Debates of Feb. 13th, 1995

Income Tax Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), I have been requested by the Chief Opposition Whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from February 10 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

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my speech on Bill C-61 is threefold. First, I will outline what is contained within this bill and what it intends to achieve. Second, I will outline three areas of concern I have with this bill and offer some constructive alternatives to those concerns. Third, I will outline the positive aspects of increasing the monetary penalties for offences dealt with by the courts.

At this time I am not speaking either for or against the bill which leads me to wonder whether I am becoming too much of a politician. For the most part I will be asking questions of the minister. I hope the answers will explain some parts of this legislation which will help me in preparing to deal with this issue in committee and in later debate in this House.

First, I will outline the purpose of this bill. Industry associations have pointed out the need for more equitable enforcement of regulations and more equitable treatment between imported and domestic products. This bill is an attempt to apply consistent standards to both imported and domestic products and to promote the competitiveness of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

To address these concerns the food production and inspection branch has proposed an administrative monetary penalty system to decriminalize certain federal regulatory offences. This bill permits the minister of agriculture, if he is requested to do so, to conclude compliance agreements with those who commit regulatory violations.

The rationale behind these monetary penalties is to use the threat of a financial penalty to obtain compliance rather than to simply punish. The system is based on negotiating solutions to regulatory violations. Monetary penalties range from $50 to $15,000.

Bill C-61 gives the department of agriculture more options and greater authority to enforce relevant regulations. Currently most violations of regulations under these acts are treated as offences and are prosecuted through the courts.

The new system is intended to streamline the process by implementing a ticketing system at ports of entry into Canada and monetary fines for other infractions. Only the most serious infractions will end up being prosecuted through the courts as offences. One important result of this bill could be lowering the number of cases going to court. The end result of a cost saving to taxpayers is of course very important.

Bill C-61 adds to the enforcement options of certain legislation administered by the department of agriculture by allowing a system of administrative monetary penalties to be imposed for these regulatory violations. Under this legislation a violation would result in a ticket or a monetary fine.

For example, a violation could include the failure to meet certain sanitary regulations at a meat processing plant, or the mislabelling of an agricultural product. However, an offence which is considered a more serious infraction of the regulations for imported and domestic products would remain subject to prosecution through the courts. An example of an offence would be taking an animal out of quarantine and marketing it, thus endangering consumers.

Under compliance agreements administrative monetary penalties may be reduced or cancelled if the violator agrees to the actions necessary to ensure future compliance.

Monetary penalties are subject to review by a board of arbitration or a review tribunal. The system of administrative monetary penalties would apply to the following acts: the Canada Agriculture 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. Certain monetary penalties already exist within the Departments of Transport and Employment and Immigration. They are also used in the United States and Europe.

I will outline three areas of concern that I have with this bill. I agree with the overall intent of this bill. Reformers favour streamlining a regulatory process to make it work more efficiently and reduce costs. Currently most regulatory violations are prosecuted through the courts. For the most part this a cumbersome and ineffective process. Because there are limited alternatives in the current system to enforce compliance with the law outside of criminal prosecution, minor violations and violators are often ignored.

I have three main areas of concern and I also have three questions, the answers to which could alleviate these concerns. Are the penalties set high enough to be an effective deterrent, particularly to large companies? Why have the ministerial powers been so dramatically strengthened? Why is it the sole

discretion of the minister to appoint and expand the board of arbitration and the review tribunal?

My first area of concern is the size of penalties. Are the penalties set high enough to be an effective deterrent? I agree with the goal of compliance instead of punishment, and this is positive because it will reduce the burden of the courts, but will it also increase the likelihood of violations since the consequences will not lead to criminal action?

Corporations may deliberately engage in minor infractions which are by regulation subject only to monetary penalties and not to court action. The company will therefore simply pay the penalty and in accordance with the changes made in clause 23 have its record wiped clean after five years.

For example, corporations knowingly emit more pollutants into the air than is acceptable under Canada's environmental regulations. Because the benefits to the company outweigh the costs, some companies would rather break the law, pay the minimal fine and continue operating at a maximum profit level.

A solution to this problem would be to ensure that repeat violators will be prosecuted in court. For example, a two strikes and you are out system could be implemented. This means that after a company has received a monetary penalty twice for a violation a further violation would automatically be deemed an offence and court action would be taken.

