EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 23, 1995

.1908

[English]

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, my humble apologies. I got into a situation that I couldn't get out of. There was quite an accident on Highway 417. I got jammed in and couldn't get anywhere. That was unfortunate.

However, thank you very much for allowing us to change the meeting time. I know it's inconvenient for many of you. I really appreciate your support in allowing us to have the meeting this evening as well.

Without further ado, possibly we can go ahead with the agenda.

Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It was brought to our attention by Mr. Vanclief at the last committee meeting that Bill C-61 had broad support amongst the industries that would be affected by the regulations. In fact, Mr. Vanclief circulated a list of industry associations that have sent letters of support for Bill C-61. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will remember that being circulated at the last meeting.

The Chairman: Yes, I recall that.

Mr. Hermanson: The transcript of the last meeting indicated that Mr. Vanclief would be happy to supply those letters to us and that they would indicate - and I quote him: ``I've prepared a list for members of the committee of letters of support that we have received from industries for this bill.''

.1910

We took Mr. Vanclief up on his offer and we were able to collate some of the information today, after this meeting was called. Had we had a little more time we may have been able to get to the other couple of organizations.

Mr. Chairman, every one of the letters of commendation for Bill C-61 were written before Bill C-61 was even introduced into the House - in fact, before the Liberal government was even elected. These letters are dated 1992 and 1993. These are the letters that were given to us by Mr. Vanclief.

The Chairman: That's fine. Sure.

Mr. Hermanson: From the Canadian Horticultural Council, and not having seen the bill, they sent the letter to the ADM on May 18, 1993. This was before the Liberals formed the government and therefore before Bill C-61 existed.

The Canadian Meat Council issued their support on the following conditions:

that the authority to issue monetary penalties authorized under the legislation is handled with care, i.e. fines are not levied in a ``slap-happy'' manner;

that a clear and fair administrative procedure challenging unjustified fines will be established for the meat processing industry....

The Canadian Animal Health Institute sent a one-page letter that gives support for compliance efforts pertaining to the importation of non-approved drugs and chemicals for use in food animal production. The letter does not mention the words ``administrative monetary penalties'' nor does the letter make any reference to Bill C-61 - and, of course, it couldn't.

The letter from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association was dated March 10, 1993. It's in support of the principle of AMPs, but it did not know what was in the bill at the time either.

The CVMA president who wrote the letter, Dr. Don Pulfer, has not been president of the organization for two years. We were unable to contact the new president as he lives in Calgary, and we won't be able to contact him until October 30.

The letter from the Canadian Nursery Trades Association was written on November 30, 1992, before the existence of Bill C-61. The letter simply gives support for this method. The executive director who signed the letter said he had never seen a copy of Bill C-61 but would be interested in obtaining one. So, Mr. Chairman, we sent him a copy of the bill.

The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency sent a letter on November 17, 1992. It merely gives support for introducing a system of AMPs.

The Canadian Seed Growers' Assocation wrote a letter on December 29, 1992, which gives support to a system of AMPs with the following conditions: ``uniformity and consistency across the system and among regions'' and ``determination of priorities''. They wanted to ensure that the costs for the system of AMPs would be borne by the department and not by the industry.

We spoke to the executive director who signed the letter and he requested a copy of the bill as he had not yet seen one. So we sent him a copy. The executive director also wanted to make it clear that the Seed Growers' Association has not been promoting the bill. Of course they couldn't, because they hadn't seen it.

The letter from the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia was dated November 13, 1992. It was signed by Dan Chapotelle, director of lumber operations, and gave support for the principle of AMPs. However, Mr. Chapotelle has not worked for the organization for two years. The new director of government relations for the council requested a copy of the bill as he has not yet seen one. So we sent him a copy of the bill.

The Canadian Fertilizer Institute sent a letter on April 13, 1993, to give support for the removal of prosecutions from the criminal realm, but they state:

We have not received specific proposals outlining either the terms of the potential offenses or the proposed monetary penalties addressing them. We are therefore concerned with some of the potential implications of this change and would like to ensure that penalties remain to correct problems and do not become a revenue generator.

The assistant managing director, Roger Larson, who signed the letter, stated that he has not yet seen a copy of this bill. We did not send him one because he's more interested in Bill C-101.

