Debates of Feb. 13th, 1995

Petitions

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition requests that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec Civil Code which states that in no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents.

Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the relations should be settled by court; further, an amendment to the Divorce Act should give a grandparent who is granted access to a grandchild the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child. I concur with that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 44 residents of the Kingston area in which they call upon Parliament not to enact any further firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council.

I am pleased to table this petition on their behalf.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 123 will be answered today and I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 123-

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

With respect to the Council for Canadian Unity, or any agency or organization attached to or working for the council, ( a ) have there been any increases in the annual budget(s) since January 1994 and if so, on what precise date(s) did the increases occur and how, item by item, were they allocated, (b) has it undertaken or contracted out the undertaking of any public opinion poll or polls of Canadians or Quebecers and if so, what was the wording of the questions and the result of the poll(s), question by question and ( c ) what are the government's intentions with respect to the council's budget for hiring personnel or borrowing personnel from other departments on assignment for this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year, in actual numbers?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

The Council for Canadian Unity is not a Government of Canada organization. The Council should be contacted directly to obtain this information.

The address is: Council for Canadian Unity, 2055 Peel Street, Suite 475, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1V4. Tel: [phone].

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the question mentioned by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?

The member for Abitibi, on a point of order.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of Question No. 86 which I submitted on 29 September 1994, over four months ago, to which the government has not yet replied.

A question on the Order Paper should be answered within 45 days. I therefore ask the government to explain this delay which I consider unreasonable.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, the government attempts to answer all questions, and we prepare these answers as quickly as possible. I am sorry, but I do not have an answer for the hon. member today. I will ask some questions of certain people to find an answer which I will then report to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Given this explanation, shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

I will get back to the Speaker to ask my question again tomorrow or the next day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester was into questions and comments. I understand that eight minutes remain.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question that was put before question period by the hon. member concerning the regulatory process, it is the hope and expectation of the government that after consulting with industry the regulations would be designated as infractions, whether they were an offence of a minor nature, a more serious nature or a very serious nature. Those would be decided on in combination with the private sector of the resource that we are referring to, as well as government regulators. It would be dealt with in a very fair and reasonable manner and, as indicated earlier, would prohibit taking every single infraction to the courts, thus saving time and money.

In response to the hon. member's second question regarding how regulators will be kept fair and honest, it is my assumption that public servants try to put in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. In no way would they look aside or turn a blind eye when there may be infractions such as unsanitary conditions in a meat inspection plant, for example. In no way would they disregard that infraction when tainted meat could appear on supermarket shelves, which in turn might land on their own family's supper plate.

I have every hope and expectation that the regulators of the Canadian public service will pursue this with all sincerity to ensure that we have a safe and quality food supply for all Canadians.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the question that was posed before question period. The hon. member did not answer it for me. It was a two-part question.

Since an appointment by order in council has never been turned down in Canada's history, since a single individual has never been turned down, could the hon. member please comment for me on whether it would be better to review these appointments at the nomination stage rather than the appointment stage on committees.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again as I reiterated prior to question period, it is my understanding that many Canadians desire to serve in the public domain of Canada. They are sincere when taking on the responsibility of serving their communities, municipally, provincially and federally.

It is a grave responsibility but the people appointed desire to serve. It is to the benefit of the public. Canadians are responsible people. Look at volunteerism, the responsibility that they take for their communities. It would be a great burden to the country to pay for the work done through volunteerism.

I believe the government is willing to listen to any name coming from any party as to who may be a responsible serving citizen.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that sometimes a political answer is the only appropriate one. However, this is such a straightforward question.

I would ask my question for the third time. I am not trying to be cute or tricky. Would it not be more appropriate to have the committee review the names that are to be presented at the nomination stage? Then the names go to the PMO and the PMO would pluck from that group of names to make the process useful.

If there has never been in history a single person turned down for an order in council appointment, surely it is a sham. Should it not be nomination, review; appointment, no need to review.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have one brief comment. I believe it is an insult to the integrity of the Canadian people. If their names are put forward at any level of government, they should participate in the democracy of the country.

It has been in our interest throughout the history of this government to listen to those names.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to address this bill.

I was looking at my notes and I realize they were written last October. We do not work very fast. I will try to refresh my memory as I speak from my notes.

