Wayne Easter

[Atlantic Canada, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reply to the rants of the Reform member for Vegreville about the political injustice he perceives exists in Atlantic Canada and specifically in P.E.I.

I take particular exception to the member's statement that "Islanders are forced to endure political oppression". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The only oppression that would occur in the Atlantic region would be if the Reform Party's policies of cutting the public health care system and Americanizing existing social programs were imposed on the people. I was shocked at the unfounded accusation of the member for Vegreville with respect to the political atmosphere on P.E.I.

Once again, the Reform Party is exemplifying its pathetic policies of gaining cheap party support through divisiveness not only within the country as it did during the referendum but now within regions.

Shame to the member for Vegreville for unfounded accusations that can only be called cheap political fearmongering.

[Eric Robinson, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to offer congratulations to Mr. Eric Robinson, named to the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Eric's love for agriculture can be seen in his family, his farm, his community, and the company that bears his name. The company maintains two farming operations and also buys and sells potatoes for the domestic and export markets.

Eric's extensive travels throughout North America and Europe resulted in the introduction of new equipment that led to complete mechanization of the potato industry in Prince Edward Island. He was one of the first to use a bulk harvester and to import and grow the Russet Burbank variety, now the common variety grown in P.E.I.

A volunteer to many organizations, Eric was a member of the original P.E.I. potato marketing board in 1950.

Although he claims he is retired, Eric looks in daily on the operation. Eric Robinson is indeed most deserving of this honour. Congratulations to Eric and his family on his induction into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too want to deal with Motions 21 and 22, but I do want to take issue with a couple of the comments made by the last speaker, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Earlier today we were talking about being reasonable in this House. We did in fact agree with some of the amendments put forward by the hon. member in the third party. After the comments he made in his last remarks, one would wonder why we would be reasonable. He commented that in putting amendments forward on behalf of the government the Liberal members merely put them forward and the lights went out. Those amendments had taken serious consideration of the discussions, what the department had said and what our members had said, the discussion that Reform members had brought forward before the committee. Those amendments were given due consideration and were well thought out and do indeed improve the bill, as do some of the amendments put forward by the third party.

He also alluded to, and I want to take issue with it, the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. I want to say, having sat in on those meetings, that the parliamentary secretary tried to provide the comments from the community. In response to the member that night, when Bill C-61 came out the department issued a release to quite a number of organizations that had raised concerns. It issued an overview of that particular bill. Having been a leader in the farm community myself for a number of years, I know organizations look at that overview, look at the draft legislation, and respond

accordingly. I believe they did have the opportunity to respond, and the parliamentary secretary was trying to outline to committee members the views of the community. I respect him for having done that.

I do want to say that we on the government side of that committee have considered these amendments very seriously, including those from the third party.

As to the motions we are now debating, I want to state that I oppose those particular amendments. The minister spoke earlier on another amendment and I think his comments apply to these particular amendments. The manner of appointments of members of the review tribunal by the governor in council that is set out in this bill follows a well established practice, endorsed by courts of law, of assuring the independence of the tribunal from outside interference.

This is what is so important in terms of the appointment of members to committees. I know from previous experience that there is nothing more difficult than appointing members and trying to do it in a balanced, fair, and equitable way. If we had members of the committee trying to push certain members to be appointed to committees for political or other reasons, we would be into very great difficulty indeed in terms of trying to find balance on committees.

In terms of appointments to tribunals and so on, the minister is always accountable and responsible. Therefore, he takes a great deal of discretion in terms of making those appointments. I can tell you that if the minister appointed the wrong individual, the first ones standing up in this House would be members of the opposition, complaining about that appointment and trying to hold the minister accountable and responsible. But how could the minister be held accountable and responsible for appointments pushed by committee members and sometimes by the opposition parties? I think that as a committee we would be in difficulty.

I know the intent of the member for Lotbinière is good. The objective he is putting forward is good. However, it is very problematic in terms of how it would work in practice. Let me give an example.

I am from P.E.I. and the hon. member is from Quebec and we both might be pushing two individuals for our own reasons for our own provinces. It could create confusion and problems on the committee. It would take a lot of committee time unnecessarily. I prefer the present approach: hold the minister accountable and responsible for those appointments. That is how it should be.

Let me make a couple of other comments in opposition to the amendments.

