Evidence of meeting #43 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 agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure the discussion we're having is actually about what is in front of us as an amendment. For example, I don't see an appeal process being delineated within the amendment here. But I will tell you that there is an appeal process. I'm on the website right now, and CFIA has a complaints and appeals office. If a fine has been levied against an individual or an organization, they can file a complaint to the complaints and appeals office, and it will look at the quality of service, administrative errors, regulatory decisions. There is a process in place.
Going back to what the amendment is actually talking about, one concern I have is that the type of consultation being advocated in paragraph 1(c) is vague in terms of how broad that consultation must be. For example, would consultation for a regulation through the regular gazetting process be sufficient, or is it not sufficient? It's unclear here.
For example, there's a separate consultation required outside of the gazetting process, outside of the normal regulatory process, and the fact that it's not clear can allow someone to challenge the validity of a violation by saying, “You didn't consult broadly enough: you didn't consult me”, or “you didn't consult them”. So it's too broad.
Right now, the minister has the authority to make regulations. There is a consultative process that takes place through the regulatory process. This just seems to be blurring what kind of consultation should take place, when it should take place, and how wide it should it be. I think that is going to lead to a host of future problems.
As I said, if someone has grief with something to do with the application of a regulation or with the application of a fine, there is already a complaints and appeals process through the complaints and appeals office at CFIA.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
The Canadian Cattlemen, when they were presenting here, hit the nail on the head with the problems they had with the killing plant in Alberta and how the government should have handled that differently. I bring that back to the government being more of a coach instead of a referee.
Yes, the minister has to consult with the industry sometimes to see if these protocols are taken properly, that make the industry better, instead of just coming down hard on the industry without improving it. I encourage my colleagues to look at this because it's not saying much in here. If you really look at it, it's saying the minister has to consult with the industry on an ongoing basis to see if those amounts are applicable or if they're really helping the industry move forward. That's all it's asking here. I think the Cattlemen were bang on with this and I think this addresses their concerns.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Any more discussion?
On amendment 2 of the Liberals.
(Amendment negatived)
Shall clause 114 carry?
(Clause 114 agreed to)
We have clauses 115 through 124, again there are no amendments to those. We support the clauses being carried.
(Clauses 115 to 124 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 125)
We will now move to clause 125.
If we could turn to Mr. Lemieux, please.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. I'm happy to move amendment G-2.
I'm not going to read it because we have it all in front of us. It's been submitted and it's quite technical in nature. What I want to let the committee know is that this amendment has been moved based on consultations that the minister and officials have had with stakeholders. It has to do with AMPA and it has to do with guarantees.
Rosser was involved in some of these consultations and I'm just wondering if he might put into layman's language some of the technical jargon that we have regarding this amendment.
November 4th, 2014 / 4:35 p.m.
Rosser Lloyd Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I did want to mention again that this did come out of our consultations and it was highlighted by one of our administrators, the need for this amendment. It intends to ensure that we don't put obligations on our administrators at this program that were never intended.
I'll explain a little bit specifically on this one. Our act allows for two things. It allows for a guarantee of the repayment that an administrator makes to a producer and it also allows us to pay the interest on the first $100,000 of the advance that the administrator makes to the producer. We have organizations like the Feeders associations that already have repayment guarantees from the province. They don't need our guarantee, but they would like to access our program for the $100,000 interest-free benefit.
Section 5.1(2) of the act outlines the provisions that need not be in our agreement with those organizations that simply want to access the interest-free benefit because they have no guarantee. Those guarantee provisions need not be in those guarantee agreements. What we have here is an oversight that section 19(1)(c) was not included in that list in 5(1)(c). What 19(1)(c) does is describes the administrators' liability and how we would apply it.
If we don't fix this we're going to end up with an agreement with an organization that has no guarantee in it, talking about what the administrators' liability is in the case of a default to a producer. Obviously, that's not a logical conclusion.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
If that's in layman's terms why don't you try the complicated side of it?
What did you hear from the producers you talked to and what producers told you that this all needed to be changed?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
It wasn't the producers. It was the administrators of the program who went through this line by line with us They said, “You missed 19(1)(c) in this list of provisions that shouldn't be in the agreement with the organization where we don't have a guarantee”. It was the Ontario Cattle Feeders Association.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
You're kind of saying you guys didn't do your homework when you put this forward in the first place and somebody caught this from your own administration, and you're trying to tweak it back.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
It was an oversight going in. It's a complicated piece of legislation. This should have been added to this particular clause during our consultations after first reading with the administrators. It was caught, and we're fixing it.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.
Since some of us know the program, these may not have been real layman's terms, but the explanation was understandable, and I appreciate it. As to the oversight, oversights are oversights; these things happen. I'm not going to criticize that piece.
The only comment I'd make around it and the clarification, which I think I now can agree with—because we were struggling to figure out exactly where you were going with this, so we appreciate the clarification—is that I don't think there were witnesses whom you asked that question of, because I don't remember your being in the room to ask the question of the witness.
So these were “consultations” beyond those with the witness, were they?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Yes.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
That's what I thought. It's okay to do it that way, it seems to me. I guess if we bring that issue up, it's okay for us, too; we don't have to hear the witness.
The reason I'm putting this on the record is that Mr. Lemieux has quite often asked across the way, in the case of our amendments, what witness did you hear that from? Well, I didn't hear this from the witness Mr. Lloyd heard it from, but that witness helped you get it right, and that's important.
We've heard from other folks beyond the witness table, because we couldn't get them to the witness table for reasons of time, who have helped us craft some other amendments. I just want to make sure that's on the record as well.
Mr. Lloyd, well done, and full marks for catching it. It is important that we not come back to try to fix this; it's important that we actually do it now. You've clarified it for us, and we appreciate it. Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
You know, we did hear it from a witness. The minister was here, and he—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Oh, well, Malcolm, we have minutes to all these meetings.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Our witness, the minister, was kind enough....
But the point is that I'm not questioning what witnesses you might have heard this from; it's more a question of what stakeholders you've heard certain things from, so that I can better understand the amendments.
The bill was tabled back in December, so obviously it has been out for eight or nine months, and it's fair to say that your side, our side, the officials, and the minister have been consulting, even though not every person who provided feedback or comments has come in front of committee. But on that particular point, the minister himself was here.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
Is there any further discussion?
I call the question on amendment G-2.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 125 as amended agreed to)
Clauses 126 and 127 have no amendments. Can we have a motion to approve clauses 126 and 127?
(Clauses 126 and 127 agreed to)
(On clause 128)
I'd like to move to clause 128.
To present amendment G-3, we'll hear Mr. Lemieux, please.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to move amendment G-3. It simply changes a bit of the wording in the English text to say “continuously owns the agricultural product”.
This came about again from feedback from stakeholders. The language in the French text was better than the language in the English text. The discrepancy was noted, and so this is simply changing the English text to better match what was in the French text, because the French text captured more thoroughly what was meant in the first place. It's really just a translation amendment.