The National Dairy Council of Canada sent a letter on March 24, 1993, and gave its support for the principle of AMPs as long as the system was developed in tandem with a significant number of other programs. In their words, ``We need the `Steak' to sell the `Sizzle'.'' The council's common inspection approach and inverted pyramid is yet to be put in place by the department. Therefore, their qualified support for even a system of AMPs has not been given.

The Holstein Association of Canada's letter was dated October 30, 1992. This letter gives support in principle for a system of AMPs. David Clemons, the chief executive who signed the letter, left the organization two years ago. We have not yet contacted his secretary-manager to get his comments.

Mr. Chairman, this is a serious matter. We were misled by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who clearly stated that these were letters received in support of, in his words, ``this bill''. This is not the case. Not one of these letters was written in support of this bill. All the letters were written before the government was even established.

.1915

For Mr. Vanclief to imply to us.... Had we not checked, had we not taken him up on his offer, had we taken his word for the fact that he had letters of support for Bill C-61, we would have been misled.

The Chairman: I certainly understand your concern. I think it's a very good point you raise, Mr. Hermanson.

Through the regular process, with any bill, any idea, or any concept that is brought forward on the basis of pre-consultation, formulation of ideas and input from the industry, the subsequent drafting of the actual bill and the presentation of the bill in the House, dealing with it in the House, taking it to committee, and so on.... It's my assumption - and I could have people from the department comment on it - that all of the pieces of correspondence you have in front of you came about in the early consultation process through which the bill was put.

Now, whether it's a Liberal government that's bringing forth the concept or whether it's the same director of an agency that was consulted several years ago, I'm not certain. I can tell you that I just had our staff check the date of original introduction of the initial discussions in the process, the preliminary discussions, and they started in 1990. From then until today, the process has been an ongoing one of refining it, getting the concepts and ideas together.

So I think it is consistent to suggest that many of the organizations that have been consulted in letter form and that held discussions with the officials in the department have agreed on the concept. Those are the kinds of letters that may be on file.

I don't think the role of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is to go back at each step and reaffirm that they're still on-side. I'm not sure how you view it; it is my feeling, though, that there was no intention of misleading.

But I'm going to ask for some comment from department officials at the same time, whoever would like to speak. Is that the process that...? Mr. Robichaud?

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State, Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans): If I may, Mr. Chairman, as you have said, there is a process of pre-consultation before a bill is brought to cabinet - a very broad process, and one that started a long time ago, to my understanding.

As you read in the letters, there was broad support for the concept of the bill. You mentioned that some people who sent letters had not seen a copy of the bill, so we will certainly make an effort to send a copy to those people.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I might ask Reg to comment on the question before us.

Mr. Reg Gatenby (Chief, Legislation, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): The features of this bill were designed at Agriculture Canada beginning in 1990, in conjunction with the Department of Justice. On October 23, 1992, when those letters went out, the consultation process began.

A bill is secret until such time as it's introduced into the House, and you're right, in 1992 the bill was not drafted. We went out and consulted on the concepts that would go into the bill; there were very full briefings done. A letter went out from the assistant deputy minister, as you mentioned, and during that next month and a half, I personally met with all the major industry associations, explained what we were intending to do and gave them a very full briefing in terms of our intentions.

Those letters were in response to the letter and the briefings, giving support to go ahead. That then gave us the go-ahead from our industry associations to go ahead with the memorandum to cabinet and with the drafting of the bill. We had to have cabinet's approval before we could start drafting the bill. So there was a full briefing done at that time.

Mr. Hermanson: I have no quarrel with the fact that there was pre-consultation; I think that's wise. That's standard procedure and should be done. I have no problem with those letters being put forward as support for the concept. But what I take great offence at and great umbrage at is the fact that Mr. Vanclief indicated that these were letters of support for the bill. They could have been letters of support, but the bill was tabled many months ago, and then it's no longer a secret bill.

.1920

If I were the department, after the bill was tabled I would have said, okay, we've consulted with you and here's the product - perhaps you'd like to send a letter of comment, or perhaps you'd like to appear as a witness before this committee. I understand that no invitations to any of these groups on the list we were given by Mr. Vanclief appeared before the committee. I don't know whether they were invited; Mr. Vanclief didn't tell us that. But from our contact with these people who offered initial support for the concept, it seems they weren't even aware that there was such a bill as Bill C-61.