In order to strengthen the effects of regulatory violations, I would propose that the five year period for retaining records of violation as outlined in clause 23 of Bill C-61 be extended to ten years so a record of infraction takes longer to wipe away.

The second area of concern is that the ministerial powers have once again been substantially strengthened. Clause 5 allows the minister to decide what constitutes a violation subject to monetary penalty and what constitutes an offence subject to the courts.

For example, under the Fertilizers Act the minister can decide whether a violation has occurred which is subject to a maximum fine of $15,000 or whether an offence has occurred which is subject to a maximum fine of $250,000. That is a lot of power in the hands of a minister without precise legislation to guide.

In the case of a violation clause 6 allows the minister to decide who will receive a notice of violation and to determine the form and the content of that violation. Clause 7 allows the minister to make regulations that set penalties for each violation or not to impose a penalty at all. Under clauses 9 to 13 the minister may also make exceptions which would allow a penalty to be reduced or increased.

All of these situations create an opportunity for political favouritism. Companies that are friends of the government could be let off lighter than those that are not friends of the government. If clear guidelines are in place to alleviate this concern, I would ask the minister to provide them to me. If his answer is that an alleged violator can take recourse through a board of arbitration or a review tribunal, this offers me no comfort.

Let me explain by discussing my third area of concern, how appointments are made to these two boards. It is clear there is too much ministerial involvement in appointing and expanding the board of arbitration and the review tribunal.

Monetary penalties are imposed on the basis of absolute liability which means a penalty can be imposed without proving fault. The briefing from the food production and inspection branch of the agriculture department cites essentially regulatory nature of the violations, the relatively modest levels of the penalties and the absence of the probability of imprisonment as factors to support the use of absolute liability. In the real world, though, these penalties are large enough and can be used effectively to punish enemies of the minister.

This legislation states that if an alleged violator objects to the penalty assessment he has received, a review by an appropriate government official and by a tribunal may be requested. This is outlined in clause 9(3) which states a person may request to enter into a compliance agreement or a review by the minister or a review by the tribunal.

The practices of departmental review and review by a board of arbitration and review tribunal were in place before Bill C-61. However, clause 28 of this bill eliminates the ceiling for membership on these minister appointed boards.

Under the existing Canada Agriculture Products Act both the board of arbitration and the review tribunal can only consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of five members, all appointed by the minister.

Clause 28 of this bill allows the minister to appoint an unlimited number of members to these boards. The current process is already open to government patronage. Lifting the ceiling on the number of members to the board of arbitration and review tribunal only allows for more patronage to occur.

Here is another chance for the Liberal government to add to that list of patronage appointments that was presented in the Globe and Mail last week. Is this the intent of this section of the legislation?

I do not believe that there are legitimate reasons for the minister to have sole discretion in appointing members to the board of arbitration and the review tribunal. This direct and deliberate patronage can be avoided by vetting all appointments through the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in an open and thorough process.

Even though this is a Liberal dominated committee, at least it would provide the opportunity for open and honest discussion, the opportunity to critique the qualities of those considered for the appointment.

With respect to the elimination of the ceiling for membership on the board of arbitration and the review tribunal, if the government has a legitimate reason for removing the maximum number of members for the board, for removing the level that was set previously, I would like to know what the reasons are. I ask the minister to provide me with this list of reasons. Next week or sooner would be fine.

As stated in my introduction, the third aspect of my speech will deal with what I consider to be a positive aspect of this bill, that the monetary penalties for offences dealt with through the courts have been strengthened.

For cases involving a gross offence, the department still retains the option of criminal prosecution through the courts. In such cases administrative monetary penalties will not be imposed.

Fines proposed for indictable offences have been drastically increased. For example, clause 52 increases the maximum penalty for an offence under the Fertilizers Act from $500 to $50,000 and for an indictable offence from $2,000 to $250,000, a substantial increase. Strengthening these penalties may increase the deterrent to breaking Canadian regulations. Reducing regulatory infractions through deterrence is a positive goal.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Recall.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Some members opposite are referring to recall. I would just like to remind them that the hon. member for Beaver River in early November introduced the recall bill into this House. Had the members opposite voted for that recall bill instead of against it, people in my constituency would have had the right to invoke a recall petition. Therefore, I encourage them to bring this bill up on their own to show that they really do believe in direct democracy. I would be more than happy to honour that recall legislation.