The bill does require that members of the tribunal have technical qualifications related to the area of agriculture and agri-food and are not in a position of conflict of interest relative to the matters before them. To ensure that people are not found to be in a conflict of interest, it means their backgrounds and résumés must be examined. It is much better to do that in a private forum, rather than in the public forum the committee entails.

Having the standing committee approve all appointments would raise a number of concerns. First, the time required to deal with the committee recommendations might add considerably to the length of time required to make the appointments.

Second, the committee might refuse to recommend any of the incumbents to these positions, effectively preventing the positions from being filled. As I mentioned earlier, the opposition to incumbents might be based purely on political reasons rather than sound judgment in terms of the ability of the individual to do the job.

Third, I think this kind of amendment would be a move toward a more American style of government. In the past we have seen what incumbents who are looking for positions go through when they appear before boards and committees. Sometimes individuals who could do an effective job are lost because of the process. I think that is wrong.

Finally, a committee debate on the selection of tribunal members could be conducted in public and might involve hearing witnesses, raising privacy concerns, and possibly deterring applicants from even considering sitting on these tribunals.

I know the amendments are put forward in good will. I know the intent to be more productive is there, but I believe they would be problematic. On those grounds, I oppose these amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the two motions in Group No. 4.

On Motion No. 20, again showing how reasonable we are, I agree with the motion. The amendment possibly brings a little more clarity to the bill. It clarifies that the minister carries the burden of proof in both the ministerial review and the review by the tribunal that the person named in the notice of violation committed the violation. This is precisely what the current wording of the bill provides. I have no objection to accepting the proposed amendment; maybe it clarifies the matter a little further. It shows how reasonable we are on this side of the House.

The intent of the legislation is to set up the administrative monetary penalties act. At present an inspector with responsibility for enforcing the agri-food act determines there has been an offence under the statute. There has been much mention that he or she should proceed through the criminal justice system to obtain a penalty for the offence. The inspector must file a complaint with the attorney general who will, where appropriate, commence proceedings against the offender.

Currently whenever a penalty is sought, the entire judicial system must be brought to bear regardless of the seriousness of the offence. The expense and delay inherent in the procedure is often disproportionate to the particular offence. In some cases the fines imposed are very small and in other cases they create a criminal record, which is perhaps too severe a penalty.

In terms of seeking an alternative the government established a system of administrative monetary penalties so that an inspector who determines there has been a violation of the agri-food act could impose a fine on the offender immediately rather than proceed through the judicial system. Basically the government is creating efficiencies in government, being fair and reasonable to all and protecting the interests of the public under the act.

I will mention a couple of points and why the minister must carry the burden of proof. There is a lot at stake and it is important the minister carry the burden of proof. The administrative monetary penalty system will be one that allows the FPI to levy monetary penalties for non-compliance with branch acts and regulations. As has been mentioned by others in the debate, it is less costly, would not tie up the court system and creates a great deal of efficiency.

The administrative monetary penalty system will lead to more equitable enforcement of regulations by allowing the department to take effective action against importers and domestic companies marketing products that do not meet Canadian health, safety and quality standards.

As the system starts to evolve, the industry will recognize the pressure the new system puts on it. The industry will continue to comply with the regulations without having to get into any great enforcement measures. That is important. That is the objective of the system. The criminal prosecution system will remain an option and is available should it become necessary.

It is important that monetary penalties can be offset through compliance agreements. The proposal is to reduce the fine by $1 for every $2 a company spends on new equipment, process changes or staff training to prevent the recurrence of non-compliance. That is also an incentive for the industry to comply with the regulations. In this way the system emphasizes compliance, not punishment for behaviour, which is certainly a great step in the right direction. The administrative monetary penalty system fits with the government's regulatory review agenda to improve regulatory effectiveness and decriminalize most regulatory offences.

The intent of Motion No. 20 is a good one and can be supported. However Motion No. 23 is a horse of a different colour and I cannot support it. The amendment provides that "no lobbyist or party to a contract with the Public Service of Canada shall be appointed as a member of the board or the tribunal".

The bill requires that members of the tribunal have technical qualifications related to the areas of agriculture and agri-food and are not in positions of conflict of interest relative to the matter before them. In addition, it has been clearly set out that no member of the tribunal may be employed in the Public Service of Canada.

The intent of Motion No. 23 is taken care of in other ways. If one were to incorporate the amendment, in essence it would make the legislation more cumbersome. In effect Motion No. 23 is unnecessary and I have to oppose it.

