Debates of Oct. 26th, 1995

Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act

[The Speaker]

Thank you. Resuming debate. We are still discussing Motion No. 1. The debate is on Group No. 1.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for a westerner to be able to speak to this motion. I begin by pointing out that there has been in both recent and historical terms a need to address the problem this bill and this motion seemingly are dealing with.

The minister is charged with the duty to look at any circumstance in which there has been an infraction under the law and take that circumstance and assess whether or not it is "a very serious situation". Perhaps even out of ignorance a person may become involved in a set of circumstances that really potentially is serious if not checked.

The biggest point that needs to be addressed is the bill and the minister are trying to bring about some compliance to the degree that this infraction or this problem can be rectified.

Under the present situation, every contravention must be prosecuted. The reason the bill is being put in place is to have in place some discretionary powers whereby the bill will in fact still bring about compliance while recognizing that there are some circumstances that need not produce criminal records.

To prescribe by regulation, as the motion puts forward, the criterion for determining whether a contravention should be considered as a violation or an offence perhaps is on the surface rather difficult, but once it gets operating sets of criteria will flow and will become apparent.

I will give a couple of examples. Let us suggest that somebody has entered material into the food chain that is very harmful. This would require penalties that perhaps would be approaching the criminal level and should be dealt with very seriously.

At the standing committee my colleague said perhaps a person who is hauling animals will be putting too many animals into a trailer and unknowingly breaking the regulations. Consequently, all we need to do is deal with that individual on a user friendly basis.

I feel the motion on the criteria situation is one that in time will flow and the decision of whether or not to prosecute or put in place the monetary penalties when necessary will bring about the desired effect of compliance. The minister has the duty to make known what those criteria are as the events unfold.

[The Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 2.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-61, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 34, on page 2, with the following:

"reduced;".

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-61, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7, on page 5, with the following:

"the Tribunal."

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-61, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19, on page 5, with the following:

"penalty, the person named in the notice may pay the amount of the penalty in the prescribed time and manner.

(1.1) Where a person pays the amount referred to in subsection (1),".

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-61, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 40, on page 5, with the following:

"in the prescribed time and manner, request a review by the Tribunal of the".

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-61, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 6, with the following:

"reasonable security, in a form and in an amount".

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-61, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 7, the following:

"(4.1) Where security has been given under paragraph (1)( a ), the notice shall also state that the security shall not be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada unless the amount of the security is less than twice the amount of the penalty set out in the notice of violation.''

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-61 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-61, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page 9, with the following:

"14. (1) No later than six months after the Tribunal receives a request for a review under this Act, it shall, by order, as".

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-61, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 16, on page 9, with the following:

"under this Act, the Tribunal shall, by order, as the case may be, determine whether or not the person requesting the review committed a violation and, where the Tribunal decides that the person committed a violation but considers that the amount of the penalty for the violation, if any, was not established in accordance with the regulations, the Tribunal shall correct the amount of the penalty, and the Tribunal shall cause a notice of any or-".

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-61, in Clause 15, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 42, on page 9 and lines 1 to 7, on page 10.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose Bill C-61, because we feel it is unacceptable in its present form. Myself and my party fully agree with the underlying principle, which is to save taxpayers time

and money. However, it seems that the government always opens the door to all sorts of harmful effects.

This bill could have a major adverse impact on compliance and fairness. Moreover, if the department is setting up a system of monetary penalties it is because it feels such a system can greatly simplify the procedures used to ensure compliance, and therefore result in major savings to Canadian taxpayers. The problem is that the government did not anticipate the possibility that some decisions related to the process may be totally arbitrary. We oppose the compliance agreements which allow the designated person to reduce the penalty imposed to an offender. Such a procedure is unfair.

The government should also have told us about the potential savings associated with the implementation of this bill. Allowing a person designated by the department to enter into a compliance agreement with an offender is totally unacceptable. Under such an arrangement, the offender's penalty would be reduced by one dollar for every two dollars that the company would invest to improve its procedures, buy new material or train its staff. As far as I know, our justice system does not allow an offender to negotiate his or her penalty. Bargaining penalties is not part of our way of doing things. Just ask those who get arrested for speeding: either you are guilty and pay the full amount of the fine, or you challenge the decision before the court and the judge makes a ruling.

