Ralph Goodale

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been considering the various amendments to Bill C-61 at report stage since 10 a.m., which has given us over four hours of very detailed discussion. For the most part, that discussion has been quite useful.

As the member for Malpeque mentioned, during the course of the debate and discussion the government has in fact accepted at least three of the proposals put forward by the opposition pertaining to various administrative matters in the legislation.

On the final two motions that are now before the House, Motions 21 and 22, I think the arguments advanced by the member for Malpeque are very convincing and sustainable arguments as to why these two motions should not be among those that are accepted.

I might elaborate on one of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Malpeque, which is the distinction between the Canadian parliamentary system of government and the American congressional system of government.

Under the American system there is a certain method for making appointments. It involves in certain circumstances public hearings before congressional committees. In Canada traditionally we have not taken that approach. One of the reasons we have not taken that approach is the difference between the congressional system in the U.S., which has a different system of checks and balance on the whole executive authority of government, and our parliamentary system, which has a very fundamental rudder to it. You see it from your chair every day, Mr. Speaker, in question period. That is a characteristic absolutely unique to our system.

Members of the U.S. cabinet never have to appear in a public forum like the House of Commons. They appear from time to time in carefully controlled circumstances before congressional committees. Members of the American cabinet are not members of the American Congress and therefore are not present in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. They are aloof, separate and apart from the legislative branch of the American government.

The Americans have an array of checks and balances they believe holds their system together quite appropriately. That is their system. It is a different system. They do not have the open forum of Parliament in which every day Parliament sits the ministers of the crown are in the House to face the accountability of the opposition in the open question period. It is a unique feature of our system, one that argues very well for our system as compared to theirs.

That distinction, among others, is one of the reasons we should reject the kind of administrative suggestions proposed in these two motions and stick to the bill as it is presently before the House.

Earlier in the day the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster raised questions about certain comments made in committee by my parliamentary secretary. I answered fully those questions with respect to the views expressed by my parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has once again in his most recent intervention repeated the allegations without indicating that those allegations have already been completely and fully answered in the House. They ought not to be repeated without the indication that they have been answered. I answered them earlier today. He was not paying attention.

The hon. gentleman also engaged in general criticism. I hope he did not mean it seriously. It was general criticism about the conduct of government members with respect to the work done on the bill in committee.

From my experience as a minister the government members who worked very hard on the bill took their responsibility very seriously. Apart from the hours they spent working on the bill in committee, they spent additional hours doing their homework in their offices, writing letters, asking questions, getting answers and understanding the legislation so that when they went to the committee they were well prepared to deal with the issues in a thoroughly conscientious and efficient manner.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster criticized them for being "well organized". I commend our members for being well organized. I know the depth in which they studied the legislation because I was the one inundated by their questions as to how to put the legislation together in the best and most proper fashion.

Government members have done extraordinarily well in ensuring the legislation came out in a way which serves the national interest.

[Route Canada, October 26th, 1995]

What happened, Bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of brief words about the group of motions we are now considering, Group No. 4, which deals with Motions 20 and 23.

With respect to Motion No. 20, the purpose of this motion is to clarify that the minister of the day essentially carries the burden of proof under this legislation in both the ministerial review process and the review by the tribunal that is proposed under this legislation, the burden of proof that the person named in the notice of the violation in fact committed the violation.

That is how I understand the meaning and intent of the member for Kindersley-Lloydminister in putting forward this motion. I can say without any shadow of a doubt that if I have understood his meaning correctly, that is precisely what the intention of the government is in the wording that is presently proposed in this provision in Bill C-61.

Again in the spirit of co-operation that we demonstrated earlier today in other clauses of this bill, if it is the view of hon. members that inserting the wording proposed in Motion No. 20 clarifies this point, makes it more certain, more definite, I certainly have no objection to accepting this proposed amendment. It is completely consistent with the government's intention in the first place.

I suppose legal scholars and draftsmen could have some interesting discussions about how pretty the language is. Those superficial arguments notwithstanding, the meaning and intent on both sides of the House on this point are absolutely consistent. I have no problem with the amendment the hon. gentleman has put forward.