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

I try not to get speeding tickets. I might inform the hon. member that where I come from in Prince Edward Island we do not need to speed to get from place to place, it is such a wonderful place to be. I can understand the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster wanting to speed to get to P.E.I. some time because of its great people and great industries. We would welcome him any time but we will not pay his speeding tickets.

The bill allows for a notice to be served by various means and the server of a notice may not necessarily be the designated person. By definition the designated person is the person who issues the notice. Service of the notice is a procedural matter best addressed by maintaining a degree of flexibility. The bill allows the matter of service of all documents including notices to be addressed by regulations, for example paragraph 4(1)(g). The regulations will make provision for service in person or by registered mail, which is appropriate.

On Motion No. 5, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster could correct me if I am wrong but its purpose is basically to legislate a minimum time of 45 days within which a penalty may be paid. This is a procedural matter to be determined by regulation. There is certainly reason for determining some of the procedures by regulation.

We must be careful not to be overly restrictive in terms of the bill.

The member mentioned earlier that the department could become overly heavy handed. I certainly know that if it became overly heavy handed with the current minister it would be addressed. I would expect members opposite to be forever watchful in that regard. Under this legislation I do not expect the department could become overly heavy handed.

I will deal specifically with Motion No. 5. To include time frames such as these in legislation is impractical because it is very difficult to make future changes. Procedural details are generally contained in regulations or in policy documents.

The regulation process is open and fair. The preparation and drafting of regulations include consultation with the industry and the prepublication of regulations in The Canada Gazette , part I. The process will ensure that a reasonable time frame is put in regulation for the payment of a monetary penalty. It gives us some flexibility in reviewing it in the future to redress it through regulation. It might be easier to take the member's concerns into

consideration in the future, maintaining that flexibility by way of regulation.

The purpose of Motion No. 18 is to clarify that the expenses recoverable by Her Majesty with respect to the disposal of forfeited goods are reasonable. I was surprised by the hon. member's comments that maybe the minister would hire Lloyds of London to sell some goods. As he very well knows the government-and sometimes it is to the point of being of concern to some of us-is very concerned about how departments spend their limited dollars.

The House could be assured that the government or the ministry would not spend money in an unreasonable way. I challenge the member on the comment that we would go that far astray. It has always been the government's intention to administer the bill in a reasonable way. One thing about the government is that it does not need everything in legislation to be reasonable. We are a reasonable bunch to begin with and that is very well known in the community.

The last motion is Motion No. 19. Its intent is to enable a violator to rely on the defence of due diligence. We would have to oppose it. Bill C-61 allows for the issuance of monetary penalties on the basis of absolute liability. The department only needs to prove the alleged violator committed an act in violation of the regulations. The bill does not allow a defence of due diligence by which a violator can avoid liability by establishing that he or she was not negligent.

Under Bill C-61 there is no possibility of imprisonment, no record of conviction for an offence created, and penalties are modest rather than punitive in nature. Because of these factors there is no constitutional or other legal impediment to proceeding on the basis of absolute liability. It is worth mentioning that although the due diligence defence does not apply, other common law defences are available to a person to whom a notice of violation is issued. Those are my comments on the motions.

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

I will do that. In this case the regulations will determine a base penalty amount range in circumstances under which penalties may be increased or reduced. Compliance history will be one of the factors set out in the regulations whereby penalties will be reduced for violators with no previous history of non-compliance and increased for those who commit subsequent violations.

Under clause 4(3) of Bill C-61 penalty amounts may be increased or decreased based on the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation, the amount of harm done by the violation and the compliance history of the person who committed the violation.

In terms of Motion No. 3 the legislation has to remain as is to give the flexibility needed to enforce compliance.

On Motion No. 4, as I understand it the basic purpose of the Reform amendment is to have a notice of violation to identify the designated person serving the notice. I do not see the need for that. The bill allows that a notice may be served by various means.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster made an important point in his last statement when he said we support amendments that make sense.

The difficulty with these amendments, I am sorry to say, is that in terms of the effectiveness of the legislation they do not make sense. I will speak on most of them.

On Motion No. 3, we have to understand current maximum penalties are relatively modest. The bill does not make a distinction between the first and subsequent violations for the purpose of setting a maximum penalty that could be assessed.