Under our justice system, an offender must assume the consequences of his acts. An offender who has the means to invest money to correct a specific situation would benefit from that provision. This bill is as unfair as you can get. Such preferential treatment is based on the spending power of an individual or a company, and that is unfair.

Moreover, can the government tell us who will evaluate the cost of efforts made by the individual or company to remedy the situation? Training, equipment, all these things cost more or less, depending on where you live. Offenders would be penalized if they live in a region where these costs are high. What is more, will they be informed of all of the approaches available to them for correcting the situation? And what if, with the complicity of suppliers, our offender produces padded invoices? Frankly, there are tax or other incentives which could be used if we are seeking to step up investments or training in a company. But for goodness' sake , let us not link it with negotiation of a sentence.

Another unacceptable point: the bill calls for a 50 per cent reduction in the penalty if the person committing the violation pays the fine without contesting or requesting a review. Here the government is attacking the very foundations of presumed innocence. A number of hon. members are lawyers and they know this is a fundamental right. A person is considered innocent until proven otherwise in our legal system, is he not?

Let us look at an obscure situation in which there were grounds to request a review. The minister would tell the individual or company that it would be in his or its best interests to be seen and not heard. Of course, he could ask for a review, but with a gun at his head. He will be told that he has already been found guilty and that, if he wants to reduce his penalty, he has only to pay up without a fuss.

Where does the right of any individual to representation come in? Who will help the person presumed to have committed the violation to defend his point of view?

The individual may obtain a hearing before a tribunal, however, if he insists. But beware of conflicts of interest. Listen carefully to how the thing works: the tribunal is appointed by the minister. The members, whose mandate is renewable, have to assess decisions made by departmental employees.

And the latter answer to the minister. That is how it goes. It seems to me that the tribunal members could very easily be appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food after an assessment of whether the handling of certain cases has or has not caused problems. Another point not made clear is whether the individual will have to travel to Ottawa for a hearing.

This government just loves to complicate things. Another department I will not mention, Transport Canada, uses a system of monetary sanctions. Unlike Agriculture and Agri-Food, however, Transport Canada has no mechanism allowing it to reduce penalties if the offending individual decides to pay up without an argument. There is no reduction either if he decides to invest in improvements to the facilities which earned him the fine.

It is unnecessary to offer some sort of penalty reduction bonus as an incentive for violators to pay up, because in many cases, contesting the penalty costs more than the penalty itself.

The government wants to save money. So do we. The bill before the House today proposes to amend eight acts. Most of these acts concern areas that are already administered by the provinces.

Did the government start by consulting the provinces to find out whether the monetary penalty system is a concept they would recognize, and did it then consider whether the provinces would not be in a better position to administer the system? It is high time we put an end to unnecessary duplication in inspection services.

Too often the federal inspection system's only excuse for being there at all is the international standards it enforces in order to meet international trade requirements. Why not let the provinces

enforce these standards themselves? Then we would certainly save money.

In concluding, we support initiatives that help relieve pressure on the courts. Consequently, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we support the principle of Bill C-61. However, we do not agree with the double standard the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food wishes to introduce by reducing penalties for violators who plead guilty without asking for a review or who will invest to correct the situation.

In fact, the agreement process the department wishes to impose is certainly not essential to the bill, especially since it is a potential source of arbitrariness and inequity. I would urge the House to vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, in order to correct a bill that might otherwise have a disastrous impact on the concept of equity in our legal system.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the individuals who looked at the bill and came forward with amendments looked very hard at the issues they are attempting to address. I have to say their attempts to remedy or improve the bill is evident.

However I have to take exception that the actual function they are bringing forward will be a benefit to agriculture in general. I would point out that in Motion No. 15 they are asking to legislate what the maximum time frame should be tied to six months within which time the review tribunal must complete its review.

Many times when a tribunal is involved in matters it would be rather imprudent to be fixed to a particular time frame and attempt to guarantee this time frame in legislation where reason dictates that flexibility would be required and needed. Therefore, a six-month time frame would not always be suitable. I think we would have to say that some flexibility in timing would be required.

Another purpose of the motion is to remove from the minister the ability to enter into compliance agreements whereby penalties could be reduced in recognition of costs incurred by industry by taking corrective measures. The important thing in these matters is that compliance is achieved. Whether or not there is a reduced or an increased penalty is secondary in most cases to bringing about the change by the perpetrator of the infraction.