I have outlined what this bill attempts to achieve. I have discussed my three main areas of concern with this bill and I have outlined what I consider to be the most positive aspects of this bill.

I have one final comment on this bill. Achieving the best balance between which details should actually be included in legislation and which should be left up to ministerial discretion is often difficult. By adding more detail, which is often covered by regulation rather than in the legislation itself, a bill can limit the flexibility of implementation. This can be positive or negative. The more detail added to the legislation the less discretion the minister has in implementing the legislation. Less discretion means less power.

I believe this legislation needs more details. If it sounds like I do not trust government and bureaucracy, that is true. It has been well demonstrated in the past that it is wise to view government with a certain level of distrust. Governments have earned this reputation. This was very apparent to me this last weekend as I canvassed for the Reform candidates in Ottawa-Vanier and Saint-Henri-Westmount. Many people I talked to expressed a high level of distrust of both present and past governments.

Because I am leery of giving the government too much flexibility in implementing legislation, I will be looking for more detail to be added in third reading. I look forward to getting the answers to the questions that I have presented to the minister today and I look forward to discussing Bill C-61 in committee and in further debate in this House.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-61 which is before the House this afternoon. I wish to add my voice to supporting 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.

I think we are all aware of the purpose of the acts, but for those of you without agricultural backgrounds let me share with you how important they are for a poultry producer who farms near Holstein, Ontario.

The Seeds Act ensures that the seed I buy to grow feed for my chickens conforms to the prescribed standards, marked and packed and packaged labelled as required. The western growers would know what tombstone would mean to wheat production if it were able to get farther into the seed system than what it is right now.

The Health of Animals Act helps to ensure that my flock will be disease free. Within the poultry industry there is a disease called ILT, infectious laryngotracheitis. Try saying that three times. It is something that a producer would look at losing 70 per cent to 80 per cent of his flock of chickens which would be economic disaster.

The Plant Protection Act provides for the prevention of pests injurious to plant life in agriculture and forestry sectors. I think we all remember back to Ontario and the outbreak of elm disease and all the trees that had to be destroyed because of that.

The Feeds Act ensures that no person will manufacture, sell or import into Canada any feed that may adversely affect animal or

human health. In that situation with all the animal feeds we have right now which are very highly mixed, with computer technology, farmers are aware of how micro toxins can adversely affect the health of their livestock.

The Fertilizers Act provides that any fertilizer when utilized in accordance with directions does not contain destructive ingredients.

Finally, the Pest Control Act regulates the products used for the control of pests and organic functions of animals and plants.

As can be readily seen, the operation of my farm and its success depends as much on my ability as manager as it depends on the federally enforced standards and also supply management in my case. Without these standards and the enforcement of these standards, Canadian agriculture would be unable to compete in the global marketplace. Unable to guarantee quality, domestic and foreign markets would soon disappear.

As colleagues have noted this bill does more than impose monetary penalties. It authorizes the minister, if requested to do so, to conclude compliance agreements with individuals who commit violations. Under these compliance agreements administrative monetary penalties can be reduced or cancelled if persons agree to make appropriate corrective action to comply with the agri-food acts and regulations.

Notwithstanding the ability to assess monetary penalties the bill also provides for an independent tribunal to review such penalties in keeping with the government's belief in due process. It is important to protect the integrity of Canadian agriculture and agri-food products. This bill will strengthen the concept and the quality that is central to the Canadian agri-food industry.

I will give an example. This is probably a question that my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House would want to know. How many administrative monetary penalties does the department expect to issue this year? The estimate is that the food production and inspection branch will issue approximately 350 notices of violations. Currently it will probably prosecute 220 of these offences. We will currently and after this be able to issue administrative monetary penalties for all but a few of these offences.

As this system is more effective and efficient than prosecuting in the courts we will be able to increase our enforcement activities. In addition to the 350 notices of violations we will probably issue approximately 1,200 tickets at the ports of entry. These tickets will be issued for high risk violations by the public who try to illegally bring in meat or meat products or plants or plant products at the airports.

This problem is a serious one because of the possibility of introducing plant or animal diseases into Canada as I have previously stated.

