Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 4, 1996

.1535

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to get everybody organized here and ready to go.

Your usual chair has had to be absent today and he's asked me to conclude the deliberations on the bill. I've already been advised by Mr. Culbert that he would like to make a motion and ask for your consideration.

Mr. Culbert.

Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

At the last session of this committee meeting -

Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I don't think we can go to that motion. We already have one item on the agenda that we have to finish first before you can go to that motion.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Okay. What was the item? Is there a motion on the floor?

Mr. Easter: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Could I ask you to withdraw it and then resubmit after Mr. Culbert's comment?

Mr. Easter: That's fine if there's unanimous consent.

Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Perhaps the chairman could review with the entire committee exactly where we are in the process.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): We're still deliberating clause 28. Mr. Easter had submitted an amendment, which we have not as yet completed.

Mr. Culbert has asked me for some time to make a point, which I, as chair, concluded it would be in order to do, but I'm getting some concern about that.

Perhaps we could hear from Mr. Culbert what he wishes to propose and then we could go back and either take Mr. Easter's motion or deal with whatever Mr. Culbert has to propose and go from there.

Mr. Easter, the clerk has advised me that perhaps we could get unanimous consent to withdraw your amendment and then it would be the first item for discussion after Mr. Culbert's comment. I would ask for those considerations at this time.

Do I have unanimous consent to proceed on that basis?

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chair, I would just like the assurance that if Mr. Easter withdraws his amendment and Mr. Culbert brings forward something, the committee will not be forced to deal with an amendment proposed by Mr. Culbert prior to Mr. Easter being able to reintroduce his amendment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Chairman, if I could get unanimous consent to withdraw our last amendment which was adopted earlier, I would move the Bloc Québécois' motion, and we could then put it.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Landry, in response to your statement, we first have to deal with Mr. Easter's amendment. I'd like to get unanimous consent to do so. Then we will go back to that previous item and hopefully we will get unanimous consent to do that as well.

Mr. Landry: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Easter.

.1540

Mr. Easter: I have a point of information. I think there's some confusion around the table, and I can understand that.

For Elwin's benefit, there has been some discussion, some thought, on the motion put forward by the Bloc to review the agency every three years. It was two years and then three years. I think the government is willing to adopt that amendment into the act if we can get unanimous consent to go back to it.

The strategy is to withdraw this motion first. We'll come back to this. We'll deal with the Bloc's now. Then we'll get back to where we were.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): That's the intent, Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: It's nice to finally be informed of what you're trying to do.

Mr. Culbert: We were trying to do that, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): I should have gone around to see. Then we wouldn't have had the difficulty.

Mr. Hermanson: Consent is granted.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you. Do I have unanimous consent to withdraw Mr. Easter's amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Now, Mr. Culbert, we'll ask you to speak and then we'll go to the Bloc.

Mr. Culbert: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was about to say before, following our last meeting of this committee I had the opportunity to review in depth and certainly discuss with a number of people the basis of the Bloc motion that had come forth for an amendment to subclause 28(1). As was just indicated, it would move it from ``after the third anniversary'' to ``after the second anniversary...and every three years thereafter''.

I believe there is a great deal of merit to have that three-year review and emphasize that it does come forward from the minister every three years thereafter. Therefore, I would ask for unanimous consent to move back to subclause 28(1) so that we might give consideration to that if it's the consensus of the committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): I would therefore ask for a mover of the Bloc amendment as reviewed the other day.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I want to move the amendment BQ-5. I move that Bill C-38, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 14 with the following:

28.(1) As soon as possible after the second anniversary of the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Minister shall undertake a review of

That is the Bloc Québécois' motion.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you, Mr. Landry.

Is there discussion on this motion? Could I get any comment from the officials? Jerry, would you like to comment?

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): I think the government perceives that as something that would be quite valuable. There's no question in that case that we'd be quite happy to see a review come up. Being a procedure that's going to affect so many people, I do believe the intent here is to make sure we keep on track with what the bill is seeking to achieve. It is an amendment we supported in the first measure when discussed. We continue to support it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Hermanson, do you have any comments?

Mr. Hermanson: Yes. I agree with the direction we're going. While I still won't support this clause, as I did previously, it is more defendable now than it was previously.

We would still rather see the review referred to this committee. I made that point earlier. My opposition is not that I think we're going in the wrong direction. I think we're going in the right direction but we still haven't arrived.

Amendment agreed to

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you for your indulgence, committee members. It is an indication that we do rethink some of the things we do here. It did appear to many of us around the table that we needed to revisit that particular item. Thank you, Mr. Culbert.

