Mr. Eyking.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
As was stated, the Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture wanted the penalty to be increased.
But I have another question. As of today, are any of the railroad rates in violation right now? Do any of our witnesses know that?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
I don't know if the departments can help with that or not.
Ms. Duff.
5:55 p.m.
Lenore Duff Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The minister stated last week that the railways were both complying with the volume requirements.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Mr. Watson, did you have...or was that the answer you were looking for?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
No, I wanted to speak to the amendment briefly, if I could.
Just from the perspective of having worked with the Canada Transportation Act for a number of years now, my understanding is that with regard to the $100,000, first of all, it's daily, if necessary, with respect to an infraction. But if my memory serves me correctly, it's also significantly higher already than other penalties within the act itself.
So what they're asking for is already, for example, quadruple what most fine maximums, I understand, would be under the Canada Transportation Act. They want to move from four times that to ten times that in the case of the railways. Am I recalling that correctly?
I'm not sure which of our witnesses want to respond to that.
6 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Under the AMPs regime under the act, the maximum penalty for 99% of the violations is $25,000. The only exception is the violation of an SLA, which is $100,000. So this would become the second exception to the $25,000 rule.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay, so it's $250,000, if this were accepted, on a daily basis, many times over.
Chair, my concern is whether as a committee we want to take a position that would be disproportionately punitive, shall we say, to any other violation in an act. I mean, moving from $100,000 to $250,000 as a daily amount would take it to ten times the maximum within the act itself. It might draw into question whether this particular infraction is that much worse relative to any of the other infractions that are contained in the CTA.
I'm not sure that's the route we want to go down. I appreciate the politics behind that, or the optics around that, with respect to individual constituencies, but we have to be concerned about whether it becomes increasingly disproportionate to other very important infractions in the act itself.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Just for clarity, I know that the witness said there are no violations so far, but if a violation does occur and we assume that $100,000 is collected—let's say it was over five days, so it's $500,000—does that go into general revenue or does it go to the farmers who are losing money?
Where does that money go that comes from the penalties?
6 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Currently any violation would have to prosecuted, because the obligation is set forth in an OIC that was issued under the legislation. The only remedy is prosecution, so it would have to be a criminal prosecution. If this legislation were to pass, the AMPs would establish an administrative penalty scheme against the railway for violation of an obligation that is set forth in an order in council.
In both cases, the amount of penalty either to the process of prosecution or to the AMPs would go to the consolidated revenue fund.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Just to follow up on that, it's like somebody getting caught for speeding: here's your fine, and you have so many days to pay it, but you can of course still go to court over it.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
So there could be quite a procedure here. For one day at $100,000, this could be tied up for months or years, with a lot of lawyers from the government. I mean, that's possible. And where it costs the government, it could cost our government more, with lawyers and whatever, if they want to play hardball.
6 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Criminal prosecution obviously follows criminal court processes. AMPs are more administrative in nature.
The department would issue an AMP. There's an appeal mechanism to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal, which is administrative. It should be faster. But, of course, there's right of appeal. It is what it is.
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'm trying to look at this procedure. We hope it doesn't happen, but if it does happen, do the board directors or the CEOs of these companies have to come forward? Or could this be lawyers coming forward? I guess what I'm asking is, have you gone through this process before? Do the CEOs have to come forward in court?
6 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Criminal prosecution on something like that doesn't happen a lot. AMPs are issued, I won't say daily, but quite often in transportation legislation. We issue AMPs throughout legislation.
We have AMPs in the air sector and in the marine sector. We issue AMPs quite routinely when there's non-compliance.
There's a process, obviously, to follow. A notice of violation has to be issued. There's an appeal process in front of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal. It's administrative in nature.
That's essentially what I can say.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I thank Mr. Langlois for his clarifications on how the AMPs versus criminal procedures might work. I suppose one might say that if the fine is low enough, the likelihood of their challenging and going through a court process, because it will cost them, is low. And I recognize that's a value statement or judgment by me. I'm not looking necessarily for a response, but probably that's....
Well, maybe I can ask this. Is that the record, primarily, of the department? When you send out an AMP for $25,000, do you get fought on that very often?
6:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
It's not automatic. It does happen from time to time, but it's not automatic. Yes, it does happen, but it's not in every case, I'll say that much.