With respect to Motion No. 23, I do have a problem with this amendment. The manner of appointment for members of the review tribunal by the governor in council that is set out in the version of Bill C-61 that we have before us at the present time follows a well established practice. It is a practice that has been endorsed in this country by the courts of law, assuring the independence of the tribunal from outside interference.

The bill requires very clearly already, without the amendment that is proposed in Motion No. 23, that members of the tribunal have the necessary technical qualification related to the area of agriculture and agri-food and are not in any position of conflict of interest relative to any matters that may come before them for adjudication. In addition, specifically, no member of the tribunal may be employed in the Public Service of Canada.

Those provisions that are already in Bill C-61 adequately cover the point that has been raised by my hon. friend in his Motion No. 23. Therefore I think Motion No. 23 is unnecessary. It could, depending upon legal interpretation, add some uncertainties to a situation, which I am sure my hon. friend does not intend. I presume his intention is to make things more certain and not less certain. With the greatest of respect, we would be better off, in connection to the subject matter to which Motion No. 23 pertains, to leave the draft language as it stands now and reject Motion No. 23. The substance of Motion No. 23 is already otherwise covered in the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, a brief word or two with respect to the motions that are in Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 18 and 19. The members who have already spoken in detail about these proposed amendments have very clearly indicated why the majority of them are either inappropriate or unnecessary. I would like to congratulate the members who have participated in the debate on these motions in putting forward the arguments very clearly.

I would like to indicate that Motion No. 18 is fundamentally acceptable. As a matter of legal interpretation, it may not be absolutely necessary, but as the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster indicated earlier with respect to Motion No. 10, if it is the government's intention to proceed in a reasonable manner, which obviously it is, then is there any harm done by including that specific word reasonable?

In the circumstances pertaining to Motion No. 18, it may as a matter of legal interpretation be a bit redundant. Some may say it is sort of gilding the lily, but it is clearly the government's intention to administer the bill in a reasonable fashion. If it improves the perception of the legislation by accepting Motion No. 18 and including the word reasonable in this context, the government has absolutely no problem with that. Motion No. 18 is certainly acceptable in this group of motions, whereas we would have to vote against Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 19.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motions we are discussing in Group No. 2, Motion No. 2 and Motions Nos. 6 through 17. They are all part of our discussion at the present time.

Remarks were made earlier by the hon. member for Lotbinière regarding overlap and duplication in agricultural policies and programs between the federal government and provincial jurisdiction. I will address that point for a moment.

That there might be some measure of overlap is probably to be expected since under our Constitution agriculture is specifically and explicitly a joint federal-provincial responsibility.

When we look at the duplication that actually exists, it is truly remarkable that the amount involved in agriculture is tiny. Two studies were conducted within the last year or so by the Government of Quebec. One was released in the spring of this year and the other was released earlier this fall.

One study indicated that at the very worst the amount of overlap and duplication between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec with respect to agriculture might involve a cost in the order of 2.5 per cent. According to the other study, it was more like 1 per cent. According to the studies it is very minor.

On a number of occasions in the House and publicly I have indicated to the Government of Quebec and every other provincial government to the extent that overlap and duplication exist in the field of agriculture, that we should talk about it. We should work it out of the system so we have it at the absolute minimum, even though it is already very small to start with.

There really is no substantial argument to be made on the point of overlap and duplication because there is not much in the first place. To the extent that it does exist the Government of Canada is completely prepared to work with every provincial jurisdiction to identify problem areas that might exist and to work them out of the system so that overlap and duplication are minimized.

In the remarks of the member for Lotbinière I also heard an attempt to demean or diminish the importance of the Canadian federal inspection system in agriculture. That system is vital to Canadian farmers, exporters and consumers in terms of providing this country with the safest and highest quality of food in the world.

Studies, some of which we released at the time of the federal budget last February, indicated Canadians have a very high confidence level in our food system in terms of its health and its safety because of the Canadian food inspection system which ranks among the very best in the world in terms of health and safety standards. That gives our consumers a very strong and positive feeling about the quality of products they buy from the Canadian food system. It also provides our customers abroad with a very high level of expectation about the standards they can receive when they buy from Canada.

