Debates of Nov. 1st, 1995

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 223-

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Concerning the Department of National Defence and appeals of Court Martial decisions it has initiated for the period of January 1970 through June 1995, ( a ) by year, how many appeals of Court Martial decisions has the Department of National Defence initiated during the period specified, ( b ) what are the details, including names and dates, of those Courts Marital which were appealed by the Department of National Defence, ( c ) what was the initial Court Martial verdict and sentence in each case, ( d ) for what reason did the Department of National Defence appeal each Court Martial decision during the years specified, ( e ) what was the final outcome in each of the Court Martial appeals initiated by the Department of National Defence?

Return tabled.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act

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

moved that Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the Canadian Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a very few minutes this afternoon at the final stage of consideration given to Bill C-61, the agriculture and agri-food administrative monetary penalties act.

I am very pleased to be able to report to the House, as has been noted earlier in our debates, that this legislation enjoys the solid support of key Canadian agri-food industry associations. Members of the House have already had ample opportunity to consider the bill in detail. Members are well aware of the benefits of Bill C-61 and there is very broad support in the House for the principle of what we are trying to accomplish. Therefore, my comments today will be brief and to the point as I reiterate just a few of the highlights of Bill C-61.

First, this bill will provide my department's officials with a broader range of measures to effectively enforce food safety and quality regulations. For example, they will have the authority and the power to impose monetary penalties and to negotiate solutions to violation situations rather than over-reliance, which has been the case in the past, on the only tool available to them, criminal prosecution.

The bill allows the government to meet industry demands for a system that applies equal and consistent enforcement practices against both importers and domestic companies that market products which do not meet Canadian health, safety or quality standards. This will help to create a level playing field for the domestic food industry.

Bill C-61 will strengthen our enforcement at border points. It will do so by allowing us to issue monetary penalties at ports of entry for violations committed by the travelling public who attempt illegally to bring meat and plant products into Canada that could introduce animal or plant diseases that do not naturally occur in our country.

Bill C-61 is fair and it is expedient. It allows for negotiated solutions for non-compliance. Administrative monetary penalties can be reduced to zero if a violator takes immediate corrective action to come into compliance. After all, that is the objective, to achieve compliance. This results in a better product and more effective enforcement. In this way the system emphasizes compliance and not punishment.

Finally, Bill C-61 will improve the competitiveness of Canadian industry while helping to maintain Canada's well-established international reputation for high quality health and safety standards.

The use of monetary penalties is not a new concept in the federal regulatory system. It is consistent with initiatives that are being undertaken by other departments. Similar systems to the one we are proposing in Bill C-61 are in use by the Department of Transport and by the Department of Human Resources Development.

One point was raised in the committee discussion of Bill C-61, and was raised at the report stage here in the House, which I should deal with for just a moment is the erroneous suggestion that my parliamentary secretary might have in some way misled members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with respect to the letters of support my department received from industry associations during the consultation process related to this bill.

Industry stakeholders have been kept fully informed of the progress of Bill C-61 right from day one. They will continue to be informed until the legislation is ultimately enacted.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada started the consultation process on the bill in early 1992. That was during a regulatory review process. The regulatory review confirmed that there was very broad industry support for the concept of an administrative monetary penalty system.

Later in October 1992 a letter was sent by Dr. Art Olson, the assistant deputy minister in my department for the food production and inspection branch. That letter went to all affected industry associations, including those referred to in the list of industry associations which was provided to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food during its consideration of Bill C-61.

The letter from Dr. Olson informed all of those industry organizations of the department's intention to introduce a system of administrative monetary penalties. The department also during that period engaged in face to face negotiations with a number of relevant groups. After that initial contact and consultation with industry, my department received a number of letters of support from industry organizations.

On the day Bill C-61 was tabled in the House for the first time in December 1994 another letter was sent by my department, this time to 132 industry associations to inform them specifically that the process had moved beyond the consultation stage, beyond the drafting stage to the point at which there was now a formal bill printed and ready to go. It was important to inform the industry of that progress.

In addition to the letter to the 132 industry associations, included in the package was a four-page background document outlining all the important provisions of Bill C-61. The letter in December 1994 specifically invited representatives of the industry to follow up with the department if they had any questions or concerns. A few inquiries came in for further detail.

It is important to note that during that process not one of those organizations, the 132 industry associations consulted, indicated it had changed its position of support for Bill C-61. At the same time the second letter went out a news release was sent to more than 1,000 media and industry contacts to make sure they were informed as well.

Since December 1994 until now the process has moved along through the various parliamentary stages. In recent weeks departmental officials have contacted 10 of the industry associations that had originally indicated support for the legislation. These are the associations referred to by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster when he raised questions as to whether these organizations were still supportive of Bill C-61.

Those organizations have been contacted once again to reconfirm their position. Of those 10 organizations mentioned by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster only three said they had ever been contacted by the Reform Party. Nine said they fully continue to support this legislation. The tenth involved a person who had just come on to the job in the last number of weeks and was not yet in a position to express an opinion.

The department is making arrangements to ensure the individual in that important position will be fully briefed by the department on all the details of Bill C-61.

It is quite obvious the consultative effort here has been lengthy and thorough. The information provided to the committee and to the House by the government and representatives of the government with respect to this consultative process has been complete and accurate.

The process of bringing Bill C-61 now to its final stage in the House has been a good process. There has been ample time for good discussion. Many ideas have been brought forward in that process, either informally in the drafting stage or formally in the form of amendments in committee and in the House which have been very useful. The government has demonstrated openness and flexibility in dealing with all of these ideas. A number of those proposed amendments were accepted by the government and have been incorporated into what is now the final draft of Bill C-61.

The bill will provide for a system which will deal with violations and potential violations of health and safety rules and regulations. It will be faster, fairer, more cost effective and more flexible in order to increase compliance with all of our health and safety regulations pertaining to agriculture and agri-food and also to assist Canadian agri-food businesses in winning and maintaining a competitive edge.

With the thorough discussion we have had with respect to this legislation and all of the proposed amendments, I urge my fellow members of the House on both sides to support Bill C-61 and to give it speedy passage on its way to the other place.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not present during last week's debate on Bill C-61. It is my friend and colleague, the member for the riding of Lotbinière next to mine, who participated in the debate in this House on the official opposition's amendments to Bill C-61.