I will outline the concerns I have with this bill and how I see it affecting farmers in my region. When I am talking to farmers and tell them the fines will be $100,000 to $250,000 for non-compliance, they throw up their hands and say: "Hey, we've never had money like that. How are we ever supposed to pay a fine?" I always reassure them. "Look at the positive side because you haven't had to pay the fine. At the speed this government works the Canadians dollar will probably be worth less than a Mexican peso, so it won't amount to too much". That reassures them things are not going to go too fast.

For instance, if the fine exceeds $2,000, the person named in the notice of violation can request a compliance agreement. The minister may request a security payment as a guarantee that the person will comply with the agreement. It will be returned when the minister deems the person has satisfactorily complied with the agreement.

It really does not matter whether the violator feels he has complied. The minister will make the decision. That worries me somewhat.

If the minister subsequently decides the person who has entered into the compliance agreement has not complied with the agreement, the minister can impose a penalty of twice the original amount and can retain any security given by the person who is deemed to be in violation. That is a very powerful tool. I cannot see how that can be accomplished in this bill or why it should be unless there is an agreement between the violator and the board that he did not comply.

The board of arbitration appointed by the minister and the review tribunal appointed by the Governor in Council will settle disputes between buyers and sellers. The tribunal hears reviews of the minister's decision at the request of a person who has been deemed to be in violation of the act. I think that is a good procedure and could probably work, but I am very worried about when compliance is deemed to have been carried out and when not.

Bill C-61 greatly increases some of the fines for offences. These should not be confused with violations which will be dealt with through the agriculture monetary penalty contained in various agriculture acts. For example, it amends the Feeds Act to increase fines for an indictable offence from $1,000 to $250,000. That seems to be a huge increase and I hope I never have to pay one of these penalties because it would break me. It is intended to discourage someone from committing a contravention that would likely be pursued as an offence.

One of the main areas of contention seems to be the board of arbitration and the review tribunals. Each of these bodies currently consists of between three to five members but Bill C-61 removes the limit to the number of board members. I feel this is a very grave error. It should have a cap on it because it can create another bureaucracy and could go to 20 or 30 members. We know what the costs would be for operating a board or a tribunal of that size. It also makes it very possible that we could have some more political appointments for people with close

political ties who are out of jobs. It would be a nice place to find another job for them. I do not think we need that.

The selection process does nothing to dissuade the patronage appointments. I believe that has been stressed this afternoon.

A great deal of power is given to the minister. He can decide whether to pursue a contravention as a violation or as an offence and has leeway in setting or reducing or increasing fines. There is not much accountability built into this legislation.

It really worries me when I see this kind of power given to a board or to a minister. The court system does not seem to be able to deal with some of these matters in a very efficient manner and it is a lengthy debate sometimes whether it is a violation that is serious or whether it is a violation that is moderate or maybe just a minor one.

Clause 23, which is an amendment we proposed, would at least retain the violations to a 10-year period. I think it is of major importance that this amendment be passed if this bill does pass.

Clause 28 is an amendment to remove the ceiling on the number of members on the board of arbitration. The amendment would propose to retain this ceiling. I support the amendment that there be a ceiling because we do not want another board or another review tribunal with about 30 people who we find are very expensive to maintain.

An amendment proposed that would disqualify a public servant from being a member of the board of arbitration is a must. When a public servant ruled on an arbitration or sat on a tribunal board I would hesitate to go before a tribunal because the violator has very poor chance of getting a fair hearing.

Illegal and undeclared importation of plant products, meat or meat products is a serious concern because the introduction of plant or animal diseases into Canada could cost millions of dollars for control or elimination. We had a very good example of what could happen when the Grandin issue come before the courts or before the government. When Grandin wheat was brought illegally into this country, for some reason the Department of Agriculture overstepped its bounds and took away the responsibility from excise and customs officers and allowed it to continue. That was a very serious violation of what the Customs Act should have been doing. It is an example that shows us very vividly how a minister or a department with too much power overrides issues and makes bad decisions.

The current process involves prosecution in courts of law and has not been all that effective. There are limited alternatives in the current system to enforce compliance with the law outside of criminal prosecution which involves court costs and delays.

The bill proposes implementation of a ticketing procedure at ports of entry into Canada in the hope of increasing efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with this problem.

When the courts cannot address this issue effectively how will a ticketing process by this act resolve the problem? Penalties will be imposed, fines and offences under eight related acts. This will be a tremendous burden for the minister or the department to administer.