By authorizing the department to enter into these agreements the bill gives the department the tool to negotiate the implementation by industry of measures that would change the violator's practices and process. That is the key. At the same time, the violator may pay a reduced amount of penalty in exchange for compliance. These funds to effect the necessary improvements leading to a future compliance may also be used to remedy certain situations.

Compliance agreements result in immediate corrective actions. Note that we are saying immediate. When that has happened of course, the ministerial or departmental approval would be achieved. Immediate corrective action leads to a better product, improved health and safety, and more effective enforcement. Compliance agreements are optional and no one is forced to enter into these agreements. The bill provides an incentive to enter into compliance agreements by making it possible to reduce the amount of monetary penalty. As we have said, the most important outcome is that there has been a change and there has been a remedy and compliance is achieved.

To remove the possibility of a ministerial review of a notice of violation is also deemed not suitable by this amendment. I would like to speak against that point as well. A ministerial review enables a violator who wishes to challenge a monetary penalty to have a fast, inexpensive and informal way to do so. Under current legislation he must do so through the court system. As we know, that can be slow. We also know it can be very expensive. Consequently, when we hear concerns from opposite sides that we do not have enough savings by these changes, we admit that we perhaps do not have a fixed number, but we know that by taking it out of the court system we will be putting a number of dollars into agriculture rather than into the hands of people in the legal system.

The ministerial review is optional in any event. The violator may choose to proceed directly to the review tribunal. Furthermore, anyone who elects to have a ministerial review may appeal its outcome to the review tribunal.

Finally, I would like to comment on whether or not to remove the possibility for a violator to pay less than the full amount of monetary penalty where the violator does not request a review. In other words, we would be putting in place a mechanism whereby there would be a smaller amount of money taken from the perpetrator of an infraction without his even asking for it.

The intent behind including in the bill a provision that enables this to happen is twofold. First, it is to enable a violator who does not intend to challenge the assessment of a penalty to pay a reduced amount of penalty if the department is satisfied that the violator would act in good faith and take the necessary corrective measures. Again, the compliance component is paramount here. Second, it is to promote compliance without engaging in long and costly hearings.

Hearings are of course expensive, as we said earlier. There are other regimes. It is estimated that the average hearing cost is about

$1,400, and some might be more. If we can save that $1,400, we will all be ahead of the game.

We are informed these types of reductions are common under other monetary penalty regimes both in Canada and the U.S. In these other regimes reductions are informally made on a case by case basis while taking great care to make a decision appropriately. Bill C-61 formalizes the procedure and makes the practice transparent and available to anyone.

I conclude my remarks at this point.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is rather heavy slugging; I hope you are enjoying the debate this morning.

We are dealing with quite a large number of amendments in Group No. 2. I am not going to speak individually on all of the Bloc amendments, but I will lump them together. It seems the Bloc's intention in proposing these amendments is to actually do away with the formulating of compliance agreements altogether. That is not a position I or my colleagues share. We are not opposed to the concept. We want to clarify, quantify and qualify some of the act to make it work better, which is the purpose of our amendments.

If the compliance agreement is properly administered and properly enforced, if it is balanced and gives a proper and reasonable amount of protection to both the minister and his department and to those violators or alleged violators who are affected by this legislation, it can actually be a useful tool that will take violators out of the courts and allow the situation to be dealt with in a less costly and more efficient manner.

Having said that about the Bloc amendments, I suspect the Bloc would have been wiser to simply oppose the bill and offer no amendments at all rather than to actually destroy the intent of the bill.

I would like to speak briefly to the motions we have put forward in this grouping. I will begin with Motion No. 10, which concerns clause 10. We would amend it by replacing line 17 on page 6 with the following: "reasonable security, in a form and in an amount".

This motion deals with the granting of security to ensure compliance of someone who has violated the regulations under one of the acts dealt with in Bill C-61. We suggested there should be criteria in the process, and I appreciate the minister saying that he already has a policy manual in place. I do not know why he and his government would oppose ensuring that policy manual continues and is very open to the public by means of the amendment we have proposed. I cannot understand why the government would not be supportive of the word reasonable in front of the word security. We all want to be reasonable people; I am sure the minister wants to be reasonable, as does his government.