As you know full well, I had to work hard in my riding of Frontenac to campaign against my colleague who sits on the opposition benches in the National Assembly in order to obtain a yes majority in that riding. I take this opportunity to thank my constituents for supporting the option of sovereignty with partnership.

I, however, read these proceedings carefully and I must say I am surprised by the government members' frivolous comments on our amendments. Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Bill C-61 will allow the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to meet several of its objectives, in particular relieving pressure on the courts and the resulting savings for taxpayers. In this regard, the

Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of administrative monetary penalties.

We, however, cannot support the bill as tabled by the government for a very simple reason, namely that the federal Department of Transport implemented a system of monetary penalties without allowing offenders to negotiate these penalties with the department. We in the official opposition see this opportunity to negotiate penalties as the Achilles heel of the bill. Yet, the federal department of agriculture did not consider the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and continues to support the principle of penalty negotiation.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois thinks that this bill could have a major impact on the way justice is served.

The judicial power differs from the legislative one. Here, in the House of Commons, we can discuss, improve, analyze and review bills, but when it comes to implementing them, the judicial system takes over. In a self-respecting society, the judicial system must never have a close and direct link with the legislative power. Otherwise, what kind of society would we be living in? Does the government seek to have a totalitarian society in which our fellow citizens would be accountable to their elected representatives, and in which the judicial system would lose its authority? I certainly hope that we will not live in a totalitarian regime.

Consequently, it is very unfortunate that the federal government flatly rejected the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. These amendments sought to eliminate the risk of arbitrary decisions in the administration of penalties.

The Minister of Agriculture should recognize that the compliance agreements and negotiations which he will allow to reduce the penalty imposed to an offender are not indispensable to reach his objective, which is to reduce the workload of the courts.

As his colleague, the Minister of Transport, knows from experience, it is much more beneficial for an offender to immediately pay a fine than to go to the courts, particularly if he knows that his is a lost cause. The monetary penalty system is, in itself, a good enough incentive to encourage the offender to settle the issue outside the courts. Any compliance agreement to reduce the penalty does not do anything more, except create a major risk of unfairness in the administration of penalties.

The amendments tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, through the hon. member for Lotbinière, sought to abolish any form of compliance agreement or negotiation between the department and the offender. The Minister of Agriculture has not convinced us, far from it, that there is no risk of arbitrary decision in this monetary penalty system. We still feel that the negotiation process allowing a departmental officer to reduce the penalty of an offender is unfair and, more importantly, dangerous for a democracy.

The member for Brandon-Souris justified the quick rejection of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois by saying, and I quote: "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".

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food fully agreed with that earlier when he said that compliance is more important than enforcement.

I was talking with the chief of police of a small community in my riding who had to go to Sherbrooke to testify. To show how ridiculous the fines and penalties have become, he told me that people indicted on seven or eight charges for offences at their summer cottages passed him on his way back to his community, such was the speed with which they had been able to settle the fines. Despite the jail sentences provided for in the case of such offences, they were dealt with so fast that they passed the chief of police at high speed, and made gestures I would not dare make in the House.

Our police forces are so dispirited that often they wonder whether they should do their job or close their eyes and pretend not to see, because our justice system is going downhill and bankrupt.

In other words, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris feels what matters is compliance, not whether the law is enforced fairly or not. He cannot answer that question. I am sorry, but in Quebec we do not buy that kind of justice.

Make no mistake, the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois were not to abolish the monetary penalty system. As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this principle which will help to reduce the caseload of the courts.

However, this is a new and intelligent approach, especially in times of financial crisis. Having said that, the caseload of the courts should not be reduced and a parallel justice system should not be created if it means the implementation of an arbitrary justice system. The possibility of negotiating the penalty with civil servants introduces an unacceptable bias in the penalty process.

More specifically, after noticing an offence, officials of the Production and Inspection Branch will recommend to their director the appropriate penalty to impose. We therefore have a centralized decision process and the department maintains that the regulations eliminate the risk of arbitrary decisions. But that is not true. It is not true and indeed the government has not even seen fit to introduce the regulations, even though they are very important in

this case, to assess the relevancy of a negotiation system to reduce the penalties.

A departmental official is authorized to reach an agreement with the offender to reduce the penalty by $1 for every $2 the company will invest to improve its procedures, buy new equipment or train its employees. We are against such a principle. In our justice system, penalties are not negotiable. I repeat: in our justice system, penalties are not negotiable.

I look at my colleague, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who once was the president of the bar in his district. He knows full well that someone who has been found guilty of an offence does not have the opportunity to negotiate his or her penalty or sentence, far from it.

Imagine, Madam Speaker, that you are on highway 401 going to Montreal and that an OPP officer stops you for speeding, for example. You start to negotiate with him. You are guilty, you were doing 140 kilometres an hour and you negotiate with the OPP officer: "Look, I was doing 140, I was going down a hill, the car started to go faster, so be indulgent with me. I am the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. Write down on the ticket that I was doing 121 kilometres or just let me go."

Would that kind of double-standard justice be acceptable? No. I do not think, Madam Speaker, that Quebecers would accept that you negotiate your speeding ticket with an OPP officer, let alone with an officer of the Sûreté du Québec, because it would not be appropriate for a member of Parliament, especially for the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, to do so. And it is possible with this legislation that agricultural producers and people in related industries could negotiate, by mutual agreement, an unprecedented reduction of their penalty.

This could have an adverse effect on the viability and also on the reliability of our agricultural products here, in Canada. I heard that it was possible to negotiate a speeding ticket, but you certainly understand as well as I do that it is not an ideal situation. In this case, an offender who is better off financially and who would be in a position to invest in order to correct a particular situation would be rewarded for that through a reduction of his or her penalty. For each $2 invested, the penalty would be reduced by $1. This way, the person who has enough money could have the penalty reduced to zero, whereas the person who does not have that much money could not settle the matter in the same way. Therefore, this proposal would put some inequity in our justice system.

People or businesses would not be treated equally; they would be treated according to their spending power. Moreover, who would assess the cost of the efforts made by a person or a business to correct a particular situation? For instance, training may cost more in a particular region, and the same applies to equipment, which means some individuals and companies will be penalized.

Will they be informed of all the approaches available to them to correct the situation? What happens in the case of padded invoices involving collusion by suppliers? If we are looking for incentives to step up training and investment in a company, we should improve on methods that already exist, such as fiscal or other incentives, but these should not be used to negotiate a penalty.

