approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural matters, one of whom shall be ap-".
As for Motion No. 22, it provides that Bill C-61, in Clause 29, be amended by adding immediately after line 6, on page 14, the following:
"(1.1) No person may be appointed to the Tribunal by the Governor in Council without the prior approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to agriculture".
These proposed changes seek to establish a more transparent process regarding the appointment of the tribunal's members and chairperson. We cannot let the minister appoint members alone. I strongly objected to that a few moments ago. If he so wishes, an offender could be heard by the review tribunal.
In its present form, the bill provides that members of this tribunal are appointed by the minister and that their mandate can be renewed. These members must review decisions made by department officials who, of course, are accountable to the minister. Earlier, I alluded to possible conflicts of interest, and I still think that such a risk exists.
Could people appointed by the minister be pressured into making decisions which they would not otherwise make? No matter how small the risk, we simply cannot take that chance. It would make a lot more sense if members of the tribunal were appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, after reviewing whether or not certain issues posed problems in terms of how they were dealt with.
We simply want to avoid any risk of arbitrary decisions or patronage appointments. We understand and accept the principle underlying that bill, but we oppose any compliance agreement or arbitrary appointment by the minister.
This is why we are asking this House to at least support the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I certainly hope that we are not the only ones here who seek transparency.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Gordon Kirkby Liberal Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with amendments brought forward in group No. 5, Motions Nos. 21 and 22, in relation to Bill C-61, the agriculture and agri-food administrative monetary penalties act. I appreciate the opportunity to address the matter.
The purpose of Motions Nos. 21 and 22 is to change the process of appointing members of the review tribunal by having the governor in council appointments approved by an agriculture related committee of the House of Commons before the appointments are effective.
A point that should be made with regard to this matter is similar to one made in relation to an amendment brought forward by the Reform Party that the current appointment process and the one in
the present bill and as stated by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is a tried and true process, one approved of by the courts. The courts posses the ability to ensure that all decisions are according to the administrative law of the land.
It is proposed that an agriculture related committee approve the people who are put forward to sit on these tribunals to hear disputes between the regulators and those who may have run afoul of various agriculture and agri-food regulations pursuant to a number of acts. What is being proposed is going to make the procedure more cumbersome. The whole intent of the legislation is to find efficiencies in the way the government does business, to make the process cheaper, to ensure that the rules of fundamental administrative justice can be achieved and that it is balanced with administrative ease.
In my view, the proposal adds to the cumbersome nature of the appointment process. The time required to deal with the appointments will be increased. The committee could refuse to recommend any of the incumbents to these positions thereby effectively preventing these positions from being filled.
It is also important to say that this represents a move toward a more American style hearing process for the approval of various appointments to positions.
If we look south of the border we see these monstrously expensive, cumbersome processes to appoint various individuals. These individuals are subject to such scrutiny, they are basically put in a position where they are unable to defend themselves from the most vicious, partisan types of attacks.
This takes away from the dignity of a person sitting on a quasi-judicial body. It makes it difficult for people of good quality to want to subject themselves to this type of situation. Even if they are good people and are willing to submit to this type of interrogation and partisan attack on their credibility, whether they make it through the process or not, they will not be what is needed to maintain the respect of both the government regulators and the people who have run afoul of various regulations in various agricultural statutes.
There are a number of reasons why I am opposed to these types of situations arising. The situation we have now is tried, it is true. It has been upheld by the courts as a method of approving these people. It takes away from the partisanship which could really detract from the dignity of the process, the dignity of the office of the person participating and assisting the country.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties ActGovernment Orders
1:50 p.m.
The Speaker
My colleagues, it being two o'clock we will hear Statements by Members.
National UnityStatements By Members
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Barry Campbell Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Speaker, recently I attended a meeting of the mayors from the Toronto region. At this meeting, 30 mayors and five regional chairmen unanimously passed a resolution expressing their desire for a united Canada that includes Quebec.
The resolution reads as follows: "WHEREAS, the mayors of the greater Toronto region have recognized and approved, by the very fact of their meeting, the strength and benefits that unity provides; WHEREAS the unity of Canada and its people enhances the strength of and the benefits accruing to each of our regions; WHEREAS approximately four million residents of this region have, together with the people of Quebec, built this great country of ours; THEREFORE it is resolved that the mayors of the greater Toronto region, on behalf of its residents, express their desire to support the unity of a Canada that includes Quebec".
As the Prime Minister said last night, this is not only a battle for the future of Quebec, it is a question about the future of Canada.
Referendum CampaignStatements By Members
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, the vision of doom and gloom of the No side has just been refuted in a report released by a major American brokerage house. Indeed, the New York firm of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette argues that, should the sovereignty option prevail, first, the credit rating of the Quebec government would not be affected, second, market uncertainty would be short-lived, and third, the economic situation would remain stable.
This is similar to the findings of a recent study undertaken by the advisory director of the fourth major commercial bank in the United States, who said, and I quote: "In conclusion, according to the rating and the views of the capital markets, if the people opt for sovereignty, the most likely result would be between neutral and positive".
The fear tactics used by the No side are no longer credible and do not scare anyone any more. Quebec now has all the assets to face the future and take control of its economic levers.