When I see under the Fertilizers Act a fine going from $500 to $50,000 and for an indictable offence to $250,000, it scares me. I am wondering who will be falling under the compliance act. It cannot be farmers because it will break them. It will have to be somebody with the multinationals or huge corporations who can really be addressed through this act.

Overall streamlining of the regulatory process is a worthy goal as it is reducing court costs and the associated regulatory burden. But will this extra power of a minister be exercised fairly? That is a concern I have about this act. If the minister, the department or the tribunal favour large violators, multinationals or large corporations as opposed to individuals, we are going to be addressing a huge problem of unfairness and probably discrimination.

It is only fair that we look at this act very seriously and address some of the issues which have been pointed out today concerning the setting up of a tribunal and also the arbitration board.

Examples of contraventions likely to be treated as violations include unsanitary facilities in a meat processing establishment. This raises another issue which we talked somewhat of this morning. Is it a provincial or a federal jurisdiction? We could find that we have a dispute between this act and some of the provincial regulatory processes or bodies. Mislabelling of agriculture products is very simple. It is more or less a major federal jurisdiction, but the other one could cause us some problems.

Taking an animal out of quarantine and marketing it and thereby endangering the health of consumers and maybe the health of certain industries is another grave concern. This is becoming more and more of a concern when we see new enterprises springing up in wildlife animal farming or bringing in ostriches, emus or whatever specialty enterprise is considered.

The main goal of compliance instead of punishment seems to be agreeable. I would however warn that we do not make compliance too easy because it can just become a matter of paying an extra few dollars in fines and continuing with the non-compliance.

Transport Canada and employment and immigration use this type of process. I do not think it has been very responsive to some of the issues, especially if we look at the Western Grain Transportation Act.

The powers granted to this minister are extensive. The minister may make regulations, not just enforce them. When we have an act where we can change regulations and the compliance during the life of the act I think it becomes very suspect.

That decisions can be either designated as a violation or an offence is another thing I am worried about. Whether it is a minor, a serious or a very serious offence or non-compliance is also given to the minister or the boards. These things seem to set up a system with which we could have more problems than solutions. I do not think that is what we want.

The minister is given the power to decide whether it is a contravention or whether it should be treated as a violation. That is totally wrong. We need a better guideline, a better system of defining what is an offence or non-compliance.

I would warn this House very strongly that we do not want to pass an act or regulations that will more or less give the individual fewer powers or less of a chance to be heard than the corporations or multinationals. We see that too much today already.

The railways had a non-performance clause in the Western Grain Transportation Act. It provided for monetary penalties. That act has been in force for over 10 years. There has never been a monetary penalty assessed to any railway for non-compliance of the act.

This points out very strongly why we in this House should be very cautious about passing this bill before we make some definite amendments to it. It is almost as if we are trying to do away with democracy and trying to enlist a sort of dictatorship.

I have said in my speeches in the House before that sometimes when I look at the agriculture policies we are making it seems that this Liberal government is lost in the dust. It cannot really see what the results will be, how it will affect the farmers or the producers.

It is better if we start clearing the dust, waving our hands around a bit and saying that the individual producer is the one who is going to be affected. Let us give him a break and let us see that he stays healthy and productive. Otherwise we do not have much of a chance in turning this country's monetary or financial situation around.

I hope the hon. minister has listened this afternoon and knows that the farmer is always dear to my heart. The farmers are the ones who put me here and the ones I am going to speak up for.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today in support of Bill C-61, a bill to introduce an administrative monetary penalty system, or AMPS as it is more commonly know. This bill will provide a broader range of enforcement options to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's inspection officials by allowing them to levy monetary policies for non-compliance with the regulations.

As it now stands a criminal prosecution is relied on too heavily. It is often the only option available to inspectors with the department's food production and inspection branch when they are faced with a violation of this country's statutes regarding food and animal health and safety.

By introducing AMPS, inspectors will have at their disposal a range of monetary policies. They will not have to rely on seizure and detention of a product and prosecution through the courts with the attendant delays and costs to the taxpayers that involves.

Technically, administrative monetary penalties are not fines but I will use that word for simplicity. Initially, fines will range from $50 to $6,000 depending on the seriousness of the violation. This legislation will however give the department the ability to impose fines of up to $15,000 for very serious non-compliance to our regulations.

