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.