I am surprised to a certain extent that a reduction for a first offence is being requested, given that very often when dealing with violations of law or quasi-law the Reform Party wants to go all out and go for the jugular. In this case you are asking for-

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill S-9 to draw out some of the points that are in the bill. First I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Gander-Grand Falls, for bringing this important issue forward in a number of ways.

There are a number of good points in this bill and there are a couple of points I have very grave and serious concerns about. It is important to try to put on the record what some of those changes are so that we can distinguish between the areas of concern and the areas that may be positive.

The agreement makes a number of important changes to the earlier treaty, including bilateral reductions in withholding tax rates and dividends, interest and royalties reflecting the rates now accepted and enforced between most industrialized countries. That is an area I have some concern with.

A complete withholding tax exemption for payments for the use of technology, I think is a good point.

There is significant relief for Canadian residents from the application of United States estate taxes, increasing the maximum estate tax exemption from $60,000 to between $600,000 and $1.2 million U.S.

The expansion to the exemption from United States tax for income earned by RRSPs, RRIFs and Canadian pension plans I believe is a good point.

There is the authority to impose withholding on CPP and old age security payments made to American residents. The 1980 treaty by contrast allowed only the state of residence to tax such payments.

There are two other points I should mention. There is the provision for mutual assistance in the collection of taxes owed by a citizen of one country who resides in the other, thus assisting in the prevention of tax fraud and evasion. Finally, there is authority to enter into arbitration to resolve disputes where the two countries' revenue authorities cannot agree.

My point is that there are good points in the bill but also some areas which I think we should be concerned about. I want to draw attention to my major area of concern. I agree fully with the member for Gander-Grand Falls on this point. The member raised it in his point of order with the Speaker. He referred to a letter dated July 17 from the Minister of Finance. That letter makes these points. I quote from that letter:

I am not aware of the basis for your suggestion that the cost associated with the reductions in withholding tax rates and certain dividends will total $250 million annually. The only estimates that have been made post that figure at $125 million for 1995-96 and $145 million for 1996-97. It is important to note that these figures do not attempt to account for the effects of increased investment and the consequential growth of income tax revenues that may be anticipated because of the steps we are taking to bring our withholding tax rates in line with our major trading partners.

That is the nub of the issue. To me the statements indicate there is certainly a benefit to the wealthy in that part of the bill which I have to be concerned about. To be up front about it, one of the concerns I have about this Parliament is that I firmly believe for a Parliament to operate effectively, one has to have good government and good opposition.

I am amazed. I am extremely angry at what I hear from the opposition parties in terms of the issues sometimes. They have failed in previous debates to draw out these points so that they can be looked at early enough to try to address them.

The Reform Party is always willing and able to criticize some of the social programs in Atlantic Canada, to criticize the unemployment insurance program. Here is a case where there are benefits to the wealthy and its members have kept mum and been highly supportive. As members of a good opposition party, they did not even draw out these points in debate.

I am confident as a member of the government that there will be a counterbalance found in future legislation to reinstate some of the money back into the tax system, either by looking at RRSPs, corporate taxes or other taxation. As the government whip said in his speech, there are certainly some areas where we will gain finances as a result of this bill in terms of what is happening to the American residents.

In the future we have to find a counterbalance to the mesh, to the finances, that have been lost as a result of the tax dividends being forgiven here.

I would hope and encourage the government to look at that in the future.

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

The member from Reform indicates in P.E.I. I have found the people from the prairies continue to come to some of us who did live out there for a while because they cannot get the kind of response they want through the Reform and they naturally have to come to the Liberals in other areas of the country.

I bring these points up partly because of my past experience in this area and my identification of transportation as extremely important to the development of agriculture and the development of this country.

During extensive hearings last spring the subcommittee on grain transportation which I chair, in reviewing the impact on agriculture of changes to the WGTA, ARFAA, MRFA and feed freight assistance, we heard a lot that relates to some of the Canadian transportation act points. We are currently awaiting a response from the government on some 14 recommendations.

The minister was able to highlight the positive aspects of the legislation. I will try to highlight those aspects of the legislation which may-and I underline may-require adjusting and amendment.

In April, Transport Canada briefed the provinces on the impending transport legislation. The four objectives outlined at that time were: one, allow the railways to dispose of surplus trackage by offering lines for sale to short line railways prior to initiating abandonment; two, maintain provisions in NTA 1987, which have improved bargaining of shippers and extend these provisions to shippers served by short line rails; three, provide for limited running rights for short line railways over CN and CP lines; and four, reduce regulatory controls on CN and CP providing the railways more freedom to manage. These objectives are sound but we must ensure the legislation actually meets these objectives.