The bill also calls for a 50 per cent reduction in the penalty if the person who commits the violation pays the fine without challenging the decision or requesting a review by a tribunal. I repeat, we are opposed to this concept. Under our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to the example I mentioned earlier. You are clocked at 140 kilometres per hour, and your fine is $225. You get your ticket, you pay on the spot or within seven to ten days, but under this particular system, if you pay without challenging your ticket, the fine is halved.

So $225 divided by two is $112.50. To avoid clogging the courts, the fine will be reduced by 50 per cent. This is ridiculous. Unless of course the government has a brilliant idea and decides to double the fines while at the same time introducing incentives. In that case, it is misrepresenting the enforcement of this legislation.

Under our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. For instance, in a situation that could go either way, the company or individual is given to understand that they are better off paying the fine without further ado.

The individual is entitled to a review but is told: "Listen, you have a gun at your head". He will be told he has already been found guilty and that if he wants to reduce his penalty, the best thing is to pay up without a fuss. And what about the right to representation?

The Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to ensure that the president and members of the tribunal who are responsible for reviewing decisions made by departmental officials are able to do so. The person who committed a violation could, if he so desires, have a hearing before the tribunal in order to request a review of his penalty. However, the tribunal-listen to this, Madam Speaker, this is very important-is appointed by the minister and the mandate of its members is renewable. Members are to assess decisions made by departmental employees who obviously are answerable to the minister. Is there not a conflict of interest here?

People sitting on this tribunal who would like to see their mandate renewed for a second term would be more inclined to do the department's bidding, while someone who refuses to do so would not see his mandate renewed.

In any case, I was looking at the procedure used to appoint the president of the UI Board of Referees in Thetford, in my riding. The person appointed to chair this board and rule on UI disputes was probably a good choice politically speaking, because she is connected with the Quebec Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, but she has never seen a worker or an unemployed worker up close. Why not take someone who knows about unemployment insurance, other than in books, someone who has had experience with it? This is patronage. In any case, it would appear to be a recommendation from the Frontenac riding Liberal association, which was accepted.

I hope that we are not going to go the same route here in appointing people, that the appointees will already have had a close look at the system they are being asked to work on-in short, competent individuals. Maybe competence will mean having campaigned in the Liberal Party at both levels, in Quebec City and in Ottawa-this is what make competent people.

To ensure greater transparency in the appointment of the chairperson and the members of the tribunal, we in the Bloc Quebecois have suggested that they be appointed by the minister with the approval of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. However, the members of this government represent the majority on the agriculture and agri-food committee, as elsewhere; they control it and always get their way.

We in the opposition, with our colleagues from the third party, simply ask questions. We propose resolutions, obviously, motions that are usually relegated to the shelves, because the government party makes use of its majority. They could have circulated their list of chairperson and tribunal members, and have the committee validate it at least. They refused. And they say their party is democratic.

You all know that the world of agriculture is a very small one. However, once again, our amendments have been quickly dismissed with a wave of the hand. The government also showed it paid little attention to the proposals put forward by the official opposition. As the Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic in this House, I note that the government has never taken amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois into account in this area. Although we support the basic principle of a system of administrative monetary penalties, we are well aware that there was no need for the government to add a penalty bargaining system.

In fact, this is what officials from the department confirmed during their appearance before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. On its own, the monetary penalty system is enough of an incentive to freeing the courts.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore vigorously opposes Bill C-61, because it establishes a system for penalty bargaining between officials and those who have committed violations. This new form of justice is not currently practiced in Quebec. It seems to me to be contrary to Quebec traditions and to our system of justice. I suspect that this sort of consideration was not taken into account when the bill was drafted. I would be curious to see whether the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food would be prepared to revise this legislation if, on implementation, it proves to be in conflict with the traditions and values of Quebec society.

In short, this bill on monetary penalties has an interesting purpose: to relieve pressure on the courts.

What we in the opposition disagree with is the opportunity to negotiate penalties. This will, I am sure, lead to abuse, to negotiations under the table, to questionable negotiations.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No, no, no.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Yes, questionable. This bill may hurt agriculture instead of helping it.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That will not happen.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

My colleague from Beauséjour knows full well that when a fisherman is caught red-handed in violation of federal legislation, we do not negotiate on the size of the fish he caught on the sly, or on anything else. The individual guilty of fishing off his riding will be caught and prosecuted.

As I said, the judicial and legislative branches of government must not sleep in the same bed. Never. Yet, there are many lawyers in this party. They should be the first ones to denounce Bill C-61 because it is flawed.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No. Jean-Guy, you just said that you would support it.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

No, we will not support it. I find it disturbing, Madam Speaker.

Its purpose is commendable. To take your own example, Madam Speaker, you get a $225 speeding ticket for driving 140 kilometres an hour and you pay it. If you pay it, will your fine be cut in half? No. And that is a good thing.

As my colleague who was president of the Bar in his region, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, knows full well, the substance of the bill is valid. However, the possibility of negotiating fines-not up, of course, but down-raises serious questions regarding the viability of administering Bill C-61.

For these reasons, I will, in closing, remind you that the Bloc Quebecois will not join the government in supporting Bill C-61.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended today by 43 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to talk about Bill C-61, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.

Plans for administrative monetary penalties have been on the books in the department of agriculture for at least a couple of years. Under a system of administrative monetary penalties, or AMPS, an inspector who determines that a violation of an agri-food act has been committed can impose a fine on the offender rather than go through the judicial system. The main goal of AMPS according to the department is to obtain compliance rather than to punish. The United States and some countries in Europe have been using an administrative monetary penalty system for some time.

The Reform Party is not opposed to the concept of administrative monetary penalties. We like the idea of a penalty system that is more efficient and cost effective, a system that helps individuals and companies to comply with regulations. In addition, most of the organizations I have talked to support the concept of administrative monetary penalties. However there is a difference between supporting the concept of AMPS and supporting an AMPS program as proposed in a piece of legislation.

Before I discuss the problems associated with the legislation, I believe it would be helpful to the House to give a short account of the history of Bill C-61 since it started some time ago. On December 5, 1994, Bill C-61 was given first reading in the House. Second reading of the bill was given on February 10 and 13 of this year. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for consideration, and the standing committee reviewed the legislation on March 15, 23, 30 and April 4 of this year.

