Gar Knutson

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, while overall the agriculture and food sector is strong and makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, the government knows very well that the past year has not been an easy time for many producers.

The updated projections which were released on November 2 were produced jointly with the provinces. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food does not produce incorrect or misleading information. The $325 million upward revision between the July and November projections for 1999 is mainly the result of an increase in NISA payments, cattle and durum wheat receipts, combined with a decrease in operating costs, in particular, pesticide and fertilizer.

The farm income forecasts are not the most important issue here. Numbers are fluid and changing. Whatever the numbers turn out to be, they are just that, numbers. The real subject here is people, not income forecasts.

We know it is an extremely difficult situation for many farm families, particularly in the west. As a government we will respond to the human situation wherever that occurs.

In response to the current income situation, the government moved to the aid of Canadian farmers by introducing the agricultural income disaster assistance program. Through AIDA the Government of Canada is making available almost $1.1 billion to those farmers facing severe income declines. With provincial participation, the AIDA program would now put $1.78 billion into farmers' hands. This funding is in addition to the $1 billion that federal and provincial governments contribute each year to safety net programs.

[Regulatory Budget, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask that we suspend the sitting for six minutes.

[Regulatory Budget, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member concerning the important matter of regulations.

The motion actually touches on two key issues. The first issue concerns the role of parliamentarians in assessing regulations and making sound judgements as to their value and benefit. The second issue is equally significant. It involves the appropriateness and effectiveness of the existing regulatory governance regime within the Government of Canada.

In his motion the hon. member calls for the establishment of a regulatory budget. In essence this would involve the tabling of detailed cost estimates identifying the total cost of each proposed regulation. Such costs would encompass the government's enforcement costs in addition to those incurred by individual citizens and businesses.

The motion further calls for the submission of a cost benefit analysis pertaining to each regulation. The intent of this information would be to enable parliamentarians to assess the benefits in light of a realistic understanding of the costs. However, it is unclear what purpose the proposals would serve or at what stage in the regulatory process such a budget would be considered.

In a system of government based on the rule of law, the laws and regulations created pursuant to its authority to give structure to society have a far reaching and profound impact on the daily lives of citizens. A well governed society must have both laws and regulations in order to provide the essential framework within which individuals, companies, organizations and governments can function both fairly and efficiently.

Parliament's legislative power is exercised through passing statutes which explicitly set out the authority to make decisions by regulation delegated to the government. Regulations can be made only to the extent authorized by parliament in the enabling legislation. They represent the specifics, the details through which the spirit of the law can be applied in practice.

In approving laws parliament also makes provisions in them for making regulations where they are needed to carry out the purposes of the laws and how such regulation making power should be delegated. However, once a law is passed with delegated authority it is the responsibility of the government of the day to make every effort to ensure that supporting regulations are not unduly burdensome or costly, that Canadians as individuals and as a society are better not worse off as a result, and that Canadians have a say in these issues.

It must be recognized that not every individual, every group or other interest in society can be expected to agree as to the definition of what better or worse off may mean. In seeking to protect Canadians health, safety or the environment, regulations may be developed that some groups or businesses may find burdensome. Such are the trade-offs with which governments must deal.

In the case of the motion before the House today the first issue to which I referred a few minutes ago was that of parliamentary review and oversight. In the motion the hon. member appears to be seeking the establishment of a mechanism to ensure that regulations do not deviate in practice from the intent of the laws they were created to support.

The hon. member's motion seeks to create a new mechanism where an effective alternative already exists. Regulations flow from the laws passed by parliament and cannot be inconsistent with those laws. Regulations are by definition limited by parliamentary role that grants or denies approval for the legal foundation upon which they rest.

What then of the issue of the cost benefit analysis called for in the motion? Without question regulations impose costs. To the greatest degree possible it is important that such costs be known and minimized at the time regulations are first enacted. However we must also keep in mind the benefits of a specific regulation before it is actually applied.

For example, instruments such as those made under the Canada Business Corporations Act help companies to create wealth and jobs and to take risks by establishing the concept of limited liability. We have bankruptcy regulations which are essential in enabling companies, both large and small, to obtain credit on reasonable terms and exercise the right to repossess goods. Such instruments make it possible for a measure of order and control to be applied to the bankruptcy process as well as to the entire process of credit granting and business financing.