Let us use an example of what this would prevent. It would prevent the minister and his department from demanding an entire meat processing plant for security if the cooler was of a value at least twice as great as the penalty that would be imposed upon the processor for any violation he had committed. That type of approach is reasonable and would prevent abuses by the minister and his department. On the other hand, it would also preclude the minister from going to the other extreme and just demanding the meat grinder for security when the violation was serious enough that he should have more security to ensure the compliance agreement is complied with.

That is a reasonable amendment. It makes the bill stronger. It again qualifies the bill and leads me into Motion No. 11, which deals with the same matter of reasonable security.

Motion No. 11 is that Bill C-61 be amended in clause 10 by adding after line 11, on page 7, the following:

(4.1) Where security has been given under paragraph (1)(a), the notice shall also state that the security shall not be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada unless the amount of security is less than twice the amount of the penalty set out in the notice of violation.

This qualifies what reasonable security in this case would be. It prevents the minister and his department from demanding an unreasonable amount of security in ensuring a compliance agreement is complied with.

This is common sense. It is reasonable. It protects the department; it protects the minister; it protects the Canadian taxpayer. It is an incentive for the offender or the violator to comply with the agreement, yet it prevents abuse.

I will go on to Motion No. 15, which is also in this grouping. It states:

That Bill C-61, in clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page 9, with the following:

14.(1) No later than six months after the Tribunal receives a request for a review under this Act, it shall, by order, as

This seems a bit disjointed when it is read, but a tribunal is established under the act that can review disputes if they are not voluntarily complied with by the violator. If the offender is not able to make an agreement with the minister and his department, he does have recourse to a tribunal.

As we know, we have seen in the justice system in the United States and to a degree in Canada that sometimes these cases drag on and on. They are very costly. They are certainly not fair to the person who is accused or the person who has been alleged to have made a violation, and they are certainly not fair to the taxpayers who bear a large portion of the cost of this process.

Again, this is just a qualifier that ensures that the tribunal cannot delay making a decision forever and ever. In fact, it stipulates that in no case can the tribunal delay its action for more than six months. It requires the review tribunal to complete its review within six months of receiving the person's request for review.

Can the minister offer a very good reason why that is not reasonable or that does not protect taxpayers, why it does not protect the person who is alleged to have made a violation and even protect the department from ongoing cases where this situation is not resolved? It is better for all parties involved in this process.

I request that all members in the House look seriously at Motion No. 15. I suggest they support that as being fair and reasonable, making it a better act rather than a weaker one.

The purpose of these amendments is not to in any way criticize the government or do a one-up on the government; it is to make better legislation that is going to affect us all. It is in that spirit that we bring these amendments to the House.

I request that members opposite have a fair look at these amendments and see whether or not they can support them as being reasonable in this legislation, in this case suggesting reasonable security and a reasonable amount of time for decisions to be made.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, these are certainly very difficult and challenging times in the field of agriculture. We see a lot of changes going on throughout the sector worldwide. We have seen with the globalization of trade that is occurring and with the tight fiscal situations governments find themselves in all around the world that this is imposing certain constraints on the way we carry on business.

This government and the minister are facing many challenges in the area of agriculture. Certainly this government and the minister in particular has achieved a number of very significant successes in dealing with these challenges of globalization and dealing with the challenges of a tight fiscal situation.

When we look at the fair and thorough handling of the Crow payout issue in western Canada, the protection of the supply management system at the GATT talks and the successful completion of the GATT talks shortly after the election by the minister and the very favourable settlement of the durum wheat disputes of the U.S., in each instance the minister has dealt with these issues in a fair and thorough fashion, getting good results for the agricultural producers of Canada.

The minister has proven to be a very forceful and successful advocate for all the country's farmers, whether in the west, in Quebec, in Ontario, or in the maritimes. He has always ensured that when dealing with the issues of farmers, each group of producers in each region has its issues dealt with on the merits of the case. This bill is another fine example of dealing with the pressures and challenges facing the agricultural sector. This can be looked at as yet another success.