In a submission by the ministers of transportation for the three prairie provinces on Bill C-101, they claim the legislation does not meet these objectives. Although I will raise a number of points discussed by the prairie governments, I also want to indicate that a number of other submissions from prairie pools, UGG, NFU and others have raised similar concerns. I will table them to ensure the committee looks at them and considers them seriously.

Having been a farm leader in the past I might say it is very, very important for the committee to develop an understanding of the people who are most affected by these changes. I would very much encourage the standing committee to get out of Ottawa, get away from the bureaucracy and go where the people are to hear their concerns relative to this bill. It is only in that way the committee will really understand the impact of this bill including how it will affect the lives of people especially those in the agricultural community.

The three prairie provinces are specific in addressing their concerns the first of which is the role of the National Transportation Agency. The three prairie governments indicate in their submission: "Bill C-101 significantly changes the scope and authority of the NTA. The Canadian transportation agency will no longer have the authority to initiate enquiries". The prairie governments' submission continues: "The result is greater restrictions on shipper access to the agency and a weakening of legislative provisions intended to address and/or redress situations where competition is weak or absent".

The committee has to go out to the prairies so it can understand where the prairie governments are coming from on that point of view and in order to get some balance so that there is fairness to the railways and to the communities and players involved.

It is critical that the committee study these concerns to determine the possible amendments that may be required to address any shortcomings in the creation of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The second point is rail line abandonment. Prairie provincial governments in their submission outline their concerns as follows:

Bill C-101 allows a railway to change its three-year plan without providing advance notice. A railway could indicate its intention to continue operating all of its lines and modify its plan each time it decides to sell or abandon a line. This would provide interested buyers only a minimum of 60 days to consider purchasing the line. This may not be sufficient time to develop a business plan and arrange suitable financing.

That point should be looked at by the committee to ensure the public has the time and that part of the bill does not jeopardize efficiencies in the system. Bill C-101 must ensure the issues of notice and disinvestment by the major railways are addressed.

The third point is legislative review. The prairie provinces and others have outlined that the review at the end of the four year period must address three specific issues besides the overview provided in the legislation: review financial performance of federal railways; assess the new line conveyance and abandonment procedures; assess provisions affecting the development and viability of short line railways. Those are important points.

The subcommittee tabled its report in June. Included were a number of recommendations. A very important recommendation relates to short lines which really could create some efficiencies in western Canada and could ensure that if the short line were brought into place on lines targeted for abandonment, the farmers would have to haul their grain longer distances as abandonment would likely cause.

Some key points raised in the report are: one, the appointing of an independent ombudsman to monitor freight rates; two, process of consultations with all affected parties prior to major decisions respecting grain handling and transportation; three, that there be appointed a consultant to undertake a special study to identify rail lines potentially operable by short line railways; four, that federal and provincial ministers meet to consider alternatives for approving branch line takeovers; five, that the cost benefit review of the NTA of grain dependent lines take into account total transportation efficiencies.

I want to review the points in the act that the committee has to give serious concern to regarding submissions coming from the agriculture community, particularly the west. I will not elaborate

on the points but simply indicate the clauses. Clauses 27.2, 34 and 113 require extensive investigation by the committee.

I hope the committee gives serious consideration to travelling. It should go out and develop an understanding. This bill has major implications. It can develop our future in a positive or a negative way. The government wants to develop it as positively as possible. To best do that we need input from the people most seriously affected.

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-101, the Canada transportation act.

It is important to note that the opportunity to speak on this bill prior to its going to committee is different from what the previous speaker from the Reform Party has indicated. It has really given the public a greater opportunity to put forward their concerns and to hopefully have them addressed and acted upon.

Since the House was informed under Standing Order 73(1) of the intention to refer the bill to committee before second reading, there have been a lot of letters and submissions coming in to members of Parliament from provincial governments, organizations and individuals. I have found them in the main to be well thought out and well researched. This gives us the opportunity to investigate their concerns and apply some forethought to the bill from a number of different perspectives.

Today I will address my remarks to some of the points being raised in some of those submissions, particularly points relative to the grain transportation industry and its impact on agriculture.