As colleagues have noted this bill will help to reinforce the many unique things that we do in Canada which will ensure that everything from the seeds that we grow to the food that is on our table is the very best. That is what the Canadian consumer has come to expect from Agriculture Canada. This bill will affirm that quality will continue to be the foundation of Canada's agri-food strategy.

It is important to note that while classifying each infraction as a minor violation or as a serious violation or as a very serious violation with the accompanying escalation in monetary penalties imposed, it should be remembered that nothing in the bill precludes the minister from seeking greater penalties by proceeding with the infraction as an indictable or summary offence before the courts rather than as a violation. At present the department only prosecutes serious non-compliance with 90 per cent of the penalties not going to hearings.

The industry wants the importers to comply with the high domestic standards we have, thereby giving them a level playing field to compete on. However, it is important to reiterate that not only is there an appeal mechanism in place when the person is judged in the violation, we also have the opportunity of overturning such penalties that have been imposed.

Where the minister is satisfied that a person who has entered into a compliance agreement has complied with the said agreement, any security given under the compliance agreed by the person shall be returned.

This ability to pursue through the courts those judged to be in flagrant violation of the aforementioned acts, while treating with compassion those who comply, is one of the strengths of this legislation. The element of fairness that gives this bill its greatest strength is the balance. We all want compliance, not punishment, so the integrity of the agri-food industry is without question. The bill would give us the opportunity to maintain these standards of quality.

I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for his leadership. The bill typifies the way the government deals with issues. With the support and assistance of the industries being regulated, the government has proposed effective changes intended to improve the operating and administrative efficiencies relating to the enforcement of the agri-food industry standards.

Taken together, the amendments to the various acts offer Canadians a comprehensive package of measures that support efforts to ensure the quality and safety of agri-food products here in Canada and around the world. For these reasons I most

heartily encourage the members of the House to support this bill.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in defence of my colleague from Vegreville, I feel there is a need to repeat something. I do not think the government hears us the first time. It is very important that we make our point.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I agree and can support the idea of less regulation when it comes to court cases or the idea of compliance. What bothers me about Bill C-61-the member mentioned it as well-is that it will give the minister far more latitude in some of the powers he has in these regulations.

What protection is built into this bill that would protect consumers and the industry from the wide-ranging powers of this minister or any other minister that may sit in the House from time to time?

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say the integrity of the department would go a long way to protect the individual producer. Also it would probably be underneath a vote too.

I know the hon. member has probably never been in this situation but it is like speeding down the highway. You might have been five miles over the speed limit. The police officer comes up beside him. The police officer has the right to charge him for speeding. I know there have been some instances where the police officer has said: "Listen. Don't do it again. You have 12 hours. This is a warning."

I would say that is probably a fair answer to the member's question.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it must be my lucky day. It seems like I have been up every half hour this morning and early afternoon.

It brings a concern to my mind. Like the rest of my colleagues, I have been sitting in the House for somewhat over a year now. I sometimes wonder about the priority the government puts on agriculture. Last year when we started in January we sat until almost May before we had a debate on agriculture.

This concerns me because I am a farmer from Saskatchewan. Many of the constituents who elected me in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre are farmers. Certainly most or all of them are concerned about what happens in the agriculture industry. It is a concern that there seems to be a lack of interest in the whole idea of agriculture. It is good to see that we have a number of bills before the House now that are pertinent and relevant to today's agricultural communities.

I want to talk for a few minutes on Bill C-61. Bill C-61 proposes a system of administrative and monetary policies for the enforcement of the Agriculture Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizer Protection Act and the Seeds Act. It proposes some new provisions and also various amendments to the current acts.

Basically the bill gives the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food more options and greater authority in enforcing the relevant agriculture legislation. Currently most contraventions of regulations under these acts are treated as offences and prosecuted as such. We have already said that puts a burden on the court system and is generally very inefficient.

The new system is intended to streamline the process by utilizing a ticketing system that will include AMPs but will not be treated as a criminal offence unless it is deemed serious enough.

