Mr. Speaker, I am particularly interested in one aspect of the proposed legislation that deals with the tribunal. I gather it is a dispute settling mechanism to clear any violations that may be made in some sort of judicial setting.
In the interest of natural justice there has to be some sort of a fair procedure set up such as an unbiased adjudicator and the opportunity for a hearing. Given the track record of the quasi-judicial bodies that exist in the government today-and I use the example of the Immigration and Refugee Board and the parole board-can we consider them to be that of unbiased adjudication when individuals who are appointed through the process and orders in council reflect patronage, are friends of ministers and friends of others who sit within the Liberal government?
My concern and the reasons why I would be very hesitant about supporting the bill are based on these particular points of concern, and I refer to subsection 4.1(2):
A person is not eligible to be appointed a member of the Tribunal unless the person is knowledgeable about or has experience related to agriculture or agri-food and the Chairperson of the Tribunal and at least one other member of the Tribunal must, in addition, be a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of any province or a notary of at least ten years standing at the Chambre des notaires du Quebéc.
In the appointment process for individuals sitting on this board, how much of a guarantee will we have that we will not run into the same problems as those of the Immigration and Refugee Board or the parole board? They apparently had qualified people on them, yet when it came to the actual decision making process they differed vastly from the concerns of the public and the decisions rendered were very questionable. That aspect dealing with concerns has not been addressed in this piece of legislation.
I am not a lawyer but I know there are many on the other side of the House who seem to relish the thought of putting together legislation that only lawyers can understand. One thing of concern to me deals with some process of natural justice, that is that a fair procedure be introduced.
I am looking at some of the clauses in Bill C-61 wherein the rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing. Again I ask members on the government side why the rules of evidence would not apply in any hearing if we are looking for a fair and just procedure to solve or settle any of the concerns that may come before it.
When I consider some of the concerns in this document and look at the Immigration and Refugee Board I see that the process is not driven by the concerns of Canadians through the minister or through the member but rather by special interest groups that may want the decision making process structured in their favour.
With all these issues, when we ask for quasi-judicial bodies are we actually promoting something fair and unbiased that will benefit society as a whole?
The minister of immigration and the Solicitor General have been very evasive in dealing with the specifics. When situations or complaints have arisen they stand back and make this comment: "No, I cannot interfere in the process because that would be interfering with a quasi-judicial body and would be outside the realm of my jurisdiction".
My question to all members on the government side is: Should not the minister be accountable for everything that goes on in his department? Why should it be taken from him and passed on to a quasi-judicial body to take the heat off himself? I do not agree with some of these dispute settlement mechanisms.
I am particularly interested that they talk about the tribunal. So often it divorces itself from the minister. It takes accountability away from much of the decision making process and takes responsibility and accountability away from the minister. On that basis alone I could not support the bill.