So the consultation had been cut off, possibly because there's a new administration in place. But certainly there was enough follow-through that Mr. Vanclief knew they had been consulted. The consultation didn't continue. The bill was made public. It was tabled in the House many months ago, and we were led to believe at the very last meeting, just a few days ago, that there were letters of support for Bill C-61, when no such support existed. That's what I have a concern with. That's wrong. It should not have happened.

The Chairman: I understand your concern. I feel that if you were of the understanding that they had endorsed the bill, then you'd feel somewhat in a difficult and compromised position.

Mr. Hermanson: Misled.

The Chairman: Quite frankly, with my memory going back a few days, it's very difficult for me to look back on it and suggest that it was support for the concept of the bill or support for the bill itself.

Mr. Hermanson: I quoted him.

The Chairman: I realize you quoted him, but still, as I look at it, I don't know what he was intending to bring forward to us. As far as I can see here, ``Industry Associations Who Have Sent Letters Of Support For Bill C-61'' could refer to the bill itself or to the concept of the bill, and I would interpret those that way.

Mr. Hermanson: No, not the concept, the bill.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): In view of the fact that Mr. Vanclief is not here, for us to try to read into what he may or may not have had as intent in the bill - In all fairness to him, why not allow him to come and he can do the explanation?

The officials pointed out that this procedure started in 1990. We did go through a discussion with those players at that time. Whether it was on the essence of what was intended to be in the bill or what might be in the bill is perhaps an area where Mr. Hermanson and Mr. Vanclief can get some clarification. But we're not going to get that solved tonight. And I would rather proceed.

The Chairman: As our clerk has pointed out to me, at a very early stage when the bill was initially being discussed in committee - and I was not there at committee at that time, because it would have been the steering committee - but there were requests for any parties who had been consulted and had shown interest in the bill to be brought forth, and ideas compiled about where they stood, with any input they had. So that may have been where this generated as well. I can't comment on that as I was not involved in the steering committee at the time.

I think what is being suggested here is an issue that obviously we cannot resolve without Mr. Vanclief being here. I think we are here to discuss the clause-by-clause of the bill. You did bring the point up, Mr. Hermanson; however, I don't know what more can be said or done at this point that would change the effect or the intention or the direction of the bill.

Mr. Hermanson: I guess that's the point I would make, that it does affect the clause-by-clause study of this bill. Had we known sooner that these in fact were not letters of support for Bill C-61 -

We questioned the witnesses at the last meeting based on the fact that there was broad support for the bill. We haven't had the opportunity to talk to these people who offered support for the concept to see if that support is reflected in the bill. Prior to going clause-by-clause and carrying this bill, we need to have consultation with people to find out whether or not their support for the concept continues in support for the actual legislation that will affect them.

.1925

The Chairman: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I'd just like to caution my friends in the Reform Party about the use of intemperate language. The word ``mislead'' in the Ontario House, where I had the privilege of serving for ten years, was sufficient to get a member thrown out. To use this in a situation like this when Mr. Vanclief isn't here to defend himself is a little unfair, I think. I would suggest that we would be very well advised to allow him the time to answer this charge.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that nothing will be jeopardized if we carry on and do the clause-by-clause at this point.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I believe that to proceed with the clause-by-clause we have Mr. Robichaud, Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans. He has officials with him.

Mr. Robichaud, would you introduce the officials?

Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Philip Amundsen and Mr. Reg Gatenby, who are with the Food Production and Inspection Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I also have Mr. Henry Molot, who is with the Department of Justice. They are here to help me and to help you as experts on the matter before us.

The Chairman: The order of business this evening is to deal with the bill we have before us, Bill C-61. Now that we have the officials in place, I believe we should go to consideration of the bill on a clause-by-clause basis.

We'll start out with clause 2 of the bill. Shall clause 2 carry?

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to cooperate and see this moved fairly quickly. We have some clauses where we have concerns, but I don't feel we were adequately addressed.

The member across the way suggested that I had used improper language. If I've used offensive language I will withdraw that, but the fact is that Mr. Vanclief stated as fact something that was not fact. I don't know how else to say that. For me to go through the clause-by-clause in good faith, without having had the proper information given to me in the very last meeting, and not have new questions as a result of having information presented to me as fact that I find out is not fact, causes me great concern.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but we have not been dealt with in a proper fashion in light of what happened at the last committee meeting. When I agreed even to the Monday night meeting I was not aware. We just found out today as we researched all these letters that what we thought was fact was not fact.