On March 15 departmental officials explained the bill's provisions and answered questions. On March 23 Transport Canada officials explained the administrative monetary penalty system introduced in 1985 under the Aeronautics Act and answered questions. On March 30 Ghislaine Richard, former vice-president of the Civil Aviation Tribunal, provided evidence to the committee on the function of the tribunal particularly as it related to the implementation of Transport Canada's administrative monetary penalty system, and she answered questions.

On April 4, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials returned to respond to concerns expressed by the members about disincentives to contest charges, the burden of proof criteria for adjusting the penalty amount and other issues raised during discussion of the bill. The bill was then put to bed and because of the criticism of the bill we thought it may never come to prominence in the House again.

I raised a point in committee and in the House which the minister of agriculture commented on a few minutes ago. In committee the parliamentary secretary for agriculture handed out a list of industry associations that he claimed had personally endorsed Bill C-61. He also suggested there were letters available that would verify this endorsement and that we were welcome to request copies of the letter if we chose to do so.

We requested the letters of endorsement and found that a majority of the letters had been written two to three years before the bill was tabled in the House last December. We acknowledge the fact that the department of agriculture consulted with the industry associations. However we have some qualms about the way the parliamentary secretary for agriculture presented the facts or lack of facts to me and my colleagues with regard to the endorsement of the legislation.

Most of the letters to the department endorsed the concept of an AMPS but not necessarily the bill as it exists before the House today.

The minister of agriculture suggested that we had only contacted three on the list of organizations that we were given indication had endorsed Bill C-61. The minister is wrong. Since the list was submitted by the parliamentary secretary to the committee, we have contacted directly presidents or government relations people from eight of the eleven organizations on the list.

In several cases the signatories of the letters were no longer with the organization. This presented a problem in tracking down the appropriate spokesperson. The eight organizations that we directly contacted included those on the list of the parliamentary secretary that he distributed to the committee. We were unable to speak with some of the people because they were no longer in the organizations they used to represent.

The parliamentary secretary indicated that these were the letters of endorsement he had on file for Bill C-61, and that was not true. Bill C-61 was not in existence when the letters were written. Perhaps, as the minister suggested, there was some other correspondence with these organizations. He certainly has not given us copies of any further endorsements of Bill C-61 and what date the endorsements came about. He told us he issued press releases and had communications with 100-odd organizations but he has never given us any hard copies that would validate his claims.

When we contacted the people whose names had been given by the parliamentary secretary, they were quite surprised to find out there was a Bill C-61. On a few occasions they asked for a copy of the bill and said that if they are supposed to have endorsed the bill

they should at least see what it is, what it is all about and what are the details of the bill. They were rather shocked.

The minister did not clearly respond to our concerns. Specific letters were given to us that were alleged to have been support for Bill C-61. That was not true. They were not letters of support for Bill C-61. They were letters written before the Liberal government was even elected to the House of Commons.

The information we were given was wrong. If that is any indication of how the department of agriculture runs or any reflection on the capabilities of the minister of agriculture and his parliamentary secretary, those of us who are farmers certainly have a great deal to be concerned about.

As I have already mentioned, the Reform Party endorses the AMPS, but we want to know if the department of agriculture consulted the industry associations one time and then did whatever it pleased, or if it actually took the time to address some of the industry's concerns. The industry had some concerns that it put forward in letters that were not letters of support for Bill C-61 but were letters that said they supported an AMP concept.

Only after we raised a stink in the House did the minister's office call industry associations for approval. As the minister readily admitted in his speech, he had to go back and contact the organizations. I think we hit a raw nerve or created a bit of a stir. We actually followed up the leads and caused some problems for the minister because he had not done his homework and he did not know what was going on.

In talking to some industry associations about Bill C-61 there was substantial concern regarding its implementation. Associations, producers and processors want assurances the system will be applied fairly, uniformly and consistently across all programs and regions.

When department of agriculture officials appeared before the committee they repeatedly made reference to the importance of a safe food supply for Canadians and the impact AMPS would have in ensuring that it was possible.

While some of the violations will undoubtedly touch the issue of food safety, many of the other violations will be of a technical variety. For example, the printing on a label may be a centimetre too small or there may be problems importing a certain type of herbicide that has been used in the United States for a number of years without complications.

One of the national industry agencies we consulted had reservations about the application of penalties due to technical violations of regulations such as the examples listed above. There were concerns and these organizations felt their concerns had not been properly addressed by the minister.

It would be good if the minister would clarify the situation and give us proof of recent communications with these organizations. He should give us some letters dated 1995, not 1992 or 1993.

On March 23 and March 30, 1995 meetings of the committee raised some serious concerns for members on this side of the House as well as on the other side. At that time I was not part of the agriculture committee but I have had the opportunity to review the minutes from the proceedings in question. One of the main concerns raised by committee members was the issue of due diligence.

Under the original legislation as it appeared before the committee the clause in question, clause 18, read as follows:

A person named in a notice of a violation does not have a defence by reason that the person

(a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or

(b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true,would exonerate the person.

This clause explicitly left out due diligence as a defence for individuals served a notice of violation. This provoked questions delving into whether the system of AMP should operate on a strict liability regime or an absolute liability regime. Strict liability means it has to be proven someone committed the violation with intent. Absolute liability does not consider the intent with which the person committed the violation and therefore does not allow for defence under due diligence.

Mr. Mazowita, director of legislation and compliance for Transport Canada, who appeared as a witness before the committee, commented on this question with respect to the aviation environment:

In the aviation environment we find it appropriate to provide for the defence of due diligence-there can be all kinds of circumstances in which a pilot or a commercial operator or manufacturer has done everything reasonable that a pilot or air carrier manufacturer could be expected to do, and in our program we don't believe it is necessary to punish individuals or companies who act in good faith in such a manner.

The question was then raised of why would a defence of due diligence be workable under the Aeronautics Act but not under the agriculture administrative penalty?

This is not the first time concerns about due diligence were raised. In a memorandum dated February 16, 1995 from the general counsel to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, these concerns were outlined. Edgar H. Schmidt, in a memo quoted the following principle which was made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. It stated:

It has from time immemorial been part of our system of laws that the innocent not be punished. This principle has long been recognized as an essential element of a system for the administration of justice which is founded upon a belief in the dignity and worth of the human person and on the rule of law.