Let me use other examples. Regulating that there must be seatbelts or adequate anchors for baby seats in motor vehicles, regulating some emergency or safety features in our airports, or regulating to protect the health of Canadians through careful drug approval imposes costs which can generally be well documented and quantified.

Who would deny that these regulations also bring significant benefits to our society and our citizens? The fact is that it is often much easier to identify anticipated costs associated with regulations than the benefits they may eventually provide. This suggests that the remedy being proposed by the hon. member to allow for a cost benefit assessment would be very difficult to achieve or have experts agree on. The point is that the benefits are undeniable.

The regulatory budget idea proposed by the hon. member represents a very rigid approach which would do more harm than good. It could result in a cap being placed on a number of new regulations passed, thus depriving Canadians of significant additional benefits in such areas as health, safety and environmental protection.

This brings me to the second key issue relating to the hon. member's motion. I am referring to the capacity of existing federal regulatory law and procedures to serve the best interest of Canadians. All regulations approved by the federal government must meet the federal regulatory policy requirement calling for consultations involving all relevant stakeholders. An example of this consultation process would be active participation by industry in the 1996 regulatory review. This review resulted in almost 1,000 modifications to or revocations of regulatory requirements.

Interestingly enough this comprehensive review of our stock of regulations, undertaken with the active participation of industry, still left some 2,000 regulations in the books, another evidence of industry agreeing that regulations do bring benefits to industry as well.

The regulatory approval process is rigorous. In developing regulations the government considers what burdens may be created by a proposed regulatory change as well as the corresponding social and other potential benefits. The government also examines the results of consultations by officials, noting who was consulted, what views were expressed and what reasons have been presented as to why dissenting views could not be accommodated by the sponsoring department.

The government analyses alternative regulatory solutions to ensure that the most effective and efficient is chosen, and it assesses compliance and enforcement issues. All this information is presented to the public for comment in the regulatory impact analysis statement.

The regulatory policy also helps ensure that proposed regulations or changes do not result in adverse impact on the economy's capacity to generate wealth and employment. Final decisions on regulations are made by a committee of cabinet ministers. Cabinet as a whole is responsible to parliament and therefore to the public for the application of regulations.

The Government of Canada is committed to a regulatory government that demonstrates balance, fairness, transparency and accountability. While the government does not accept the proposition that the action proposed by the hon. member is necessary, it does recognize the need to remain vigilant in ensuring that our regulatory regime is the best we can make it.

We will continue to work toward this goal. We will continue to devote our energies to ensuring that the best possible regulatory decisions are being made in serving the interest of the people of Canada and in conformity with the legislative authority conferred by parliament.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that the department treats clients with fairness, understanding and compassion. That is why Human Resources Development Canada is known as the people department.

The primary purpose of employment insurance is to compensate workers in case of involuntary unemployment. However, as the hon. member knows, every person who is claiming regular benefits must prove availability for work. This is a longstanding condition of the EI legislation. Each case is assessed individually and all circumstances are examined and considered in a compassionate manner. At the same time, the government has an obligation to Canadian taxpayers to protect the integrity of the EI fund. We have in place a number of control measures which ensure that public funds are protected. We have as well a series of appeal procedures if a person is unhappy with a particular decision.

We do not have quotas. We have reasonable performance expectations for our investigation and control program as a way of measuring results. Again, they are not quotas. We allocate our resources according to workload, as does any other organization.

The hon. member may be interested to know that other governments also have similar expectations for their social programs. For 1996-97 the Quebec government set a target of $100 million for its verification of social assistance cases. It surpassed that target and recouped $112 million. For 1996-97 the Quebec government set a target of $58 million for its in-depth investigation of social assistance cases. It surpassed that target and recouped $112 million. For 1996-97 the Quebec government set out a target of $58 million for its in-depth investigation of social assistance cases. It surpassed that target and recouped nearly $68 million.