The Chairman: I wish to be as cooperative with you and any member of this committee as I can be. I think there is a question of direction and dispute - whether the question in your mind is changed by any of the organizations that previously submitted support for the concept.

I think what is being debated here is the support for the concept: does it remain in those industries or not? The process has been very public. There is no question that the committee has had many sessions dealing with it. We responded to any organization that came before us.

Did you have any organizations write of concerns that we have listed here? No concerns were directed toward the committee regarding the bill. As a result, there is no evidence that I can see.

.1930

Mr. Hermanson: But were the organizations on that list consulted? They indicated to us that they were not.

The Chairman: They were consulted by the department.

Mr. Hermanson: After the bill was tabled.

The Chairman: No, and I don't think the process of consultation goes before the bill and after the bill. We don't revisit every organization. The federal government could not afford to go back to every organization at every drop of a hat, or every change of -

Mr. Hermanson: How did the committee determine which witnesses it would hear in regards to Bill C-61, then, if they didn't even let the very people who offered their support for the initial concept know that such a bill had been drafted?

The Chairman: The steering committee, which was composed of government members, Reform members and Bloc members, all made the choice of the direction they took. They asked for the people who were concerned, for witnesses to come forward. The steering committee decided who those would be. It was not a decision of the chairman, nor was it a decision of individuals; it was a decision of the steering committee. It was the same as the decision of the steering committee in the committee today. As a result, I think that your party, as well as everyone else, had input all through this process. For you to come now and suggest that it is different from that baffles me.

Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Chairman, I was present at all of the committee meetings - all three of them held in the last session - and we did not have a single witness other than those from government. I think I am accurate in saying that. If possible, could the clerk verify that? To me, having witnesses only from government is not getting to industry, the people affected most directly by this legislation.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we had a series of amendments presented by this committee in the last session. They were prepared for legal counsel by the chair of the committee, but most of these haven't been dealt with by the amendments put forth by the department.

It just seems to me that because the consultation hasn't taken place - Mr. Vanclief said it had - and because the concerns of the committee haven't been dealt with, we should hold off on clause-by-clause until we have time to really do some consultation.

The Chairman: I would like to point out two things: one, Mr. Kerpan from the Reform Party was one of the people who planned who would come as witnesses on the bill. If Mr. Kerpan raised objections at the time, they never arrived on the floor for discussion.

Mr. Easter, you were part of that committee as well. Did the Reform Party object to not having groups there during the steering committee meeting?

Mr. Easter (Malpeque): No. I believe the steering committee meeting was held some time around March 1. We talked about Bill C-66 and Bill C-61. We felt that Bill C-61 could go through in two or three days. All present were asked if they had any witnesses to propose, but none were proposed.

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, could I then ask when the steering committee -

The Chairman: Just a moment, please.

Mr. Hermanson: Are you on the steering committee?

The Chairman: A second point was raised, and I will respond to that second point as well.

The committee clerk and the committee researchers have prepared no amendments. The amendments that came forward, you should have realized, were amendments submitted by the department after extensive consultation with members of the committee and members of Parliament, as well as other organizations. They prepared the amendments and submitted them. I believe eleven are before us.

Mr. Benoit: To respond to that, Mr. Chairman, there were five to seven amendments prepared, at the request of the former chair of this committee, by legal counsel for the committee. We have the name of counsel. The information we got at the last meeting held by this committee before the break was provided by Ghislaine Richard. It was so damning that this legislation was put aside. We all thought this legislation was dead and would come back in a much modified form. And every single Liberal member on the committee at that time agreed this shouldn't go ahead.

.1935

Now we're back with this, Mr. Chairman, and that just isn't right. We need time -

Mr. Hermanson: And told us there was industry support for it.

Mr. Benoit: - because we were told there was industry support for this. We hadn't found that support before, and from the very letters Mr. Vanclief referred to we still haven't found that support. Not one of those individuals - not one of those letters was a letter of support.

Mr. Hermanson: Also, backing up to Mr. Easter's -

The Chairman: I think we're drifting away. It's certainly a very different position you are bringing forward tonight about not having opportunity to put in amendments.