In my view it is because absolute liability offends the principles of fundamental justice that this Court created presumptions against legislatures having intended to enact offences of a regulatory nature falling within that category.

Indeed, as I said, in penal law, absolute liability always offends the principles of fundamental justice irrespective of the nature of the offence.

Mr. Schmidt, in commenting further on the question of absolute liability, said the following:

Since the advent of the Charter, certain principles take precedence even over the enactment of the legislatures. With respect to offences of absolute liability, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that section 7 of the Charter-

-which says that everyone has the right to life, liberty, the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice-

-prohibits the creation of absolute liability offences that may be punished by imprisonment. In essence the Court held that while all absolute liability offences offend the principles of fundamental justice, only when such offences interfere with the right to life, liberty or security of the person do they offend section 7 of the Charter. Since the violations contemplated by Bill C-61 cannot result in imprisonment, it is not likely that they offend the particular interests protected by section 7. However, that does not change the fact that in making violations matters of absolute liability, the bill offends the principles of fundamental justice.

Clause 18(a) of Bill C-61 effectively places violations in that category which the Supreme Court of Canada characterized as absolute liability offences. It is worth noting that violations under the bill would for the most part be a contravention of the act or regulations that would also constitute either summary conviction offences or indictable offences.

The effect of the bill is to permit the minister to transform any of the matters which are presently solely strict liability offences into matters which are also absolute liability violations by simply designating them under clause 4 of the bill. These are not my observations, but the observations of Mr. Schmidt who certainly knows what he is talking about.

The office of the minister of agriculture responded toMr. Schmidt's concerns by suggesting that an absolute liability standard was "to ensure high standards of care for regulatees, in light of the risk that non-compliance may have on human health and safety".

The Reform Party is also in favour of ensuring high standards and protecting human health. If there are concerns that human health is at risk, I would classify that as an offence. If an individual is to be charged with an offence, that person would have the option of using the defence of due diligence, a right that is not available to individuals served a notice of violation. If someone commits a very serious offence, there is the right of due diligence as a defence. If a lesser violation is committed under Bill C-61 there is no right of due diligence as a tool of defence.

I should make it clear that not all violations under agriculture and agri-food acts can be classified even as a threat to human health and safety. The Liberals and the department of agriculture have repeatedly said that absolute liability is the only way this system can work properly. I am sure the government across the floor is saying that there are provisions within the legislation to take account of the intent of the individual served the notice of violation.

In committee a week and a half ago we raised the point with regard to this issue. Both Mr. Phil Amudsen, director general of mid-west region food production and inspection branch and Mr. Reg Gatenby, chief, legislation, food production and inspection branch addressed the point rather haphazardly. I quote Mr. Amudsen:

In the penalty matrix, intent is part of the evaluation of what the penalty will be-.So it is part of the penalty process, but it is not a defence for getting out of the whole violation.

For example, in the penalty matrix, intention falls under the gravity of misconduct and there are four levels of intention. The first level says: "Unknowingly or inadvertently committed a violation or voluntarily disclosed and took steps to prevent reoccurrence". There are zero points charged for this category.

The second category is: "Degree of negligence (assess degree of control in place of precautions, feasibility, knowledge of hazards, degree of expertise)". For this type of violation three points are docked.

The third category is: "Intention unknown". It is a violation resulting from negligence and is docked three points for that category.

The fourth and final category is: "Knowingly committed a violation", for which five points are received.

A penalty matrix including intent is not a defence under due diligence. For example, an individual who exercised due diligence, depending on the gravity of the misconduct, will pay slightly less than the individual who knowingly committed a violation. This is not a fair system. There should be some sort of recourse for individuals to take that exercise due diligence. I am in favour of coming down hard on those individuals that intentionally and knowingly committed a violation, but we should be more lenient with those individuals who have exercised due diligence.

I will give an example. Under the Pest Control Products Act it states that farmers are to compensate for drift when they spray herbicides or pesticides. Every farmer knows that when the wind comes up they have very little control over the spray. Wind velocities and directions change in a matter of seconds. Under this legislation farmers could be charged even if they exercised due diligence in spraying. Later I will discuss a motion that we put forward regarding due diligence at report stage.

I also want to talk briefly about the time line of Bill C-61. When committee members reviewed the bill during the early part of this year, there were some serious concerns. I have only in the past few minutes addressed one of the many concerns that all parties had with the bill.

After April 24, 1995 this bill went into hiding. Why did the legislation go into hiding for over half a year? Were the Liberals waiting for the smoke to blow over? The committee had some serious concerns with the legislation. They put forward a number of amendments in committee that were to be considered. Instead, when the committee resumed this fall with a number of new members on the committee, the amendments were from the department of agriculture. Although the department adopted a couple of what I would call token amendments, the major concerns were not addressed adequately, including an amendment dealing with due diligence.

What is the purpose of the committees if any well thought out amendments are tossed to the side in favour of departmental amendments only?

The red book on page 22 states: "In the House of Commons a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons committees". That is what it said but it is certainly not what it is doing.

Last week when Bill C-61 was at report stage, the Liberals accepted three amendments from the Reform Party. We brought amendments forward at report stage simply because we knew there was no way these amendments would have passed through committee.

It was quite funny to watch the clause by clause debate at committee a couple of weeks ago. A number of new members appeared at the committee. They were imported especially for clause by clause study. The meeting was set up for a Monday evening, which is very strange for clause by clause. Actually only a couple of committee members really knew what was in the bill. One of them, to his credit, was the member for Malpeque on Prince Edward Island and the other was the parliamentary secretary, the one who had given us the information that turned out to be incorrect.

However, the rest of them were simply voting machines. In fact, the member for Dauphin-Swan River had the list of amendments from the department of agriculture that it had approved and at the appropriate time she would insert a duly approved amendment from the department. It was obvious that any other amendments that would have been put forward would have been summarily dismissed without due consideration.

That does not speak very well for the committee process in this House. It tells us the attitude of the Liberal government. It tells us that committee work for the most part is a baby-sitting service for Liberal backbenchers and not a place to deal with meaningful legislation.

Although the amendments that were accepted at report stage provided some well-needed clarification to the legislation, the government failed to accept the amendments that would not only make the AMP system better but more palatable to the industry, producers and those responsible for enforcement.