Finally, the hon. member will undoubtedly appreciate that as the people department, it is our intention to ensure that claimants receive their full entitlement to benefits and nothing less. I would suggest if he is not happy with a particular decision at a particular level that perhaps he look further into the appeal route.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the federal response to the Marshall decision on fishing and treaty rights.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already spent two days in the maritimes meeting with aboriginal leaders, with commercial fishers and with his provincial counterparts. Both ministers met on October 18 with the executive of the Atlantic Policy Congress which represents all the Atlantic chiefs to discuss issues arising from the Marshall decision.

All parties at that meeting agreed that a made in Atlantic solution is required and that the fishing issue should be given first priority. They also began to consider a process for dealing with the broader impact of the Marshall decision.

On October 27 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will meet with the Atlantic chiefs in Cape Breton to continue the discussion launched last week. In addition, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consulted with the ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs in the maritime provinces on October 21. DIAND staff is actively involved in reviewing the Marshall decision, its implication for first nations and its implication for all people in the maritimes.

Two additional steps have also been taken. First, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been designed as the lead federal minister on the immediate issue relating to fisheries while the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will lead on the broader resource issue relating to the 1760 treaty and other historic maritime treaties.

Second, the government has appointed a respected Nova Scotia lawyer, Mr. James Mackenzie, to serve as the federal representative in discussions arising from the Marshall decision both on fisheries issues and on the longer term implications of the court ruling on aboriginal access to resources. Mr. Mackenzie began meeting with east coast chiefs and with non-aboriginal fishers last week.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are both actively working with aboriginal leaders, with the provinces and with other stakeholders. We intend to continue working co-operatively with all parties to reach a constructive solution.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since this is a non-votable motion, there is no question to be put. Therefore, I ask that we see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[Points Of Order, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair's guidance on this. I thought this was allowed under the rules. If it is allowed under the latest version of the standing orders, why is the member asking for unanimous consent?

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the government's introduction of a new elections act.

Let me begin my remarks today by congratulating Elections Canada for the work it has done in the past. I know that under the new bill it will continue to do fine work.

I have been involved directly in two elections. I do not know if Elections Canada is monitoring this speech, but if it is I want to say how well I thought it did from my own personal experience. Any Elections Canada official I had to deal with was extremely fair and I have had nothing but a good experience with the organization. I know that with the new bill it will continue to operate in a fair-handed, even manner and we look forward to the continuation of a tradition which I think Canadians hold dear, democratic elections.

Elections Canada really is like a referee. We have the best election when we do not notice that it is there. It is like a sports game where we do not notice the calls that are being made by the referee. There is much work that Elections Canada does in getting ready for an election, such as voters lists and setting up the polls. It is a tribute to the hard work that there are not more complaints, given the complexity of the task of having people vote in a country as large as this.

I will now turn to some substantive issues which have been addressed by members opposite. The opposition has raised the issue of the bill going to committee before second reading. I want to point out to members in the Chamber and to Canadians generally that by having the bill go to committee before second reading gives committee members greater latitude for a fuller, broader debate and to make different amendments than they would otherwise be able to make if the bill went to them after second reading.

The basic principles of parliamentary procedure are that once a bill goes through second reading it has been approved in principle. Amendments that can be made are somewhat more narrowly defined than would be allowed under parliamentary law, or more narrowly defined in that they cannot go against the bill which has already been approved in principle.

By going to committee before second reading committee members can have a broader debate. They can look at numerous amendments in a broader context. Being a member of that committee I look forward to having a very full and frank debate, which will impact on all of us elected to the House as well as Canadians everywhere.

There are a number of administrative changes that are being proposed in the bill and there are reasons we need to make those changes.

Canada's electoral laws are based on principles we value as a democratic society: fairness, transparency and accessibility. They provide the framework of our electoral system. A House of Commons committee has concluded that Canada's electoral law remains strong, although a number of provisions came into effect nearly 30 years ago and should be updated. The proposed administrative changes are based on the committee's report.

The first electoral administrative change I would like to talk about is the adjusting of voting hours. We will allow for the adjustment of voting hours for areas that do not switch to daylight savings time when other clocks move ahead one hour. This will ensure that polls in Saskatchewan will close either before or at the same time as polls in Alberta and British Columbia. This corrects the problem experienced in Saskatchewan in the last election.