You and I talked earlier, Mr. Hermanson, and you know very well that you said your concern was to have the ability to put forth amendments. In that discussion I said I would take every step possible to make sure you had time to bring forth amendments. You had no intent of bringing forth amendments this evening. It was in the report stage that you wished to bring forth amendments. You come into this meeting now with a totally different agenda. I find that very difficult, to say the least. When we talked this afternoon at Question Period, we could have at least talked about different concerns.

Quite frankly, we have come to the meeting to deal with clause-by-clause, and I think every person here has had full opportunity to discuss. The department has done all it can to appease any concerns that have been raised, any issues that have been here. They came back and re-educated. It's unfortunate that your committee may have changed and you were not involved in the initial discussions. That being the case, however, I think very clearly that everything has been done to try to appease everyone on this committee with regard to this piece of legislation.

When legislation comes forward affecting any group in industry, it is always the industry people who know what is going on. Quite frankly, industry people come to me very quickly if they have concerns and it affects people in my area. I believe industry people come forth to you. I have heard no objections. Do you have any industry people who have come forth with objections to this bill? I'll ask you that directly.

Secondly, we are going to proceed with the clause-by-clause.

You were next on the list, Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): We all agree with the concept of Bill C-61, an Act to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties etc. as this initiative helps to clear up the courts.

We are however against a double standard policy proposed by the Department of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, the aim of which is to decrease the monetary penalty for offenders who do not contest the violation or will consent to invest in order to remedy the situation.

In other words, the compliance agreement that the minister intends to set up is not indispensable to the bill. Also, it provides for discretionary and unfair decisions.

I have therefore decided that during the clause by clause study I will oppose some clauses and ask for registered votes on some others.

[English]

The Chairman: That's just fine.

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't finished a couple of my thoughts with regard to one thing you said, as well as one thing Mr. Easter said.

First of all, speaking about the steering committee, I would like to know if the steering committee was under the same impression that our committee was under at the last meeting - that there was industry support for Bill C-61 rather than support for the concept of administrative monetary penalties.

.1940

I think that's very important because they may have been not calling witnesses. They may have been under the impression that there had been consultation with the specifics of Bill C-61 and therefore felt there was not a need to bring the witnesses in from the industry.

As to your comments about having an agreement at Question Period, I still stand by that agreement. However, it was after we had discussed this at Question Period that I found out that, of every single organization we called on the list Mr. Vanclief forwarded to us at the last meeting, we were able to reach none of them, so none had been contacted prior to the tabling of Bill C-61. All of them were in the dark as to what was even in the bill.

I just want you to know that I did not have knowledge of that when I spoke with you at Question Period. I had that brought to my attention this afternoon, after we had discussed the matter.

Mr. Easter: I believe that at the steering committee meeting it was drawn to the attention of the steering committee that for Bill C-61, it was the desire of the department to put it forward. I believe the department held a briefing. It was quite a while back now that the department held a briefing on that for all MPs, and at any of those meetings the information that you just put forward was not put forward.

In my opinion, it came forward the same as any bill does, in which members of the steering committee and members of the full committee have the opportunity to go the briefing, look at the bill, make their contacts in the industry to see if there's concern, and if there is, argue for those witnesses to come forward. There was no request, and I never made any request for witnesses to come forward from the department itself.

The Chairman: We are not getting translation in, so Mr. Landry is asking to wait until we get things in order.

Are you picking up any sound?

We have a technician on his or her way. When that technician arrives, we will go ahead. The sound is not coming through, and we cannot go through if we aren't having simultaneous translation.

There's a bit of coffee at the back, so we'll have coffee and wait for the technician to clarify things.

Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Can I speak while we're waiting for that to transpire?

The Chairman: That puts Mr. Landry at a disadvantage, and I don't think that would be proper. He has objected, and therefore I think we should wait.

Mr. Hermanson: I understand. I can wait.

The Chairman: We are recessed.

.1943

PAUSE

.2002

[English]

The Chairman: I'll try to check the equipment and make sure everything is operative at this point.

Mr. Landry, can you hear interpretation of what I'm saying?

Mr. Landry: It's very good.

The Chairman: Okay, excellent.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your indulgence. We were in the process of discussing organizations that had been put on record in a memo that was left with the committee.

During the break I discussed with the department officials some information that I think is extremely relevant to the discussion at this point. Department officials pointed out to me that they had notified every organization on this list. The day the legislation was introduced in the House, letters were sent to each of the organizations. As well, press releases were issued across the country.