I have had the opportunity to visit with our customers in foreign markets, in the Asia-Pacific region, in Latin America, in Europe and in other places around the world. They have repeatedly told me that when they buy from Canada they know they buy the very best and they rely heavily on the high quality, high standard inspection system.

It is not accurate or appropriate to dismiss that as something frivolous or unmeaningful. It matters a lot to Canadian farmers, to Canadian exporters and potential exporters, to Canadian consumers and to our international customers. That inspection system is exceedingly important to all Canadians.

I have heard that comment repeated to me over and over by exporters and potential exporters from Quebec who know the value of the Canadian inspection system and who want to see it maintained in the best interests of Quebec agriculture and Canadian agriculture.

Can we make our inspection system even better? The answer to that is obviously yes. At the present time we are working very hard in co-operation with the private sector and in co-operation with all provincial governments to make that system better. We are working on areas where we can avoid costs in the system. We are working on areas where we can reduce costs in the system. We are working on areas where we can share costs in the system when there is an appropriate sharing of benefits at the same time. We are looking at a whole range of ways in which we can introduce new technology into the system to take advantage of the advances in science and technology in the field of food inspection systems.

We are also pursuing new approaches that have international acceptance such as an approach called HACCP, as it is known by its acronym, the hazard analysis at critical control points system. It is deemed in many jurisdictions around the world to be the very best system to move toward for the future. Many Canadian companies are already beginning to adopt that approach in their inspection standards.

Finally, there is the issue of more co-ordination and co-operation among all those in the system who have some responsibility for inspection.

I have seen examples of inspection situations in the country where three or four federal government departments are involved in some aspect of inspection, perhaps two or three departments at the provincial level and on occasion, some departments at the municipal level. That is an area where there is some overlap we can seriously work at removing from the system. We are trying to do that in two ways.

First, at the federal level we are working very hard on a single federal approach to inspection so that we do not have overlapping activities on the part of several federal departments all inspecting the same thing but simply repeating the process over and over again. We are making progress at working out those illustrations of federal overlap so we get the inspection job done but we do not cause repetitive actions that are in fact counterproductive and costly.

Second, we are working very hard with the provinces, as is evidenced by the last several federal-provincial meetings of agriculture ministers, to develop a Canadian national food inspection system. It is a system where all jurisdictions and all levels that have responsibility work in greater co-ordination with each other so that at the end of the day the very best inspection work gets done at a very high level with excellent standards and calibre, but we avoid costs in the system, overlap and duplication. We then have a system that performs to the very high standards we want at the very least possible cost.

The story of food inspection is one in which Canadians can have confidence and of which they can be very proud both for today and

for the future. Having said that, I would add this one final sentence. It is critically important that we maintain our vigilance with respect to food inspection so that Canadians cannot only have a past reputation for being the very best in the world, but can have the absolute confidence that their reputation will continue forever into the future.

In the group of motions that are specifically before us, Motions Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 12 have already been dealt with, I believe, by my colleague for Brandon-Souris quite effectively. Similarly, Motions Nos. 6, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 17 have been dealt with by the member for Brandon-Souris in considerable detail. I do not propose to repeat what he said.

I want to focus on Motion No. 10, presented by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, where he suggests the insertion of the word reasonable. It is obviously our intention, with respect to the matters dealt with under Motion No. 10, to be reasonable. I have no difficulty with the inclusion of that word with respect to Motion No. 10. I would suggest though, as a consequence that it would not be necessary to accept Motion No. 11 because the point is already covered effectively by the amendment we are prepared to accept in Motion No. 10.

All other motions in the package I would recommend against. However, the government is prepared to accept the amendment proposed in Motion No. 10.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity in the House today to deal with Bill C-61 and the various possible motions in amendment that have been put on the Order Paper with respect to Bill C-61.