I am sure we all remember a time when it used to be a grievance of western Canadians that as they turned on their televisions on election night there was a sense that the election had already been determined even before they had cast their votes because of the time zone switch. A government may have obtained a majority once the returns were made in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario. By the time the returns got to either the prairie provinces or British Columbia, the majority had already been set and there was a sense that their vote did not matter as much.

I understand that. The government was wise to try to correct it in the last parliament. Now we are fine-tuning it a bit so that we will get the results at the same time. In 1997 it made for an exciting return. All Canadians have a sense that their votes count just as much when the returns come in at roughly the same time.

The act will also provide for standardized hours of voting for a single byelection or more than one byelection in the same time zone, being from 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. It will enable returning officers to vote. At present they may vote only in the case of a tie. It will authorize the electronic submission of nomination papers for all candidates to take account of the advent of new technologies.

It will ensure the right of electors to post reasonable electoral signs and of candidates to canvas in multiple unit residential buildings, including condominiums, during campaigns. Having canvassed in apartment buildings, as have most of the members of the House. it is often a case of dispute between oneself and the caretaker of the premises. It will be good to have it spelled out more clearly in the Canada Elections Act that candidates actually have a right to go into apartment buildings during reasonable hours to canvas.

The act will abolish the process of vouching to reduce the risks of electoral fraud, a practice whereby rural voters could vouch for neighbours at the polling place so that they would be allowed to vote even when they had not been enumerated. It will consolidate, clarify and modernize the language and organization of the act to make it easier to understand and apply.

In regard to elections financing the bill makes a number of changes. Some of them are minor and some of them are more substantive. To offset the impact of inflation it will increase the threshold to $200 from the $100 level which was set in 1974, the 75% threshold for the political tax credit.

All of us as politicians who have to raise money understand what this means, but the general public may not. Right now, if one makes a donation to a political party one gets a tax credit for 75% of the first $100. That was set in 1974 and obviously it needs to be updated in light of inflation so we are proposing that it be raised to $200.

It will increase the threshold for disclosure to $200 from the current $100 limit. This provision ensures that all donors who contribute more than the threshold level to a registered party, candidate or third party are identified by name and address.

The issue of what level the threshold should be, whether $100 or $200, is somewhat academic. The main point is that it is an example of something that makes our system fair. If one wants to donate to a political party, whether one's name is Gerry Schwartz or some other name it becomes a matter of public record. This is one of the key elements of our electoral law that prevents corruption in our system.

Someone may want to try to influence me by making a donation to my party or to my campaign. However, if it has to be public there is a record. The opposition can obtain that record and raise the issue in the House. The local media can obtain it. This is one thing that limits the influence of big money.

In Canada we have a system of which we can be particularly proud, particularly in comparison with the system in the United States where the accusation is often made quite rightly that its politics are driven by big money. The amount of money that a congressman or senator has to raise to run for re-election in its federal system is somewhat scandalous.

My next campaign will spend in the neighbourhood of roughly $50,000. My equivalent in the United States would probably spend in the neighbourhood of millions of dollars. That is something of which all of us should be proud. It is something we should applaud. It says something very worthwhile.

Under the new act we will require a more detailed financial reporting by registered parties. It is the same issue of making sure that parties conduct their business in a transparent way. If a party is receiving money from individuals, they are registered and become public. It will also let us know what money is being spent on.

During a campaign there are limits on what someone can spend. It should be open and transparent reporting so that we can see whether someone is trying to sneak around the campaign limits by spending money ahead of the campaign. Proper reporting is one of the cornerstones or the guardians of making sure that people do not overspend their limits.

The new act will also prohibit the transfer of surplus funds from a party or local association to a candidate after polling day. All this does is prevent someone from trying to run to raise money for their own personal benefit.

I am happy the government is proceeding with the bill. As a member of the committee I look forward to debating with the opposition the merits of the bill and any amendments that will come forward from all members of the House.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I move that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Young Offenders Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you will find unanimous consent that the hoist motion in my name with regard to Bill C-260 be deemed to have been withdrawn and the question on the main motion to have been deemed put, a division thereon requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders today.