Possibly I can turn this back to Mr. Robichaud or your officials to comment on the steps you took to make sure notification was given.

Mr. Robichaud: I'll ask Mr. Gatenby to comment on just what action the department initiated at the same time the bill was introduced. I do believe letters were sent to an even more extensive list than the list proposed by Mr. Vanclief. I'll let Mr. Gatenby explain just what happened after the introduction of the bill.

Mr. Gatenby: In addition to the consultations that went on in October of 1993, to coincide with the introduction of the legislation into the House, Dr. Olson wrote a further letter to all industry associations to let them know that the bill was introduced in the House of Commons and that if they required any further information, they could contact me.

We have had ongoing discussions. We regularly meet with industry associations as a follow-up to the regulatory review to bring them up to date on the progress that's been made since the regulatory review was carried out. The introduction of the administrative monetary penalties was one of the recommendations that came out of the regulatory review. At each of those meetings, and not too long ago - about two or three months ago - I was called upon to give a briefing on the progress of this bill, where it stands and that sort of thing.

.2005

So we have kept industry associations up to date, and any industry association that requested a copy of the bill - and several of them did - were furnished with a press kit, the same one that was furnished to Parliament when the bill was introduced and those briefs were done. So industry associations have been kept up to date.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Gatenby for that explanation. I guess I would offer comment and then I will offer a proposition and then, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave the decision in your hands.

I appreciate that the deputy minister indicated there was a consultation process. I think in light of what's happened it would be only fitting that at the earliest convenience, something like tomorrow, we get copies of letters of support for the actual bill. He said that he did get response back on the bill. I would actually like to see that before we get into report stage in the House of Commons. And in the drafting of our amendments, that would be most helpful for report stage.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for that because we have no evidence, given the information we were given prior to this meeting, that there has been any positive response to Bill C-61. There's been no apparent lack of knowledge, so I won't doubt that the press releases and the kits were sent out. I'm not challenging that. I'm sure it happened. But I would like to see what response from the industry was actually forthcoming to Bill C-61, because that's where the clauses are. We're not talking about the concept when we go clause-by-clause. We're talking about the actual details of the legislation, which is the purpose of this whole exercise.

In light of that, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that we suspend clause-by-clause consideration until Mr. Vanclief comes before the committee and gives an explanation for his actions. I think that would be only fair to Mr. Vanclief. I think it would be only fair to the members of this committee who have to deal with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill when they have received prior information that doesn't quite shake out the way they thought.

Mr. Chairman, should the committee determine that it won't hear from Mr. Vanclief first and is going to press ahead with clause-by-clause consideration prior to clearing this matter up and us getting the actual support from the industry that's supposed to be there, we would go to clause-by-clause study under protest and we will certainly make an issue of this matter in the House. We will very publicly put forth the shortcomings of the parliamentary secretary and, should information come forward that shows there isn't support in the industry, certainly the government and even this committee will bear a great deal of responsibility for not having done their homework properly before they undertake the clause-by-clause procedure.

This is about as clear as I can make it without being obstructionist. You can go ahead. I don't think that's the right decision, but you can do it. A price will be paid, because we don't think it's proper procedure, or we can wait and hear from Mr. Vanclief and have the actual evidence that there is support in the industry from the people who are affected by Bill C-61.

The Chairman: Your comments are duly noted. Your request for letters is duly noted. I can't make a comment about departmental procedure at this point in time. There may be reasoning for whatever the communication is, but your request is noted and certainly the department officials are well aware of your request.

Quite frankly, I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead if the department is making it very clear that public notice was given to all organizations. Notice was given in two forms: one, through a public press release, which all organizations would have had access to. Certainly responsible farm organizations follow the press releases that are sent by the government. There is no question about that. The second is that they were directly contacted in the form of a letter by the department.

I think the department has taken all steps to notify people. In checking with our officers for the committee, I'm unaware of any industry person who raised a concern or an objection at any time throughout the process, whether it was after letters were sent out or otherwise.

.2010

Mr. Phil Amundsen (Director General, Mid-West Region, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): At the time the press releases went out, it was right at the start of December. I know, reading some of the farm press in western Canada - I actually have a copy of an article that appeared on December 8, 1994, in the Winnipeg Free Press and it does make direct reference to Bill C-61. Mr. Gatenby was interviewed for this article. I don't know how many press interviews you did, Reg.