It is very important to point out that we are dealing with a piece of legislation that allows for compliance agreements. Therefore when there is a violation of a regulation within various parts of the agricultural sector, the usual route is to charge the individual. The individual gets a lawyer; the government gets a lawyer. The government pays for the expense and time of a tribunal to hear the case. Down the road a year or two later there is finally a decision in the dispute. Thereafter, in the event the charged individual or corporation is found guilty, their practices are changed.

This legislation allows for a speedy and fair resolution of the violation when it occurs. It allows the producers or the person charged to come to a very quick resolution of their dispute. The offending behaviour can be quickly remedied.

In a legal dispute in which charges are laid, a person will not change his behaviour for fear that change will lead to an admission of guilt.

When there is the ability for a person to simply change behaviour and get on with business, this is what we really want to see. We want to see our food safe, our industry competitive. Both these issues are dealt with very favourably by this legislation. That type of settlement is encouraged.

As we do not have the resources we used to, the solution put forward by the minister is excellent because it allows cutting the costs of corrective measures. This is very important for all Canadians. It allows industries to continue to be very competitive, to spend their resources doing their job of processing and selling products better rather than spending resources, time and energy worrying and trying to deal with a charge. In this respect the bill is excellent and handles a number of these changes in a very positive manner.

When dealing with the security required to ensure a violator complies with a compliance agreement, it has always been the intent of the minister that it be reasonable. If not included explicitly within the legislation, it is always included implicitly.

If the matter were subject to dispute, I have no doubt the courts would simply read into the legislation that the security required by the minister or the department would be reasonable. However, I suppose one could look at this amendment and say it is exactly what the intent of the legislation is and therefore would be reasonable to include it within the legislation.

One of the motions seeks to remove the possibility for the violator to pay less than the full amount of the monetary penalty where the violator does not request a review. The intent behind the bill includes the provision which enables a violator to pay less than the full amount of the penalty which otherwise would be taken if the procedure were to go to court.

The intent behind it is twofold. It enables a violator who does not intend to challenge the assessment of the penalty to pay a reduced penalty and to get on with life. It encourages the person to take corrective measures. It also promotes compliance without engaging in long and costly hearings. That makes sense. There is a large benefit to the person charged or who has committed a violation to simply change the behaviour and to get on with business. That is what the legislation is all about. If the possibility for the violator to pay less were not there, we would not see many violators voluntarily changing their behaviour.

The legislation deals with the fiscal realities of the government. It encourages a change of behaviour on the part of violators within the agriculture and agri-food sectors. It encourages the improvement of behaviour. Canada will continue to produce high quality goods in the agricultural field and will continue to have a competitive industry. The legislation also assists Canada to compete in the international market because the resources of the companies and the government will not be diverted into long legal disputes.

The legislation accomplishes a number of goals. It is another example of the minister's dealing effectively with the challenges we are facing in the agri-food sector today. I congratulate the minister and all the people who have worked hard to make this legislation a reality.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motions we are discussing in Group No. 2, Motion No. 2 and Motions Nos. 6 through 17. They are all part of our discussion at the present time.

Remarks were made earlier by the hon. member for Lotbinière regarding overlap and duplication in agricultural policies and programs between the federal government and provincial jurisdiction. I will address that point for a moment.

That there might be some measure of overlap is probably to be expected since under our Constitution agriculture is specifically and explicitly a joint federal-provincial responsibility.

When we look at the duplication that actually exists, it is truly remarkable that the amount involved in agriculture is tiny. Two studies were conducted within the last year or so by the Government of Quebec. One was released in the spring of this year and the other was released earlier this fall.

One study indicated that at the very worst the amount of overlap and duplication between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec with respect to agriculture might involve a cost in the order of 2.5 per cent. According to the other study, it was more like 1 per cent. According to the studies it is very minor.

On a number of occasions in the House and publicly I have indicated to the Government of Quebec and every other provincial government to the extent that overlap and duplication exist in the field of agriculture, that we should talk about it. We should work it out of the system so we have it at the absolute minimum, even though it is already very small to start with.

There really is no substantial argument to be made on the point of overlap and duplication because there is not much in the first place. To the extent that it does exist the Government of Canada is completely prepared to work with every provincial jurisdiction to identify problem areas that might exist and to work them out of the system so that overlap and duplication are minimized.