One of my great concerns is who will deem it serious enough to be a criminal offence? Will it be the minister? Will it be a board or a tribunal that is appointed by the minister? It concerns me, if not for the current minister, but for future ministers. We have no guarantee and no protection, in my mind, that protects consumers and the industry from a minister who would want to play heavy-handed politics in the industry. That is probably my one great concern with Bill C-61. Up until this time I do not feel the question has been answered on how we will be protected from a heavy-handed minister.

I do not believe a lot of accountability is built into Bill C-61. The debate on this bill should also focus on the amount of regulation in general. Some of the regulations relevant to this bill are quite necessary.

For example, the regulations dealing with health of animals and meat inspection have to be a concern and must be a priority for government as I mentioned this morning in another speech on another subject. In areas such as these we could talk about the need for the industry to regulate itself. That is something of which the industry would be in favour and in which industry would be willing to negotiate and get involved.

Some amendments should be put forward to this bill. I can think of numerous things. Again I want to mention the idea of protection for the consumer and those involved in the industry.

Canadians want the safety that this bill will provide for them in areas like the illegal and undeclared importation of plants, plant products, meat or meat products. It is a serious concern because of the probable introduction of plant or animal diseases. Those could cost millions of taxpayers' dollars for control and elimination. When we look at a $500 billion plus debt, everyone in this House would agree that we have to be concerned and make sure that we do not spend any taxpayers' dollars than is absolutely necessary.

The current process involves prosecution in the courts which really has not been all that effective. There are also limited alternatives in the current system to enforce compliance. This bill proposes the implementation of a ticketing offence proce-

dure at ports of entry in the hope of increasing efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with this problem.

The second point I would like to make is that Canadians want less but more effective regulatory burden. Overall the streamlining of the regulatory process is a very worthy goal, as is reducing court costs and the associated regulatory burden.

With this process however, will there be a bottleneck and an overload of people wanting to pursue the compliance agreement process? What industries have asked for development of this legislation or something similar to it? Are there any companies out there that would be opposed to this type of legislation? If so, why?

Assuming we already agree with the regulations under the eight agriculture acts I can personally support in principle measures which would increase compliance with this legislation and the regulations.

The decriminalization of the federal regulatory offences is an important component. It would reduce the burden of the criminal court system, but will it reduce the likelihood of violations since the consequences will be less likely to include criminal prosecution? This probably would not be the case for individuals but perhaps for large corporations, if they would rather absorb a monetary penalty as opposed to a criminal penalty which could mean the loss of their licence. The compliance record would be wiped clean after five years which could make this route more appealing to some.

The examples I have developed which would likely be treated as violations could include things such as unsanitary facilities in a meat processing establishment or the mislabelling of agriculture products. Examples of a contravention which would likely be treated as a criminal offence could include taking an animal out of quarantine and marketing it, thereby endangering the health of consumers.

The main goal of compliance instead of punishment does seem agreeable. Transport Canada, by the way, and employment and immigration use the administrative monetary penalty system at this point in time.

The third point I would like to make is: How much power do we want to give to the minister? The powers granted to the minister are extensive. He may make regulations which decide what constitutes a violation and what constitutes an offence. In the case of a violation, he can decide whether it is minor, serious or very serious and set penalties for each violation. In my mind I can see a scenario taking place sometime in the future, whether it is next year or 10 years down the road where any particular minister could in effect wield power and clout that could be far beyond what he or she should be allowed to do.

I can see the possibility of this getting very political. Someone who did not support any particular party and ran a corporation for instance could be in trouble with any particular minister should that minister decide the corporation is close to the line. The minister would have the option to decide what would be a violation and what would be a criminal offence. That scares me.

Right now the minister is given the power to decide whether a contravention should be treated as a violation or an offence. The fines we have talked about. There is no need to go into the increase in fines. There is no problem with that.

The fourth point I would like to make concerns the board of arbitration. My colleague from Vegreville mentioned it and I certainly am in agreement with him. It is important that we have a board of arbitration. I would like very much before the board is appointed to have the appointees brought before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a good hard look at who these people might be.

I wonder if these types of regulations will be binding upon all, including the big players. We have seen the problem of backtracking where millions of dollars are wasted every year.

This Transport Canada system certainly has not solved the problem. Is this a reluctance to go after the major players in the industry? The railways have not been punished in the past for failure to perform their duties. This type of system is only useful if it is applied fairly and uniformly, but with so much power given to the minister there is really no assurance of that.