Mr. Gatenby: There were several. I don't know how many either, but there were several interviews done when the press release went out.

The Chairman: The point that I have to make a decision on is whether people were duly consulted initially and whether there was proper communication to people when the bill was introduced. I have to say that the evidence would point to yes in both cases. As a result, I don't see how it would affect our clause-by-clause study at this stage. So, under objection noted from the Reform Party, we will proceed.

I'm sorry, Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Could my colleagues on my left hand move amendements at the report stage?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. The normal procedure, if everyone is not clear, is that amendments may be presented here this evening as we do clause-by-clause consideration. They may also be presented at report stage. There is at least a 48-hour minimum time period so that you do have opportunity to deal with those. That is the nature of the process.

However, as I pointed out to Mr. Hermanson earlier today and I would point out to the committee, if anyone has concern that they need until Friday, I have talked with some of our officials. Certainly, if you feel uncomfortable with the 48 hours, we will give you opportunity to present your amendments. The bill will probably not be brought into the House until Friday, if anyone has objections. So we'll even give you that extra time period so that extra consultation with the industry can go on, whatever. We're trying to be as compromising as possible and at the same time make sure the process doesn't totally bog down.

I will now return to the clause-by-clause process. We are at clause 2.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to

On clause 4 - Regulations

Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 4 of Bill C-61 be amended by striking out line 22 on page 2 and substituting the following:

Act or the Health of Animals Act if the contravention or the failure or neglect to perform the duty, as the case may be, is an offence under an agri-food Act;

Amendment agreed to on division

Mrs. Cowling: I should also like to move that clause 4 of Bill C-61 be amended (a) by adding immediately after line 33 on page 2, the following:

(e) respecting the determination of a lesser amount that may be paid in complete satisfaction of a penalty if paid within the prescribed time and manner;

and (b) by renumbering the subsequent paragraphs and any cross-references thereto accordingly.

The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I'm against the amendment and I request a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: On this amendment, or do you want to go back to a recorded vote on the whole clause? Whichever you prefer -

.2015

A voice: We have to vote on the amendment.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll have a recorded vote on the amendment. We'll have the clerk read, and you may respond yea or nay.

Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 4 of Bill C-61 be amended by adding immediately after line 16 on page 3 the following:

Criteria

(3) Without restricting the generality of paragraph (1)(d), in making regulations respecting the criteria for increasing or reducing the amount of the penalty for a violation, the Minister shall include the following in any such criteria:

(a) the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation;

(b) the harm done by the violation; and

(c) the history of the person who committed the violation or prior violations or convictions under agri-food Acts within the five-year period immediately before the violation.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I would like a recorded vote.

[English]

Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I would like a recorded vote on clause 4.

[English]

Clause 4 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

A voice: This is so silly.

On clause 5 - How act or omission may be proceeded with

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like some clarification regarding the difference between a violation and an offence. At what point does a violation become an offence? Is there a threshold, in other words? Does the matrix in existing legislation clearly indicate where the threshold lies when a violation would become an offence?

Mr. Amundsen: A violation applies if it's going to be dealt with as an AMP. If it's deemed to be an offence, then there will be a prosecution.

Mr. Hermanson: Does that mean criminal?

Mr. Amundsen: Yes. As we explained to the committee last week, it will be for serious offences or for where AMPs and other warnings and procedures have not been effective. But it will only be for the more serious offences.

Mr. Hermanson: Further to that, who determines when the threshold is crossed and an infraction will be dealt with as an offence rather than a violation? Is it strictly an internal matter for the department to determine? Does it have to be a violation of the Criminal Code before it becomes an offence? How is that determined?

Mr. Amundsen: If we thought it was a serious matter, we would put together an investigation and the facts of the case would be presented to Justice, and they would decide whether to proceed with it under the legal system. So the department does not make that decision; the Department of Justice decides whether it will proceed with it.

.2020

Mr. Hermanson: If the Department of Justice decides not to proceed with it and it's deemed a violation and the penalty is prescribed, can the alleged violator appeal to the courts and have the courts deal with the matter based on the facts of the case? Or is it only based on whether or not the procedure was followed correctly by the department?

Mr. Amundsen: I'm not sure I followed you.