These fines or monetary penalties are not levied without any recourse. Anyone who believes the fine is unjustified will be able to make use of an appeal process. This process will include a departmental review, a review by an independent tribunal and if necessary will proceed to the Federal Court of Canada.

It should be noted that this initiative emphasizes obtaining compliance by offenders and not simply punishment. AMPS will allow the department to negotiate solutions to non-compliance with the offending parties. Fines can be reduced or waived if corrections, for example, processing modifications, are made by the industry.

Immediate corrective action results in a better product, improved health and safety, more effective enforcement and the protection of Canada's reputation for high quality control standards in relation to agri-food products. In today's highly competitive market, there is no doubt we must do all we can to enhance our reputation for quality and in fact deliver high quality food to the world's consumers.

In order to ensure that the system operates as effectively as possible and to avoid frivolous appeals, the government is making available a fine reduction option. Offenders who pay their fines without asking for a review will receive a 50 per cent reduction in their penalty.

Reviews cost money and this option is used by other departments in other jurisdictions quite successfully. While this may seem counterproductive to some, let me remind everyone that the administrative monetary penalty system stresses compliance and not punishment. The department does not see this initiative as a money making venture. It will gladly reduce or even waive a fine if the offender is willing to show compliance with Canada's regulations.

While criminal prosecution will still be an option, AMPS will lead to better compliance rates and more effective enforcement action taken by the branch. The administrative monetary penalties will enable greater enforcement of compliance among importers, thereby helping to create a level playing field for the domestic industry.

This move by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is consistent with the initiatives being taken by other departments and with the entire regulatory framework in Canada. Transport Canada currently has an administrative monetary penalty system. The one being proposed for this department builds significantly on the transport model, and other departments are considering the adoption of this system.

This system has been developed in conjunction with the Department of Justice through the regulatory compliance project. One of the goals of this project is to look at alternatives to criminal prosecution of regulatory violations. In many cases criminal prosecution is considered too severe as this course of action can lead to a criminal record and even the possibility of imprisonment. This is another step in our goal of decriminalizing regulatory infractions.

Federal regulatory policies encourage the use of the least coercive alternative models. AMPS will provide the department and the food production and inspection branch with a less coercive alternative.

It pleases me to note that this administrative monetary penalty system not only has the support of a number of federal departments, but it has the solid support of industry associations as well. This latter support is, in my mind, the most important since it is the industry and our farmers who have not only asked for this but it is the industry that will have to work with it as well.

During recent consultations industry associations recommended the active enforcement of domestic standards to imported products. This is because Canadian industry needs to be able to compete on a level playing field if it is to remain competitive in the global market.

It is important also for Canada to protect its international reputation for high quality health and safety standards when it comes to agriculture and agri-food products. The introduction of AMPS was also one of the recommendations of the department's regulatory review undertaken in 1992.

The goal of the federal approach to the regulatory system is to create a regime that is not just cost effective but is flexible and addresses the realities of doing business in a new way. The government and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food require a system that is more cost effective and more appropriate.

To my mind, the administrative monetary penalty system meets all of these criteria. I must point out that the AMPS is also used by the United States department of agriculture where it has been shown to be very successful in increasing compliance. Our system will allow us to harmonize our regulatory enforcement with the United States and also with some of our trading partners in Europe who also use this type of system.

Better regulatory compliance will help industry not just at home but it will improve its global competitiveness as well. Increased compliance will help ensure that Canadian export products maintain their high reputation internationally. It will do so by enabling the department to take effective action against importers or domestic companies marketing products that do not meet Canadian health, safety or quality standards.

Business will welcome clear rules that will help to increase compliance and remove unfairness from the system. The agricultural community will welcome any activity that strengthens our enforcement at border points, increases equity of enforcement between commodities and promotes the marketability of Canadian products.

The system highlights the joint responsibility that governments and industry share for ensuring compliance. By consulting with industry the government has devised a system that will benefit everyone. It will give government inspectors a wider range of enforcement options when they are faced with regulatory violation. It emphasises compliance, not punishment, by permitting monetary penalties to be waived or mitigated if the violator takes corrective actions to ensure future compliance.

It will improve the competitiveness of industry at home by applying consistent standards to both imported and domestic products and abroad by helping to ensure Canada's protects its high reputation internationally.

