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.