The Liberals, and in particular the member for Regina-Wascana, the minister of agriculture, patted themselves on the back suggesting they had exhibited a spirit of co-operation in accepting three Reform amendments. This government constructs the facade of democracy but inevitably disregards the constructive aspects of the consultative process.

I would now like to address the amendments I put forward at report stage. As I just mentioned, the Liberal government is unwilling to consider amendments that would have had a substantive bearing on the implementation of the act. The amendments were an attempt to quantify and qualify the powers of the minister, the powers of the tribunal to which the violators can appeal and to clarify certain parts of the acts and the rights and responsibilities of both the violator and the minister in enforcing and administering the monetary penalties and forming compliance agreements.

The first amendment that the Reform Party put forward at report stage under Motion No. 1 was to set out some guidelines with regard to the minister's powers. As it now stands, there is nothing in the legislation that determines the differences between violations which the AMP system addresses and an offence which the judicial system addresses.

This amendment would have required the minister to put forward some criteria. In committee, witnesses from the department of agriculture suggested that an extremely serious violation would be considered an offence and prosecution would fall under the court or justice system, whereas a very serious offence would fall under the AMP system.

The question I would like to ask is at what point does a violation cross the threshold and become an offence? There should be some sort of consistency across the board. To arbitrarily determine on

the basis of each case whether the infraction is a violation or an offence is not fair and not reasonable.

Individuals and companies should be given a clear indication what procedure the department is following in the implementation of the AMP program. It is a disappointment when members opposite disregard an amendment that would provide greater clarification.

The way the act now reads the minister can use his power to prevent his friends from receiving the justice they deserve while throwing the book at political opponents. He can also go soft on violations in his own riding but be overly aggressive on alleged violations from an NDP or Reform riding. This can digress to the politics played at lower levels in the administration. There are no checks and balances, no criteria and no parameters to restrict this type of biased administration of the AMP program.

The second amendment put forward by the Reform Party under Motion No. 3 set out to lower the fines by half for first time violations with subsequent violations being subject to the original fines set out in the legislation.

While the hon. member for Malpeque suggested at report stage that the Reform Party, in dealing with the violations of law or quasi-law, wants to go all out and go for the jugular, I would beg to differ.

The Reform Party believes that some leniency should be shown to small business producers and processors for first time violations. Most of the violations that fall under the agriculture and agri-food act do not require that substantial fines be levied. Remember, we are not talking about serious indictable offences. We are talking about a small business, a producer or a processor. Given the economic situation they face today, they could easily be put out of business with the levels of fines proposed under the legislation.

If the parties offend for the second time it is then that we throw the book at them. It is only reasonable that this amendment should have been given consideration.

It is ironic that when we deal with violent offenders, serious criminals, the members on the Liberal side are so compassionate. They want to be so careful and protect the rights of those people, some of them vicious and malicious and repeat offenders. When it comes to small business, when it comes to people who make their living in agriculture or the processing industry, the Liberals want to be so strict. They want to come down with harsh monetary penalties, even on a first offence, and not even allow those people the right of due diligence in offering a defence.

You wonder about the priorities of this government. Sometimes it just makes you sick.

The third amendment we proposed at report stage, under Motion No. 4, was another one of common sense. It set out to identify the designated person serving notice of the violation. As I stated last Thursday, this is a common procedure that is useful, valuable, and will also protect the person who is alleged to have made the violation. I want to stress once again that this amendment was a common sense one and I thought the Liberals had enough common sense. Unfortunately, they did not even have that minute amount to accept the amendment we proposed.

The fourth amendment we put forward, under Motion No. 5, was to improve the legislation by giving the person served the notice of violation at least 45 days to pay or ask for a review by the minister or the tribunal. The legislation outlines that the minister can prescribe any regulations in the act that require prescribing, in other words, a blank cheque. The minister can do whatever he wants.

I believe that some of these regulations can be put within the act. The Liberal members keep repeating that including time frames in the legislation is impractical because it is very difficult to make future changes. The amendment put forth requires only a minimum time period to pay or ask for a review by the minister. The intent is to prevent the minister from arbitrarily and unreasonably setting the time period in which the individual served notice of violation has to pay.

This and similar amendments are necessary parameters to allow for industry confidence in the AMP system.

The minister under this act in two days can say either pay or ask for a review by the department or by the tribunal. Two days is unreasonable. There are no parameters. It is just a wide open field. It is hunting season year round in Bill C-61.

The fifth amendment that we proposed was put forward under Motion No. 11, setting out to prevent the minister from taking security above and beyond the gravity of the violation. This amendment provides clarification as to what is reasonable security. It parallels the acceptance of the Reform amendment to clause 10 which reads: "include a provision for the giving of reasonable security"-and that was an amendment accepted by the minister-"in a form and in an amount satisfactory to the minister as a guarantee that the person will comply with the compliance agreement".

This amendment is an incentive for the individual to comply with the agreement while at the same time it prevents abuse of the system by the minister.

I would also like to comment on the sixth amendment we proposed. This amendment would have required the review tribunal to complete the review within six months of receiving the person's request for a review. This would have prevented reviews

from taking longer than six months to complete. For the sake of expediency of the review process we put forward this amendment.

As I stated at report stage, cases could drag on for quite some time. This is certainly not fair to the accused, to the individual who is waiting for a review of his or her case. Most of all it is not fair to taxpayers to bear the cost of an ongoing review that could never end because there is no restriction as to how long it can continue.

All individuals who are affected by this legislation want a system that is expedient and cost effective. It is in the best interests of this House to make legislation that way and it disappoints me when the government refuses to accept constructive amendments.

The seventh amendment, proposed under Motion No. 19, was the most important amendment we put forward. This amendment sought to allow for the defence under due diligence and an individual should be exonerated if the person reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of fact that if true would exonerate the person.

I talked about this earlier in my speech and it was raised in committee. If our amendment had been accepted by the government, the concerns raised in committee by the general counsel and by industry officials would have been put to bed. However, they are still out there. Excluding due diligence from this legislation makes the bill flawed and not supportable for me and my colleagues. This is one of the main reasons we cannot accept Bill C-61.

The final amendment I will mention was Motion No. 23, which was proposed in the House at report stage. It deals with conflict of interest and appointments of the review tribunal. That amendment went one step further than the conflict of interest clause in stipulating that no government lobbyist or a person who has contracts with the federal government may be appointed to the tribunal.

