Elwin Hermanson

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, October 26th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 15

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

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

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, October 26th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 10

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

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

Motion No. 11

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

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

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, October 26th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-61, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 2, the following:

"(b) prescribing criteria for determining whether an act or omission shall be proceeded with as a violation or as an offence".

Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage of Bill C-61, a bill that allows the Department of Agriculture, under the jurisdiction of the minister of agriculture, to impose administrative monetary penalties for a violation to the various acts that were just read in the House and to seek compliance agreements to ensure the violations do not continue in the future.

My party and I support the concept of administrative monetary penalties. We also support the concept of compliance agreements. The House will see in the amendments we have proposed today that none of them would disallow the use of administrative monetary penalties to implement or to penalize violations of acts, particularly those that would affect regulations dealing with agriculture, health, safety and the like. Nor do any of the amendments we propose, including the one we are dealing with right now, preclude the minister reaching a compliance agreement with an offender or with a violator of any of the offences in the acts we are dealing with today.

Our amendments attempt to qualify and quantify the powers of the minister, the powers of the tribunal to which violators can appeal, and to clarify certain parts of the acts and the rights and the responsibilities of both the violator and the minister in enforcing and administering the monetary penalties and forming compliance agreements.

Motion No. 1 is incorrectly printed in the Notice Paper. It says that the minister shall prescribe "criteria for determining whether an act or omission shall be proceeded with as a violation or as an offence". The amendment requires the minister to have regulations determining the differences between a violation which the AMPs address and an offence which the court system addresses. We feel this clarification would respond to some concerns in the industry about the matter.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was given information by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that a number of institutions and associations impacted by the legislation support Bill C-61. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture circulated a list in the committee of several organizations such as the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Animal Health Institute, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Nursery Trades Association, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Seed Growers Association, the Council of Forestry Industries of British Columbia, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the National Dairy Council of Canada and the Holstein Association of Canada.

The parliamentary secretary indicated to the committee that all these associations and organizations supported Bill C-61. The list that he circulated in the committee was titled "Organizations which support Bill C-61". He said that he would supply letters of support for the bill to members of the committee. We sought those letters of support, and when we received them only one of the

letters was dated after the introduction of Bill C-61. In other words all the letters the parliamentary secretary suggested indicated support for Bill C-61 were written in 1992 and 1993, which is before the current government was elected and before Bill C-61 was in the drafting stage, let alone introduced into the House of Commons.

We took note of what the individuals who wrote those letters said and found that while they supported the concepts of AMPS and compliance agreements, they wanted to review the legislation once drafted and to comment on it.

To my knowledge the minister of agriculture and his officials have not yet supplied us with any letters, other than one letter from the Canadian Meat Council, that actually support Bill C-61. I bring that forward as a concern and as a rationale for some of the amendments we are proposing.

Motion No. 1 would require the minister to have regulations determining the differences between a violation which the AMPS address and an offence which the court system addresses. This must happen in any case. The amendment ensures that the minister is required to do it. The criteria must be more open and more well known in the industry and if the criteria are wrong we will know in advance, before the regulations are administered, whether or not they will be done in a fair and reasonable manner.

Departmental officials say that they are doing a great job of it right now, that they are very fair minded, very reasonable in the way they administer penalties on violations and deal with offences under the acts. That may very well be; I am not here to challenge whether or not they are doing a good job. However over time, situations change. A few years ago we had a Mulroney government that was very arrogant. We may have a Liberal government that becomes more arrogant or we may have some new arrangement in the Parliament of Canada in the years ahead where ministers and departments overstep their bounds.

The amendment is not criticizing the current administration. It is not a criticism of the Department of Agriculture. It is not a criticism of the minister's officials. It is ensuring that in the future the criteria will be very public, that no one could be biased in their determination of whether a violation would follow the AMPS and compliance route or go the court route, perhaps based on someone's politics, on which part of the country they live in or on some other unreasonable criteria unacceptable to Canadians.

The minister must set out a criterion to determine the differences. This minor amendment would ensure that happens. It would ensure the AMPS and the compliance agreements would have a reason for introduction. If the department decided not to go the AMPS route or the compliance agreement route and decided to take the matter to the courts, to the justice system, we would know the criteria on which the decision was made. It is a more open, transparent way of performing one's responsibilities.

