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.