Mr. Culbert: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Landry.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Easter, would you wish to resubmit your item?

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, I will resubmit it with a slight change.

.1545

Just as we were adjourning, Mr. Hermanson suggested there might be a problem with the word ``agency''. On reconsidering, I've changed that word to ``program''. The motion will read that Bill C-38 and clause 28 be amended by replacing line 36 on page 14 with the following:

The latter part they had in the original motion on that is not necessary.

Then subsection (3) will be:

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you, Mr. Easter. We will now have discussion. Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Again I agree with the intent of what Mr. Easter is trying to do here. In fact, I thought I had a commitment from the parliamentary secretary to actually table the plans in the House prior to this bill leaving committee, and I don't think that commitment has been kept. I haven't been aware of it being kept yet.

Mr. Easter, I thought perhaps the word ``federal'' should be put before the word ``program'' or ``agency'', or whatever word you put in there, to make it clear it's a federal responsibility that the minister is reviewing. That way he's not reviewing anything that the provinces or the universities are doing.

Perhaps that is understood, but it's pretty general. If you put the word ``federal'' before ``program'' I think that clarifies the intent of your amendment.

That would be a subamendment that I would move.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): That is on his subamendment.

Mr. Easter: You're moving a subamendment. I guess I don't see it as necessary. I know the point you're making, but if you go to the amendment, it's in a federal act and it states it's created after this section comes into force. I think it's clear enough as is. There's no problem with the amendment as I see it. I just don't think it's necessary.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Go ahead and then we'll take Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Easter, could you indicate which word you would like to replace? I still don't have in hand...

The clerk: This is not an official translation, but here is essentially what would be changed.

Mr. Landry: I see.

[English]

Mr. Easter: The word in the French section, toute agence, would be changed to whatever ``program'' is in French. That is basically it.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

[English]

Mr. Easter: And there is the amendment from Mr. Hermanson.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Hermanson, our clerk didn't get your suggestion.

Mr. Hermanson: I amended Mr. Easter's amendment by just adding the word ``federal'' before ``program'' to make it clear that the editor is not reviewing a broad spectrum of programs introduced either in the private sector or by provinces.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you. We've got a speaker down here. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman.

Elwin, are you suggesting that the federal minister is going to be reviewing provincial programs and has jurisdiction over that?

Mr. Hermanson: This is about future whatever that comes into place, and it's not specified that it's dealing with anything that's federal. The purpose of Mr. Easter's amendment is that the minister review the consultation service, which will be a federal program.

Mr. Calder: That's right.

Mr. Hermanson: He can't name that consultation service because it has not yet been introduced by the minister or by this new agency, or whoever it's going to emanate from. He made that clear yesterday in committee. We all know what he's talking about, but in the wording it's got to be some or all programs that come into place that may have some relationship to this act, which could be a provincial consultation service.

Mr. Calder: The bottom line is he only has jurisdiction to review what falls underneath federal jurisdiction. He has absolutely no power provincially to review any provincial programs brought up by the provincial ministers.

Mr. Hermanson: My subamendment makes that very clear.

Mr. Calder: I think it already is.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you. Mr. Reed and then Mr. Landry.

Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): We're spinning our wheels here, Mr. Chairman. This is a federal bill. That's the beginning of it and the end of it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you. Mr. Landry.

.1550

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I have a question for Mr. Hermanson. He wants to add the word ``federal'' because he fears that eventually people might get confused about provincial and federal levels. I don't think we need to put the word ``federal'' in there. Could he clarify this for me so that I can think it over?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Go ahead with your final comment, Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: I think you will understand the reason I'm proposing this is because over the course of years the federal government has been encroaching on provincial responsibilities and in provincial areas of jurisdiction. While this is not a major move in that direction, it's just another window of opportunity for a minister to....

Would you guys mind if I answer Mr. Landry's question?

An hon. member: Go right ahead.

Mr. Hermanson: This amendment just reinforces the fact that the minister is to look after federal responsibilities and not provincial responsibilities.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you, Mr. Hermanson. Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Pickard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There was a statement made by one of our members that I had made a commitment to table something in the House. If you recall, every member was here when Mr. Hermanson asked that it be tabled in the House. My comment back to him was I had no objection to that.

Quite frankly, it has to go through the minister. The minister then, when I discussed it with him, submitted to this committee for public record a complete outline of that consultation program. Every member around this table received a complete outline from the department. So it is on public record at this committee and you are well aware of that. I wanted to correct that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you.

Mr. Hermanson: It was not tabled in the House.