Let us not forget that one of the main causes of regulation violation is business frustration with the regulatory and taxation burden. Therefore, one of the best things the government could do in my mind to increase regulatory compliance is to lower the input costs for doing business, lower the tax burden and thereby increase the profitability margin. My thinking on this is that happy campers are compliant campers and they are good campers.

Speaking of the non-criminal remedies available to the government departments, I would ask if the minister of agriculture would offer some of his advice to the Minister of Justice who wants to make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners.

In conclusion, as I mentioned at the outset, there are some good points in this bill. For me to stand here and say that I personally would oppose this bill based on the theory would be wrong for me to do and I certainly will not do that. As I have mentioned two or three times during my speech, there are some areas we have to look at which could be subject to amendments, certainly the major one being the powers given to the minister.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, comments have been made about the hon. minister of agriculture being heavy handed but there have been no specifics. The comments have been long on rhetoric but short on specifics.

With the quick resolution of the dispute over durum wheat exports to the United States, does the hon. member feel that is heavy handed on the part of the minister of agriculture? Does the hon. member consider the minister's acting to protect our supply management system in parts of Canada protecting the best food supply system perhaps in the world is being heavy handed? Does the hon. member feel that acting with due haste to make sure the regulatory system in Canada particularly in areas like the biotech industry and trying to streamline it and getting it done very quickly is perhaps another example of the minister being heavy handed?

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague was listening to my speech because I saw him listening to my speech. But if he had been truly listening he would have heard me clearly say that it would not necessarily be this minister, it could be any minister. It could be any minister now or in the future who could be heavy handed and could take absolute control of this regulatory process.

The member stated I was short on specifics and has asked that I give specifics. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been somewhat short on action. When I look at things like the backhauling issue, and I know that will be coming up in this House very shortly, I realize this has been going on for over a year and no one has bothered to stop it. That would be my response to my hon. colleague.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too was listening very attentively to the remarks of the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I too have a little difficulty with his suggestion that this would give too much power to the minister. He offers as an alternative the setting up of a tribunal which would look after this type of thing.

I point out to him that his party and another colleague in the House have spoken out very eloquently many times against the refugee board in another context suggesting that it is another tribunal which is a waste of taxpayers' money. Now we hear the hon. member proposing yet another tribunal which would draw on the public purse. Would he explain the economics of that for me, please?

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the hon. member that there are certainly differences between good tribunals and bad tribunals.

The concept of the tribunal is already laid out in Bill C-61. I personally do not have a major problem with the idea or the theory of a tribunal. The concern I have is that tribunals could be very susceptible to political patronage appointments.

We have seen that. Look at the current Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and some of the appointments which have taken place over the past six months to a year. Look through the records. There is clearly a trend to political appointments. That is my concern with an appointed tribunal.

All I have said is that any proposed tribunal should go to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food before its members are accepted. Obviously there would be a huge Liberal majority in the standing committee. That is a given, but let us have the opportunity to discuss it.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the act makes reference to the minister, it does not mean the minister, it means the department. Therefore the idea that there would be some interference by the minister is completely inappropriate.

With these types of regulations the minister does not even see or become aware of their enforcement. They are handled at the departmental or administrative level. That is the first clarification we need to make.

First you indicate that there needs to be-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

While we are on the merits of clarification, let me clarify a good rule of the House. That is to direct interventions to the Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has only been 15 months; I will be getting the hang of it shortly.

The hon. member wants a streamlined system. Right now the only way to enforce these types of regulations is through the courts. Now the hon. member wishes to set up a tribunal system which is just another court. This is in fact increasing the regulation and the steps people have to take to solve the problem.

What is being suggested here is that you cannot have it both ways. Either the system is simplified by delegating the authority to the department or it goes through the courts.

I might add that this type of process is ultimately subject to an appeal to the Federal Court which will deal with any of the concerns the hon. member has. If he still has concerns, I would like to hear them.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I heard something that I will ask the member later if he would clarify it with me. He said in his comments it is the department to appoint these boards or to make these regulations. Then what would the minister's job be? Does that mean the tail should wag the dog? I think I heard something to that effect.

If the member would look at Bill C-61, he knows there is a tribunal already in place for these types of things. It is nothing

new. It is nothing that I have said should happen. It is something which came through the government.