I urge the House to accept the amendment. It certainly is not partisan by nature; it certainly is not unreasonable. Therefore I ask for the support of all members.

[National Defence, October 23rd, 1995]

Answer the question.

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

And we said yes.

[Agriculture, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture is having trouble with mastering at least one of the three r 's, namely writing.

This past August I had the opportunity to join several farmers touring an area around Lloydminster damaged by the drought. The farmers had asked me to forward their concerns to the minister regarding their grave situation. My letter dated August 18, 1995 read in part: "They have difficult and immediate decisions to make so it is imperative that your department promptly address the concerns raised by these farmers". It has been two months and the minister has failed even to acknowledge receiving my letter, let alone to respond to it and to the farmers affected.

I have also forwarded concerns to the minister about the Crow benefit from alfalfa producers in the dehydrated alfalfa industry. Guess what? There has been no response.

I have heard from a number of my constituents that the minister's office has not responded to their letters as well. Even farm organizations complain to me that they have not heard from the minister when they write.

Can the minister not write, or is the minister's office too busy trying to put out fires with the Crow buyout and the safety net programs that there is no time to respond to the farmers' concerns?

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying, the fundamental goal of any endangered species legislation must be to ensure that no further native species go extinct and that already endangered species recover to healthy and self-sustaining levels. To do this we need to use the most effective, efficient and fair methods possible.

The federal government has jurisdiction over the management and preservation of wildlife on federal lands. Likewise, the provincial governments have jurisdiction over the management and preservation on all non-federal lands.

I understand that currently only four provinces have endangered species legislation: Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Farmers and ranchers in Saskatchewan are concerned this type of legislation will prevent them from doing what they want with their own land. They are afraid governments will annex part of their land if an endangered species makes its habitat on their property. Farmers and ranchers are not against the protection of endangered species and populations. Farm owners, landowners and land leasers are respectful of our duty to protect all species with which we share this planet.

Any legislation must first consider the rights of the private landowner. By considering their rights we will then be able to find a co-operative solution to the preservation of endangered species.

My constituents who are farmers and ranchers certainly do not want to have any legislation thrown at them telling them how they ought to regulate their land. They must not be ignored. Farmers and ranchers are the closest to the land and are familiar with the animals that are endangered species and what needs to be done to ensure their survival. It is the duty of responsible government to sit down with those most affected by such legislation and find a common solution.

Recently United States officials under the U.S. Endangered Species Act shut down a portion of a west coast logging operation in order to save the spotted owl. This was economically disastrous for several communities. We are aware of the extreme measures taken by the U.S. Not only were they irrational but they do not in any way take the private citizen's concerns and rights into account.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act compliance process for single family residential lots states that only a recent issuance of a proclamation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has changed this regulation. The United States has spent approximately $825 million and has not recovered one species.

Some member from across the floor might say the U.S. measures are draconian and that this government would never follow such a lead. Let me remind Liberal members that the Minister of the Environment is a follower of U.S. practices. The U.S. banned the additive MMT in unleaded gasoline and the Minister of the Environment followed suit. The U.S. is considering a ban on sulphur and so watch for the minister to be trapped and only a step behind on this one as well.

Bill C-275 is not similar to legislation currently practised in the United States. The bill's scope is to protect only species on federal lands. Like most legislation that comes from the government side, it flirts with that slippery slope concept.

We are concerned, as I know landowners in my part of the country are, that the Minister of the Environment may be using this as a test case to bring forward some severe legislation not balanced and not fair to landowners but protecting endangered species, which we all share a concern about.

Clause 9(1)(a) states in part that the minister "may make regulations forbidding or restricting any use of, access to, activity on, or the release of any substance on, federal lands that are public

lands". Clause 9(1)(b) states in part "federal lands that are private lands".

If crown land is leased to a private rancher, which I assume occurs in some parts of Canada, does that mean the control of the land is under the jurisdiction of the crown or the leasee? When I mentioned the slippery slope, this is exactly what I am referring to.

Perhaps the sponsor of the bill, the member for Davenport, might provide me with further clarification of this section and I would appreciate it.

Clause 3(2) of the bill states:

For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Endangered species legislation should apply equally to all Canadian citizens. There can be only one set of laws applied equally to everyone in Canada. If the government is serious about the protection of species it cannot predetermine which federal land will part of this jurisdiction and which will not; it is either all or nothing.

