Madam Speaker, I would like to table the concerns of 28 people who support and request that Parliament continue to give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in marketing wheat and barley for export.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 37% of the vote.
Petitions February 9th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I would like to table the concerns of 28 people who support and request that Parliament continue to give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in marketing wheat and barley for export.
Petitions February 9th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I table the concerns of 30 people who ask that this Parliament immediately amend the Criminal Code to extend protection to the unborn child.
Petitions February 9th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I would like table the wishes of 30 people who humbly pray that this Parliament not amend the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Petitions February 9th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am privileged to table in this House today four duly certified petitions on behalf of my constituents of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
The first petition is signed by 70 people and asks this Parliament to enforce the present provisions of the Criminal Code respecting assisted suicides and that no changes in the law be contemplated by this Parliament.
Agriculture November 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously has a funny way of showing his belief in democracy.
This is another classic case of Liberal democracy. Farmers in western Canada have developed a new special crops act. Yet the Canadian Grain Commission has ordered seed cleaning and special crop elevator operators to pay up to $20,000 in licensing and bonding fees or get shut down by the law.
If the minister believes in democracy, when will he get his bureaucrats under control and get them working for farmers? Why will he not immediately introduce new special crops legislation?
Agriculture November 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Does this minister believe in democracy and the democratic rights of farmers to control their own industry?
Department Of Agriculture Act October 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, maybe we could move on to the next speaker and that will be fine.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, if it is all right, I would just defer at this point in time.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I must admit when I first laid eyes on Bill C-49 I had no idea it would be so convoluted and complicated. Today we have heard two speeches that went into great detail and involvement in the department of agriculture. Certainly I had no reason to expect what we saw yesterday with the amendments in Bill C-49. There were voice votes and all matters of things I had not anticipated we would see in a bill that I originally thought was a very lackluster one containing absolutely nothing.
The federal department of agriculture certainly needs more than just a name change. As laudable as Bill C-49 is, to reflect the reorganization of the department made in June 1993 we need to do much more to restore hope for the future in the agriculture industry. Today I would like to place before this House a proposal for reforming the entire jurisdictional areas of the agriculture industry.
My proposal builds on statements and ideas put forward in this House by my colleagues on this side beginning last May. It also reflects the ideas that are being generated and talked about by many farmers, academics, and farm leaders right across this country. There is a real momentum building to radically alter and redesign how governments and industry function together in agriculture, in other natural resource sectors and the other many sectors of our society.
This is an issue where people are way ahead of governments in their thinking, their ideas, and their proposals. It is time to lay those ideas and those proposals out on the table to look at them honestly and openly, to have the debate and discussion needed to move forward. I am not suggesting in any way that what I will share today will be the final word in the way things should ultimately be but, it is a starting point for discussion and dialogue.
Our proposal builds on Reform's vision for reconfederating agriculture on the basis of a clearer division of responsibilities for both levels of government and for the industry. It also lays the foundation for a new visionary, comprehensive and cohesive Canadian agri-food policy.
The new governance system proposed here calls for decisions to be made at the lowest most local level at which decisions can reasonably be made. The task of the larger unit is to assist or support the individual industry or more local government bodies in carrying out these tasks. This new governance entails a devolution of senior government responsibilities to the provincial and local levels and to the industry and the citizens themselves.
Consequently we should have a leaner and more strategic senior level of government to deal with norms, standards, general directions and values over and beyond the managerial tasks that can be handled effectively at that level. The system would be more community owned with the federal government in a more catalytic role. It would call for local and provincial governments to minister to the public and to deliver the service best adapted to the diverse needs of different communities.
Such devolution might entail a Canadian governance system of the year 2020 in which a small percentage of the agri-food civil service will be federal. It would be organized into small units concerned with longer term national policy in the areas of trade arrangements, financial support, and safety and health standards. Again, although there is an attempt in this proposal to more clearly delineate jurisdictional responsibilities in the agri-food sector, this does not mean an absolutely watertight allocation of tasks among players.
This new system of governance tries to reconcile contradictory tendencies, for example the need to be global in outlook but local in application, to be small and big, to be centralized and decentralized, to be capable of generating both freedom and justice for all the players. This therefore must and will be an ongoing process of learning.
This proposal complements the current study being undertaken by the Liberal government in its effort to downsize government programs and departments. The Liberal study is based on six questions that each department asks itself.
The questions are: Does the program or activity continue to serve the public interest? Is there a legitimate and necessary role for government in this program or activity? Is the current role of the federal government appropriate, or is the program a candidate for realignment with the provinces? What activities or programs could or should be transferred in whole or in part to the private or volunteer sector? If the program or activity continues, how can its efficiency be improved? Lastly, is the result and package of programs and activities affordable within the fiscal constraint and if not, what programs or activities would be abandoned?
By thinking hard about these matters now we can help lead the way to a sound future for the agri-food industry. This proposal forms a theoretical basis for examining how agri-food programs currently in existence at both levels of government and in the industry could be reformed, removed or reassigned. As such, it is a prerequisite step for proposals we would make about federal budget cuts, savings and expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will not be able to continue my speech as I cannot get a word out of my voice. I would just like to ask the Chair if I can take my leave right now.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to place an amendment before the House regarding Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain other acts. I move:
Motion No. 2
That clause 6 be amended by striking out line 17 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"any inspection powers, duties or functions".
This amendment is necessary for a very simple but important reason. The bill must clearly indicate in layman's terms what the inspection powers of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food really are. Clause 6 now reads:
The minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purpose of providing the inspection services that the minister considers necessary for the enforcement of any act in respect of which the minister has any powers, duties or functions.
The problem I have with this particular wording is that there is a potential conflict between the intent and the interpretation of the clause. As it stands it could be interpreted to give the minister the power to appoint inspectors for the enforcement of any act for which he is responsible. The wording is not precise or exacting enough to limit the appointment of inspectors by the minister to those acts which already have inspection clauses in them. I know this is the intent of the clause and this has been explained to us by the minister's officials.
However, the open ended and loose wording gives rise to another possible interpretation which follows. I believe there are some 35 acts under the minister's jurisdiction right now. Some have asked me if this clause gives the power to the minister to appoint inspectors at his whim and fancy for all of those acts. If so it is hard to visualize any support for this clause. We do not need or want the minister to have such powers. We already have officials in our society who are responsible to
enforce regulations, laws, standards and to provide inspection services.
Therefore the intent and the interpretation of the clause could and should be harmonized, in my view, for the satisfaction of both legal minds and lay people. I suggest that my amendment would accomplish this.
All I am asking is that we put the word inspection into the clause one more time. My amendment to clause 6 has been carefully stated in the House. This amended wording makes sense because it clarifies what the intent of the clause is and eliminates any possibility, in my mind at least, of potential expansion of the minister's powers to appoint inspectors to any act under his jurisdiction. Such appointments would be needless, redundant and dangerous.
I therefore ask the House for its support of this amendment.