In the remarks of the member for Lotbinière I also heard an attempt to demean or diminish the importance of the Canadian federal inspection system in agriculture. That system is vital to Canadian farmers, exporters and consumers in terms of providing this country with the safest and highest quality of food in the world.

Studies, some of which we released at the time of the federal budget last February, indicated Canadians have a very high confidence level in our food system in terms of its health and its safety because of the Canadian food inspection system which ranks among the very best in the world in terms of health and safety standards. That gives our consumers a very strong and positive feeling about the quality of products they buy from the Canadian food system. It also provides our customers abroad with a very high level of expectation about the standards they can receive when they buy from Canada.

I have had the opportunity to visit with our customers in foreign markets, in the Asia-Pacific region, in Latin America, in Europe and in other places around the world. They have repeatedly told me that when they buy from Canada they know they buy the very best and they rely heavily on the high quality, high standard inspection system.

It is not accurate or appropriate to dismiss that as something frivolous or unmeaningful. It matters a lot to Canadian farmers, to Canadian exporters and potential exporters, to Canadian consumers and to our international customers. That inspection system is exceedingly important to all Canadians.

I have heard that comment repeated to me over and over by exporters and potential exporters from Quebec who know the value of the Canadian inspection system and who want to see it maintained in the best interests of Quebec agriculture and Canadian agriculture.

Can we make our inspection system even better? The answer to that is obviously yes. At the present time we are working very hard in co-operation with the private sector and in co-operation with all provincial governments to make that system better. We are working on areas where we can avoid costs in the system. We are working on areas where we can reduce costs in the system. We are working on areas where we can share costs in the system when there is an appropriate sharing of benefits at the same time. We are looking at a whole range of ways in which we can introduce new technology into the system to take advantage of the advances in science and technology in the field of food inspection systems.

We are also pursuing new approaches that have international acceptance such as an approach called HACCP, as it is known by its acronym, the hazard analysis at critical control points system. It is deemed in many jurisdictions around the world to be the very best system to move toward for the future. Many Canadian companies are already beginning to adopt that approach in their inspection standards.

Finally, there is the issue of more co-ordination and co-operation among all those in the system who have some responsibility for inspection.

I have seen examples of inspection situations in the country where three or four federal government departments are involved in some aspect of inspection, perhaps two or three departments at the provincial level and on occasion, some departments at the municipal level. That is an area where there is some overlap we can seriously work at removing from the system. We are trying to do that in two ways.

First, at the federal level we are working very hard on a single federal approach to inspection so that we do not have overlapping activities on the part of several federal departments all inspecting the same thing but simply repeating the process over and over again. We are making progress at working out those illustrations of federal overlap so we get the inspection job done but we do not cause repetitive actions that are in fact counterproductive and costly.

Second, we are working very hard with the provinces, as is evidenced by the last several federal-provincial meetings of agriculture ministers, to develop a Canadian national food inspection system. It is a system where all jurisdictions and all levels that have responsibility work in greater co-ordination with each other so that at the end of the day the very best inspection work gets done at a very high level with excellent standards and calibre, but we avoid costs in the system, overlap and duplication. We then have a system that performs to the very high standards we want at the very least possible cost.

The story of food inspection is one in which Canadians can have confidence and of which they can be very proud both for today and

for the future. Having said that, I would add this one final sentence. It is critically important that we maintain our vigilance with respect to food inspection so that Canadians cannot only have a past reputation for being the very best in the world, but can have the absolute confidence that their reputation will continue forever into the future.

In the group of motions that are specifically before us, Motions Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 12 have already been dealt with, I believe, by my colleague for Brandon-Souris quite effectively. Similarly, Motions Nos. 6, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 17 have been dealt with by the member for Brandon-Souris in considerable detail. I do not propose to repeat what he said.

I want to focus on Motion No. 10, presented by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, where he suggests the insertion of the word reasonable. It is obviously our intention, with respect to the matters dealt with under Motion No. 10, to be reasonable. I have no difficulty with the inclusion of that word with respect to Motion No. 10. I would suggest though, as a consequence that it would not be necessary to accept Motion No. 11 because the point is already covered effectively by the amendment we are prepared to accept in Motion No. 10.

All other motions in the package I would recommend against. However, the government is prepared to accept the amendment proposed in Motion No. 10.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?