In beginning the discussion on Motion No. 1, I start by making reference to a matter the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster referred to in his opening remarks, the level of industry support for the measure as it appears in the form of the legislation.

My parliamentary secretary, in dealing with the issue before the committee, indicated that there was broad support for the legislation as it appears before the House of Commons. In indicating the kind of correspondence presented to verify the support, my parliamentary secretary was not in any way misleading or attempting to mislead members of the committee. He stated quite accurately that letters of support had been received for the principle and the concept of the legislation from 11 key industry organizations. The names of the organizations have already been referred to by the hon. member opposite.

Consultation on the legislation began a long time before the bill was actually drafted. In October 1992 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada wrote to all industry associations to inform them of the intention to move forward with an administrative monetary penalty system. After that consultation various letters of support were received broadly from the industry. Also a variety of industry groups reaffirmed their support for this type of legislation during the regulatory review process conducted by my department during the course of 1992.

Once the bill was actually drafted and tabled in the House of Commons on December 5, 1994, a letter and substantial documentation were sent to 132 industry associations informing them that the bill had been tabled. The letter went on to detail the significant features of the legislation. It specifically provided a contact point to enable further discussion and information upon request from the various industry organizations.

In response we received a few inquiries seeking certain specific clarifications about some detailed points contained in the draft legislation, but there were no letters and no other forms of

communication indicating any fundamental change on the part of the industry in terms of support for the legislation.

At the same time a press release was issued to over 1,000 media and industry contacts. It indicated that the legislation had been tabled and that the concepts previously discussed in various forms of consultation had now been transformed into legislative form and were about to proceed through the House of Commons.

As the bill has been before the House for some considerable length of time, various industry representatives have been kept informed of the progress of the legislation. Certainly the indication is that a broad measure of support in the industry continues for Bill C-61.

In view of the concerns expressed at committee stage by members of the opposition wondering if the previous expressions of support continue to the present time, this week my officials have contacted a number of the groups and organizations previously consulted. This week my officials have also spoken with the Canadian Horticulture Council, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, the National Dairy Council and the Canadian Meat Council. All the organizations again reconfirmed their support for the bill.

While I appreciate the question about earlier support and later support being raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, the evidence before us indicates fairly clearly that a broad measure of support was there in the beginning and continues to the present time.

Specifically Motion No. 1 talks about the possibility of prescribing in regulations the criteria for determining whether any contravention should be considered as an administrative violation or an offence. I have a couple of observations I would like to make.

At the present time, every contravention can be prosecuted through the court system. What this bill does is it gives to the minister of agriculture an administrative option where prosecution is seen to be too harsh or too drastic a measure. In arriving at his or her decision as to whether to proceed immediately through the court system by way of prosecution or proceed under the auspices of administrative monetary penalties, the minister of the day will be guided by a compliance and enforcement policy. That policy establishes criteria to advise and instruct the department in making decisions on the use of the various enforcement options that are available, the more severe and the less severe.

The compliance and enforcement policy is a public document. It would not be prescribed by way of regulation, but it would be on the public record for the public to know about, to understand, to ask questions about, and potentially even to suggest changes to.

The choice to be made by the minister in any given set of circumstances is as to whether to prosecute or whether to issue a monetary penalty. This is akin to a choice that is often before prosecutors in criminal matters where a decision has to be made about whether to proceed by way of indictment, which is a more serious method of proceeding through the court system, or by way of summary conviction, which is a somewhat less serious method of proceeding.

Because the choice in any given case is so heavily dependent upon the individual facts of the situation, there is obviously a requirement here for some degree of flexibility. I would say to my hon. friend across the way that I do not believe it is practical or realistic to have hard and fast rules set down and prescribed by way of regulations. The necessary flexibility that has to be there in making these judgment calls is best offered by relying on a policy statement, a policy document, rather than trying to etch all of that in the more rigid framework of regulations.

I repeat the point I made earlier: The policy document on compliance and enforcement matters dealing with how decisions are to be made on the choice of the various enforcement options that might be available will be open to the public. One of the fundamental things we are trying to achieve by means of this legislation is an open, fair and transparent process.