When the governing party was the official opposition, when the Liberals sat over on this side of the House, there was an outcry from Liberal members almost on a daily basis about the Tory appointments to boards and tribunals. Guess what? Now that the Liberals have moved from this side to that side of the House, the Tory status quo seems to be okay.

We have been going through a time of crisis in our country with the threat of Quebec separation. It is time to start putting solutions on the table. One of the solutions to our problems, which is gaining some momentum and acceptance right across the country, is to move toward a more decentralized government.

One of the ways this federal government could put its money where its mouth is would be by not becoming so involved in appointments of every position it could possibly control from within the privy council. This government has not chosen to do that. It has chosen to have a hands on approach to every appointment on every board and quasi-judicial whatever.

That is offensive to Canadians right across the country. It has created incompetence. It could have a great negative impact upon the carrying out of administrative monetary penalties. It could have been corrected in this bill if strict conflict of interest guidelines had been placed in it. However, the Liberals chose the status quo. They chose to have their hand in the bag handing out the goodies to their friends. They wanted that option. They refused to shut the door on patronage and on being directly involved with patronage appointments.

We want this legislation to be clear and concise with regard to appointment practices. Convoluted legislation opens the door to abuses and downright confusion, as with the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act has become so complicated it has become a vehicle for loopholes, abuse, and tax avoidance. The more government tinkers with it, the worse it seems to get.

That is why the member for Calgary Centre, the member for Capilano-Howe Sound, and other of my colleagues are pushing this country to accept the flat tax. They are talking with Canadians from coast to coast about tax reform that will take away the confusion, take away the complexity, and reduce the cost and the bureaucratic red tape. That is the way the department of agriculture should be moving as well.

If we could clean out some of the garbage in the bureaucracy and clean out the hands on approach to appointments, we would simplify the administration of monetary penalties, just as we would clean up the Income Tax Act if we implemented the flat tax.

The last two amendments I would like to speak about come from the less than loyal official opposition. It may seem strange, but it is true that we supported amendments put forward by the hon. member for Lotbinière. We were considering the same amendments, but the hon. member was able to table his amendments prior to ours.

One amendment requires that any governor in council appointment to the review tribunal be approved by the agriculture committee. The Reform Party fully supports this type of process. In fact the Liberal government supported it as well. The government supported it on paper. The Liberals supported it before the election. On page 92 of "Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada" it was stated: "We will establish mechanisms to permit parliamentary review of some senior order in council appointments".

Where are they? Where are those reviews? Where are the parliamentary committees involved in reviewing these appointments? We were told that the minister and the privy council had appointed somebody to be the chair of the CBC. It never came before the House of Commons. We turned on the news and found out that Perrin Beatty, former Tory MP, former member of the

previous government that helped run up a debt of some $500 billion, was the president of the CBC. There was no input from us.

This piece of legislation allows for the formation of a tribunal, with no input from parliamentarians. We are sidelined. We are spectators. We are not participants in pulling the levers of government. We are just supposed to sit back and watch the action. If you are on the government side you have to politely applaud. If you are on the opposition side, the Liberal strategy is to ignore you and barge on and hope they can buy the next election. Of course we know the dollars are gone and they cannot buy things any more. The chickens will come home to roost, just as they did for the Tories.

The Liberals are going to have big problems ahead justifying all these order in council appointments with no review whatsoever outside of the privy council, outside of the ministers and their deputy ministers.

I would like to ask the members opposite if anything has been accomplished lately with respect to parliamentary reviews of appointments. I would suggest that having the agriculture committee approve any appointments to the review tribunal would have been an excellent starting point.

I want to conclude by making one last point. The intent of the AMP program was not only to ensure compliance but to have a program that was consistent with those of the United States. It does not do much good if there is a harmonized AMP program with the U.S. while having two countries that lack harmonization or equivalency in requirements.

It is time for this government to pursue harmonization standards with countries it trades with. A number of farmers and biotech companies are expressing discontent with this government for disallowing or slowing the registration process for certain seed varieties or for certain herbicides.

One biotech company came to me and suggested that it was thinking of pulling out of Canada and taking the jobs it provided in Canada back to the United States if there were no changes forthcoming in the current process.

Millions upon millions of dollars are at stake here, not to mention the employment opportunities. If Canada is not willing to co-operate, companies will set up shop where the environment is more friendly.

The department of agriculture should have good reason when it refuses to authorize the use of a product or harmonize regulations with any of our major trading partners. At the present time it is extremely slow. It is bogged down and does not seem to come up with the goods very often.

In conclusion, as I already stated, incorporating the amendments put forward by the Reform Party in this piece of legislation would have made the bill better for all stakeholders. The Reform Party believes that an AMP system could be an effective way to increase compliance and be a much fairer way of addressing non-compliance than through the prosecution route. However, without the changes the Reform Party proposed we cannot support this legislation.

We are being heckled on the other side.

[Some hon. members]

No, no, no.

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

They are saying: "No, no, no. We do not want your reasonable approach; we do not want to be accountable". They are saying they just want to be left alone to go on their merry way and try to keep as much information from the public as possible.

I want to assure this House that we on this side will not let that happen. That is why we are exposing the flaws of Bill C-61. That is why we cannot support Bill C-61. It is time to start building a country that is ready to operate in the 21st century. This bill could have helped us do that, but it did not finish the job. I would ask that in future when members opposite start drafting legislation that they think a little more clearly than they did when they drew up Bill C-61.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not going to rise on debate until I heard the hon. member from the Reform Party talk about Bill C-61 and try to suggest that somehow colleagues on this side of the House, because they are governing members, decided to finally pass this legislation after almost a year.

I know the hon. member came onto the standing committee on agriculture a little late. I still do not remember his taking part in any of the committee meetings dealing with Bill C-61, even though he was on that committee. The hon. member should know-and if he does not know he could talk to his colleagues who would tell him-that when the bill came in it was thoroughly debated by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Committee members from the government side were the ones who put forward problems they had with the bill. The bill is a good example of how the committee system around this place has worked. It goes to show how government backbench members on a committee can have some sort of say and input into the legislation.

When the bill came forward to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food government members on the committee had many concerns. We had concerns with the bill and we informed the minister of those concerns. We outlined to the minister a number of different amendments that we wanted to the bill before we were prepared to proceed with it.