Furthermore the Minister of the Environment has stated all Canadians share responsibility for ensuring that species are not lost to extinction as a result of human activities. I hope the minister when drafting her legislation will make certain that all Canadians will really mean all Canadians.

On August 17, 1995 the Minister of the Environment introduced a legislative proposal dealing with endangered species. It was called the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act. Its intent was for consultation purposes with a hope that legislation would be introduced in the late fall. As of now Canada does not have any legislation dealing with endangered species. I was recently told that even the minister did not know that such legislation was absent in Canada.

This causes me and some of my constituents great concern, not the minister's lack of knowledge of her own portfolio but rather that she will now try to bring in legislation as quickly as possible in order to make a mark for herself. A responsible government would not do such a thing and therefore I ask the environment minister to make sure she not only has the environmental activists on her side but the industrial and agricultural communities as well.

It is extremely important to find common ground between all interested parties. Decisions on endangered species legislation should not be made hastily.

The Western Stock Growers Association has outlined five goals that go a long way in protecting endangered species without unnecessary intrusive government legislation. I bring these to the attention of the House.

First, land goals: they should be to maintain productive capacity for producing food and feed through sustainable development; management of habitat for both domestic livestock and wildlife; control access to such lands to limit disturbance to all species; empower the land holder to make appropriate management decisions.

Second, people goals: allow local stakeholders a voice in the process; maintain the necessities of life and maintain the quality of life, particularly life in rural Canada.

Third, financial goals: determine all of the direct and indirect costs of protection; determine all of the economic impacts and all benefits; preparation of a comprehensive budget to show how and by whom the action plan will be paid.

Fourth, government goals: create a regulatory environment that facilitates flexible responses to endangered species management and avoids coercion of land holders; provide integration of funding of the foregoing processes; facilitate management by land holders.

I commend the member for Davenport on his bill. He has been a member in the House for some time and has been a champion for environmental causes. For this he should be applauded.

Should the bill make it to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development I hope the member for Davenport, the chair of the committee, will seek witnesses from all interested parties. I hope he will allow individual ranchers and farmers to appear so that the committee will hear from those who would be directly affected by his legislation.

I could spend a bit of time talking about some of the hoops American landowners have been put through by the endangered species legislation in the United States but I do not have time. I hope the member for Davenport and, more important, the Minister of the Environment become familiar with these issues.

Saskatchewan on two occasions, first under a New Democratic government and second under a Conservative government, attempted to introduce endangered species legislation without properly consulting all the stakeholders involved, particularly the landowners.

Landowners are certainly conservationists. They are environmentalists. They have the best interest of the land they are stewards of and the species that live on that land at heart. Coming from an area on the South Saskatchewan River, the river valley, it has been a joy to watch species flourish and live in harmony with nature and with the people who are the stewards of the land both for cultivation and for grazing of livestock.

There can be a co-operative approach to protecting endangered species and not limiting the rights of landowners and the lessees of crown land.

I implore the government and the Minister of the Environment to pursue that approach. I also encourage the member for Davenport in his legislation, should it go farther than this point in the House, to be willing to look at amendments to his bill that might respect the rights and interests of land owners in this whole situation.

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on Bill C-275.

The fundamental goal of any endangered species legislation must be to ensure-

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debating skills of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls are legendary in the House. They go back to his days in opposition.

We really had not experienced them until the debate on Bill S-9. Now we see his passion and his fervour. I wonder if the member would assure the House that he will back up this passion and fervour with deeds. Does he intend to vote against the government and against Bill S-9 when it comes forward for a third reading vote?

In other words, will he be in the House and will he vote against Bill S-9?

[Petitions, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 50 of my constituents who are in the teaching profession. It has been duly certified pursuant to Standing Order 36 to be in order.

My constituents in the province of Saskatchewan object strongly to the present status of Canada's Young Offenders Act. They feel that the Young Offenders Act has failed to address the issue of youth crime and has negative results in our schools, communities, and society in general.

Therefore they petition the House to enact legislation to significantly toughen the Young Offenders Act as quickly as possible, with a view to making young offenders responsible for their actions, making the names of young offenders public and increasing the severity of consequences for repeat offences.