I would simply conclude by saying that in making these choices, which are difficult choices and require judgment calls to be made and some measure of flexibility, depending on a wide variety of factual situations that may confront the minister of the day, it is important for these matters to be dealt with in the form of a public policy document as opposed to trying to etch them in the more rigid form of regulations. While I understand the general point my hon. friend is trying to make, I would not be in a position to recommend support for Motion No. 1.

[National Co-Operative Week, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as federal minister responsible for co-operatives, I wish to take the opportunity today to recognize and salute National Co-Operative Week and International Credit Union Day in Canada.

Since pioneer times Canadians have found it beneficial to work together toward common goals. The co-operative movement springs from that community effort and involvement.

An important part of our economy, co-ops provide over 133,000 jobs and represent more than $140 billion in assets. Non-financial co-operatives have a volume of business of $20.7 billion. Together, caisse populaire and credit unions represent the fifth largest financial network in Canada.

This year is important for the international co-operative movement, as it marks the 100th anniversary of the International Co-operative Alliance. The ICA represents more than 753 million members from 90 countries. The conference held in Manchester in September was a major event for the international co-operative movement. Revised co-operation principles were adopted that will propel co-ops into the 21st century. In this respect, I think that it would be proper to pay special tribute to Ian MacPherson, from British Columbia, who spearheaded the process.

Co-operatives are an effective way of providing a wide range of goods and services to their members and to consumers. While many co-operatives operate in urban centres, they have been especially effective in developing businesses and creating employment in rural areas and small communities.

Through co-operation, many Canadians have established new businesses and expanded into new or unique ventures. For example, the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative in eastern Ontario will produce ethanol from locally grown grains.

Involvement in co-operatives has helped many thousands of individuals learn new business and management skills which not only help them to manage their co-operatives but also gives them the skills to better manage their own enterprises and allows them to grow and expand.

I want to mention how committed our young people are to the co-operative approach. Students have started co-ops in their schools to provide services in areas such as savings, housing, school supplies and computing science and, in some instances, to create summer jobs for themselves.

[English]

I urge all members, in our deliberations today and on every other occasion, to consider the potential of co-operation as a tool to help the country to continue to be a nation that is innovative, dynamic and proud of its accomplishments.

From my home province of Saskatchewan in the west where our people demonstrate a high level of participation in co-operative organizations to Quebec, which also enjoys a high level of co-operative activity, the co-op movement is one very important bond of strength and unity.

I congratulate the Canadian co-operative movement on its achievements and wish it much success in the years to come.

[Dairy Industry, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in an earlier answer to outline some very impressive statistics about how the Canadian supply management system benefits the dairy industry in the province of Quebec.

By the very fundamental definition of supply management, the domestic market of a producing country is preserved primarily for the benefit of that country's domestic producers. A separate Quebec would obviously no longer be part of the Canadian domestic market. As a result the dairy industry in Quebec could be placed in very substantial jeopardy.

The clearest, best, strongest answer for preserving all these benefits for the dairy industry in Quebec and for the dairy industry in Canada is a clear and decisive no on October 30.

[Quebec Agri-Food Industry, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman makes reference to agricultural research. If we were to apply the hard and fast formulae he just suggested to the field of agricultural research, it would result in a cutback with respect to the province of Quebec.

In fact we have 18 national centres of excellence in agricultural research and development in the country. Four of them are located in the province of Quebec, at Ste-Foy, at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, at Lennoxville and at St-Hyacinthe, which is the highest number in the country.

[Quebec Agri-Food Industry, October 18th, 1995]

No, Mr. Speaker, I would not make that admission. One has to take into account the entire range of federal policies that apply to agriculture. In some cases those policies provide for grants and contributions, either to producers directly or to producer organizations, marketing systems, institutions and so forth.

Another very valuable form of contribution by the Government of Canada comes in the form of our regulatory system that creates Canadian supply management, and 45 per cent of Quebec agriculture falls within the jurisdiction of the Canadian supply management system, which results in billions of dollars worth of benefits to Quebec and Canadian consumers and producers.