Mr. Pickard: Mr. Hermanson, I said I had no objection. The minister brought it here for public consultation, which is the very best place to have it. I don't know what your point is in reality, outside of a very biased political position.

Mr. Hermanson: No. If a minister tables a document in the House, it carries a lot of weight. If a minister supplies the committee with a document, it doesn't have nearly the same effect. It's here for study or review then.

Mr. Pickard: It's on public record.

Mr. Hermanson: It's not part of the government's agenda.

Mr. Pickard: It's on public record. The point is it is clearly on public record here.

Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Now we're dealing with the main amendment asMr. Easter submitted. He was incorporating the word ``program'': ``the operation of any program or service that is created after this section'', etc.

Is that clear, Mr. Easter?

Mr. Easter: Yes, clear as mud.

Amendment agreed to

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): There is a further amendment to clause 28 on page 21 of the package submitted by the Bloc. It's a new clause, separate and apart from anything up until this point that's been discussed.

We have been working with new clauses coming up during this bill, seeking unanimous consent to do so. Do I have such consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you.

Mr. Landry, do you wish to move and then speak on the motion?

.1555

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I move that Bill C-38 be amended by adding after line 40, one page 14, the following new Clause:

28.(1) As soon as possible after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to agriculture shall conduct a detailed review of the operation of this Act and, within a reasonable time after completing the review, shall cause a report on the results of the review to be laid before the House of Commons.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you, Mr. Landry.

Mr. Hermanson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can you tell me why the bells are ringing?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Yes, we'll find that out for you. It's a fifteen-minute bell.

Mr. Calder: I think it's a half-hour bell; it's not two bells.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): We're told it's fifteen minutes. We'll let you know.

Mr. Landry, I'm just bringing to your attention that the item you're bringing forward has ``as soon as possible after the third anniversary''. Do you wish to bring that in line with the previous amendment we passed in retrospect and make it a second?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Do I need consent for you to change that at this point, Mr. Clerk? We'll take it as it is, okay. We'll change that to ``second'' now with your indulgence?

Does anybody else wish to comment or speak on this motion? Perhaps I'll ask the officials.

Mr. Pickard: I believe from our position we are looking at this as a problem that's going to add to the committee work dramatically and increase the amount of work you have to do. In reality, from what I see happening right now, you have every opportunity to review the bills at any time you wish, conditional upon the amount of time you have in any one session. So what you're doing is putting in place a necessary demand in order to do something when it may not be the priority of this committee. In three and five years and seven years it certainly may have not as much priority as many other issues coming forward.

We're seeing right now that we have a tremendous number of issues on the book this committee is trying to get to, and just with the legislative calendar ahead of it, it's almost impossible to reach those. So putting something in that says you have to do this is really going to handcuff the committee as you go along. I believe that's a major problem for the committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you, Mr. Pickard. Any other comments?Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a move in the right direction and I can support this amendment, but I would rather see it changed. Because the minister is now required by a previous Bloc amendment we agreed to to review this mediation service after two years, I would hope, although I don't think he's required, that he would table this report with Parliament.

It seems only wise that the committee would only review the effectiveness of this service after the minister had tabled his report. Therefore, I would like to amend the motion to say the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers the matters relating to agriculture would conduct a detailed review of the operation of this act following the minister's tabling a review of the act.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Could you give us something in writing to that effect, Mr. Hermanson?

Mr. Hermanson: Sure, I can do that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): We'll take other discussion here. Mr. Landry has indicated he wishes to speak.

It is, as Mr. Calder indicated, a half-hour bell but it as yet may be deferred.

Mr. Calder: That's what I thought.

Mr. Pickard: We're right upstairs, so you can get there within five minutes or even two minutes actually.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Yes, go ahead, Mr. Landry.

.1600

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: We could withdraw the following from clause 28.1:

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): You are still indicating third. Are you sure you don't want second? That's what the Bloc amendment we approved earlier today stated, that it will be reviewed after the second year.

Mr. Landry: No.

[Translation]

Please withdraw the first two lines and a half, Mr. Chairman. Take all those words out.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Yes.

Mr. Hermanson is writing his subamendment, which we will be dealing with first.

Mr. Hermanson: Is the amendment we're looking at correctly marked subclause 28(1)? Because we have subclause 28(1) back on page 19.... On page 18 it says subclause 28(1). Okay, this is clause 28 without brackets. I've got it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Hermanson's subamendment is ready, I would like you to read it carefully, to make sure I understand it.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Okay.

The Clerk: Mr. Hermanson's subamendment would make the amendment read as follows: That Bill C-38 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 14 the following new clause:

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you.