The minister, in his wisdom, took that back to his departmental officials. If we go through Bill C-61 we see a number of amendments proposed by government members, not opposition members who chose not to show up for most of the meetings. Subclause 4(d) states:

respecting the circumstances under which, the criteria by which and the manner in which a penalty may be increased or reduced, including the reduction of a penalty pursuant to a compliance agreement-

That was not in there before. Government members felt it was important enough to put in there. Subclause 4(3) states:

Without restricting the generality of the paragraph-in making regulations-

Again it talks about the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person. That was put in there by government members on that committee.

Clause 7 deals with the issuance of a notice of violation and states that there have to be reasonable grounds to believe. That was not in there before. Government backbenchers felt it was important. We went through the legislation for months and months and months, and the Reform Party was not there to help us.

The hon. member also has the audacity to say that the government would not even look at reasonable amendments. The Reform Party's Motion No. 20 to clarify the burden of proof is the hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 28 to clarify expenses is the hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 10 is to provide assurance that a security requested by the minister in respect of compliance be reasonable. He uses the word reasonable, but the government accepted opposition amendments on this point. We have gone a long way in trying to allay the fears of members on the other side that we were not listening to their concerns on the issue.

The hon. member talks about orders in council and Standing Order 110 which he should read. It states that committees have a right to review orders in council. It is a very important right for individual members of Parliament who can review orders in council. All of us in our role of checking the executive should have the power to review. The hon. member knows that.

In terms of the legislation I had concerns, as I said. However I sat down as a chairman of a committee with the minister and with the department. They went further than I expected them to go in terms of putting forward proposals to alleviate some of my concerns and the concerns of members on the committee and members outside the committee in terms of the House committee on procedure.

We sat down with government officials at a number of different meetings and came forward with amendments that we thought were reasonable. I thank the minister of agriculture for accepting the amendments. It goes to show how well this place can work when all hon. members work together.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Liberals get excited and give us some recognition.

As I pointed out a number of months ago, I used to have a red combine. It was the colour of the Liberal Party and it always seemed to give me grief. That seems to be the way the Liberal government is going with its bills. It seems as if its red combine has run out of cash and it has found another bill to get some extra cash. The combine might be beyond repair so I do not know how the cash will do it by itself. The Liberals do not have much to trade off. I do not think the money raised through the bill will buy them another election.

It seems queer to me. I have been trying to get the Liberal government to put some teeth into some of the investigative powers of the grain commission and the wheat board. When farmers complained that somehow one of the organizations had dumped 1.5 million bushels into the U.S. at half price, that there was an anti-dumping violation, it seemed strange the minister of agriculture would not even respond. That is Liberal justice.

The bill worries me. The Liberals want to increase fines from roughly $1,000 to $250,000. As far as I am concerned that is designed for big multinationals or some of the bigger corporations because they can negotiate and persuade the government to say that they will draw a lot of votes in the next election and it better go easy on them or it could backfire. That is not the type of justice we need.

It is important to start realizing that small players need some protection. Due diligence is not included. There is no recourse but to pay the fine or negotiate. If people have any money left over they might be able to go the courts, but that is usually not the way small players work.

It is interesting to note the bill is designed so that the minister has the power over eight acts and not just one. I remind the House that when I started the investigation into the irregularities and illegalities of some of the acts the first thing I looked at was the smuggling of Grandin wheat into Canada. Snowflake is well known for that trade. If it does not happen to be wheat, it can be done with alcohol or cigarettes and it seems to be very successful.

When I insisted that an investigation be done on the smuggling of Grandin wheat, it was interesting to see that customs officers were willing to testify, willing to come before the courts. However for some reason the agriculture department claimed no wrong was being done. Suddenly I hear the government is very interested in protecting the quality of wheat and the quality of our meat through

monetary funds. The court system could not prevail because it was told simply, more or less, to take a side glance and not prosecute.

I will read a statement I received through an information officer on the issue:

In 1993 when the issue became public through an article in the newspaper, at the same time agriculture made a statement that Canada Customs erred in not stopping the wheat from entering Canada. As a result, Canada Customs no longer allows the importation of wheat into Canada.

There was proof that it was smuggled and the government allowed Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to avoid the law.

How will the AMPS fix that problem? All it will do is put more money into a cash strapped Liberal government when its red combine is dilapidated and ready to fall apart. The Liberals are trying to get more funds to buy another election. I do not think it will work. To do that they should probably make it legal to smuggle liquor too, because there is more money in that than there is in Grandin wheat. Why avoid the small funds? They should go for the big cash because they will need a good combine to win the next election. I do not think it will be done with the faded old red machine I saw in the last election.

The big problem with the AMPS is that it will not deter any of the violations or minor infractions. The big players will use Bill C-61. They do not really care about the money they pay because they usually make more by violating or trespassing the law.

When the last Farm and Country paper came into my office I was very interested in watching what was going on as far as chemical harmonization with the United States was concerned. It is amazing that $10 million worth of chemicals are being smuggled illegally into Canada to be used by farmers. What did the Liberals do about it? The parliamentary secretary said that they just did not have the manpower to stop it. If they do not have the manpower to stop this type of violation, how do they think the AMPS will stop it?

They tried to stop the smuggling of cigarettes by opening the borders 24 hours a day. The customs officers were there lighting candles and making sure the roads were clear. I have news for them. At least in the Snowflake area these violators do not usually use customs offices. They usually find a little road through the bush. That is where they seem to do their best business. How will the AMPS provide protection against those fellows? I do not know how we will enforce it.

When we have a bill like this one which tries more or less to make monetary funds do the trick instead of the justice system, usually it backfires. That is why I am leery of the bill. It will take some pressure off the courts, but it will probably increase the violations and the violators who are able to afford it will become richer instead of poorer.

I will not continue too long on the subject. My colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster touched on pretty well everything. We need a justice system that is equal for all, a justice system that imposes a certain fine for a certain violation or infraction.

The Bloc member pointed out very vividly that there is a set price for a speeding ticket for going 20 miles an hour over the limit. That is the way the program should work. There should be some guidelines that stipulate the fines to be paid by violators and they should be enforced.

Maybe someday there will be a different combine. Maybe when we get green machinery on the other side we will also have violations and infractions decrease because we will have a system of legal authority that will look after violators and transgressors in a fair and equitable way and the little guy will be protected the same way as the others.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate these few minutes and I hope that some of the amendments that Reform has proposed will be supported.

[An hon. member]

It is too late.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

It is too late for amendments now.