I commend our minister of agriculture who has done a terrific job in identifying problems and going through extensive consultation on this issue and many other issues. As is typical, once this process is completed a very sensible, workable solution comes out the other end. I thank and congratulate the minister.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly interested in one aspect of the proposed legislation that deals with the tribunal. I gather it is a dispute settling mechanism to clear any violations that may be made in some sort of judicial setting.

In the interest of natural justice there has to be some sort of a fair procedure set up such as an unbiased adjudicator and the opportunity for a hearing. Given the track record of the quasi-judicial bodies that exist in the government today-and I use the example of the Immigration and Refugee Board and the parole board-can we consider them to be that of unbiased adjudication when individuals who are appointed through the process and orders in council reflect patronage, are friends of ministers and friends of others who sit within the Liberal government?

My concern and the reasons why I would be very hesitant about supporting the bill are based on these particular points of concern, and I refer to subsection 4.1(2):

A person is not eligible to be appointed a member of the Tribunal unless the person is knowledgeable about or has experience related to agriculture or agri-food and the Chairperson of the Tribunal and at least one other member of the Tribunal must, in addition, be a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of any province or a notary of at least ten years standing at the Chambre des notaires du Quebéc.

In the appointment process for individuals sitting on this board, how much of a guarantee will we have that we will not run into the same problems as those of the Immigration and Refugee Board or the parole board? They apparently had qualified people on them, yet when it came to the actual decision making process they differed vastly from the concerns of the public and the decisions rendered were very questionable. That aspect dealing with concerns has not been addressed in this piece of legislation.

I am not a lawyer but I know there are many on the other side of the House who seem to relish the thought of putting together legislation that only lawyers can understand. One thing of concern to me deals with some process of natural justice, that is that a fair procedure be introduced.

I am looking at some of the clauses in Bill C-61 wherein the rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing. Again I ask members on the government side why the rules of evidence would not apply in any hearing if we are looking for a fair and just procedure to solve or settle any of the concerns that may come before it.

When I consider some of the concerns in this document and look at the Immigration and Refugee Board I see that the process is not driven by the concerns of Canadians through the minister or through the member but rather by special interest groups that may want the decision making process structured in their favour.

With all these issues, when we ask for quasi-judicial bodies are we actually promoting something fair and unbiased that will benefit society as a whole?

The minister of immigration and the Solicitor General have been very evasive in dealing with the specifics. When situations or complaints have arisen they stand back and make this comment: "No, I cannot interfere in the process because that would be interfering with a quasi-judicial body and would be outside the realm of my jurisdiction".

My question to all members on the government side is: Should not the minister be accountable for everything that goes on in his department? Why should it be taken from him and passed on to a quasi-judicial body to take the heat off himself? I do not agree with some of these dispute settlement mechanisms.

I am particularly interested that they talk about the tribunal. So often it divorces itself from the minister. It takes accountability away from much of the decision making process and takes responsibility and accountability away from the minister. On that basis alone I could not support the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member has asked a number of questions in his intervention. It may be confusing for people watching us, but the minister may respond to the questions under the umbrella of asking a question or making a comment himself.

I see the member for Cumberland-Colchester has risen first. I will have to recognize her first and then the colleague to her right.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we discussed the bill in the House today, on repeated occasions the hon. member referred to interference by the minister: "What protection does the bill give us that there will not be interference?"

I would like to suggest that hon. members are talking out of both sides of their mouths. On one question they want no interference. On the next question the hon. member asks why the minister does not take full responsibility and interfere. They cannot have it both ways.

I have a question for the hon. member. There has been reference to the parole board and the Solicitor General repeatedly today. How many times has the hon. member heard of interference by the Solicitor General of Canada in the parole board?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the parole board or some other quasi-judicial body makes a serious blunder I would hope somebody would be held accountable and heads would roll. However that does not happen.

The parole board has made terrible decisions in the past that have jeopardized the lives and safety of Canadians. I am not saying this quasi-judicial body will necessarily do that, but we

must remember that we are talking about heavy fines being levied against businesses. Someone somewhere should be held accountable.

Under the quasi-judicial system the board makes the decision and the minister stands back and says: "No, I am not accountable. They are responsible. They have been given the sole authority". Where does the buck stop? Is the board held accountable? They are not elected officials. I am saying that the minister or the criminal courts where often these matters are resolved should be the bottom line.