Any comments from anyone on the subamendment? Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chair, I would like to hear from the officials on what the impact of this would be.

Mr. Pickard: I don't like to impugn motivation here, but it looks like we're stalling. We dealt with this in another amendment earlier. We're back into a similar request.

The point is if you hamstring this committee to review every bill we go through, when the minister has already committed to a review, this committee will not be functioning three years down the line. It will just be hamstrung to review everything that's coming down.

I think it makes a great deal of sense to review something with the appropriate time required. Certainly take anything that the minister has done in this review and examine that. But it doesn't put the committee into a review position as well afterward. It's difficult to justify this committee's time in that way. If we take all bills and say we have to review all bills, this committee will bind itself and be hamstrung in its operation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): I definitely fear we would be over-mandating the responsibility of the committee.

Mr. Pickard: You're dictating what you have to do three years down the line.

.1605

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Are there any other comments on the subamendment?

Mr. Culbert: I believe it is the option of this committee to review any document or documents tabled by the minister, or by anyone else for that matter, that are relevant to agriculture and agri-foods.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you.

Mr. Landry, do you want to speak any further?

Mr. Landry: No.

Subamendment negatived

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): We must now deal with the amendment proposed by Mr. Landry.

The Clerk: Can I just read his amendment?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Good idea.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Landry, let me read your amendment to make sure I understood you well, because you said at first that you intended to change it.

Mr. Landry: What I said at first is that I wanted to withdraw the first two lines and a half, up to and including ``thereafter''.

The Clerk: You talked about withdrawing ``As soon as possible during the second year''. Will you keep that or not?

Mr. Landry: We keep it as it is.

The Clerk: As it is now?

Mr. Landry: As it is there.

The Clerk: Then the motion would read: That Bill C-38 be amended by adding after line 40, on page 14, the following new Clause:

28.1 As soon as possible after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter, the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to agriculture shall conduct a detailed review of the operation of this Act and, within a reasonable time after completing the review, shall cause a report on the results of the review to be laid before the House of Commons.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Amendment negatived

Clause 28 as amended agreed to on division

Mr. Hermanson: What is the relationship of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act to the Farm Debt Mediation Act? Why do we have to refer to the Farm Debt Mediation Act? Was the Farm Debt Review Act in there previously? What is the connection?

Ms Diane Fillmore (Legal Counsel, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): I don't think there was a previous reference to the Farm Debt Review Act, because it didn't have a specific penalty section in it. This one has an offence section in it. All it means is that when the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act is brought into effect, which probably won't be for another year and then different acts will be brought in - it means that the offence section under this act can be dealt with under the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.

Mr. Hermanson: I still don't understand what the relationship is between a mediation of debt and the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which deals with the handling of food and so on.

Ms Fillmore: No, it doesn't. It's for any offences where there could be a fine or whatever. It provides for an alternative means rather than going through the court process. It's the offence section under section 27, where any offence done against this act could be -

Mr. Hermanson: So if the Farm Debt Mediation Act is in some way broken, the penalty could be administered under the AAAMP Act?

Ms Fillmore: Yes.

Mr. Hermanson: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Is there any further query, Mr. Hermanson?

Mr. Hermanson: I'm trying to get in my own mind how these connect. When we discussed AAAMP, that wasn't something that came up - that it might have to do with a farm that was in trouble and going through Farm Debt Review Board or -

Ms Fillmore: We talked about the disclosure of information. Let's say somebody improperly disclosed information. Rather than going through the court system, it could be dealt with under the AAAMP provisions.

.1610

Mr. Hermanson: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): There are no amendments on clauses 29 to 34 inclusive.

Clause 29 agreed to on division

Clauses 30 to 34 inclusive agreed to

Mr. Hermanson, will there be an amendment from you on clause 35?

Mr. Hermanson: I have no amendment for clause 35, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 35 agreed to

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I think I will withdraw my amendment for clause 36. I will reconsider it at report stage.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Apparently it was not proposed, so it need not be withdrawn.

Mr. Hermanson: I believe our intention was to not propose it at this time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I wanted to make sure that his amendment was tabled so that I can get a copy of it, but I see that he is now withdrawing it. Thank you.

[English]

Clause 36 agreed to on division

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Do you recall me asking on clause 35?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Clause 1 agreed to

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Shall the title pass?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Shall the bill as amended pass?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Shall the amended bill be reprinted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Is there any further business, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): Thank you for your diligence, cooperation and understanding. Thank you to all for working hard.

Mrs. Ur, did you wish to make a comment?

Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. McKinnon): This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;