Mr. Hermanson: What if the justice system decides that they don't want to proceed with charges, so the officials of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, whoever is involved and whichever act it falls under, follow the AMPs regime and process? If the person charged with the violation wants recourse to the courts, will the courts hear the case based on the factual evidence of the case? Or will the court only determine whether or not proper process was followed by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food?

The Chairman: I think Mr. Hermanson is asking whether there is recourse to the courts if it's an AMPs action.

Mr. Robichaud: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Mr. Molot to answer.

Mr. Henry Molot (Senior General Counsel, Administrative Law Sector, Department of Justice): The only recourse of the courts at that point, as Mr. Hermanson said, is judicial review for procedure and jurisdictional or error of law. This is to repeat what we said last time.

Mr. Hermanson: Can this clause be amended to allow recourse to the courts based on fact rather than on process?

Mr. Molot: Mr. Hermanson, what you're raising is the question of whether or not the review tribunal at the top of the pyramid of this process should be replaced by a court. Presumably that would be the Federal Court. That was given some serious consideration during the preparation of the proposals, and for a number of reasons it wasn't thought to be a very good idea.

First of all, an appeal on the merits to the Federal Court - that is the same sort of appeal you would have to the minister or to the review tribunal under the present bill - would obviously have to engage the procedures and the rules of practice of the Federal Court or any court. These are heavily formalized, very time-consuming, and very costly.

Also, the court is composed of generalists. The judges hear a tax case today, a native claim tomorrow; they have no greater knowledge of agricultural matters than I do. You'd be replacing a tribunal that has some agricultural knowledge and expertise with a body composed of judges who have no knowledge whatsoever and who would have to be educated with each case, which again would lengthen the process and make it more costly.

One of the advantages of tribunals is that they are informal, less costly, and usually have expertise. I suppose an example in the federal system right now, in the form of the Civil Aviation Tribunal, indicates that a tribunal can do the job well and has the credibility of the industry and of those involved in the process.

Based on all of these considerations, I think that's why we eventually arrived at the conclusion that the tribunal that is composed of members who are independent would do a better job than the courts.

Mr. Hermanson: Is it not true, though, that as long as the procedure followed is the AMPs process, the department is paying most of the cost? Suppose the alleged offender wants to have his case heard by the justice system. They have to be prepared to bear the costs of appealing to that system.

.2025

Mr. Molot: Well, we can go to the court. You usually will want to have a lawyer. That's part of the formality that adds to the cost, that's true. It is a cheaper system to have it heard by an administrative tribunal. Looking across the wide range of tribunals we have in the federal government, they seem to work quite well. They have credibility. If they didn't, we'd obviously be hearing a lot of complaints.

Mr. Hermanson: I have a final comment, then. It seems to me we don't want to infringe upon people's rights if they want to appeal to our justice system based on fact. Understanding that they're going to have to pay the cost, particularly if they lose the challenge, they won't enter into this lightly. If they're involved in an AMPs process that's relatively inexpensive for them, I don't understand why we would be prepared to withhold the basic fundamental right that we have to pursue justice through the justice system.

Mr. Molot: I suppose one could make that argument in relation to every administrative scheme we have. And it wouldn't be one kick at the can in the Federal Court because once you give a party their right of full appeal to the trial division, then they ordinarily have an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. It becomes a very expensive, top-heavy system that really - As you mentioned, it becomes a cost to give them a chance. Well, who can afford this except people with lots of money? You're really, in a sense, giving an additional benefit to wealthier industries and corporations.

Mr. Hermanson: People won't feel as though they've been through a kangaroo court. They've come through the AMPs process versus the real thing.

Mr. Molot: Well, I think that's an unfair characterization of our administrative tribunals.

Mr. Hermanson: I'm not suggesting this would be the norm. I'm looking at the exception rather than the rule here and I'm trying to make sure there are enough basic protections of people's rights to our justice system.

Mr. Molot: One of the assumptions you're making is that a judge is a better fact finder than a tribunal member. There's no evidence to support that. They're drawn more from the legal profession than from other professions, but that doesn't necessarily make them better fact finders, and you're concerned about facts.

I suppose courts are important to protect the rights and liberties of the subject, because of their ability with the law and knowledge of constitutional principle, and that is of course always available to the citizen. They can go to -

The Chairman: Is there not another part of this process that should come into that explanation as well? That would be that the criminal charge has been removed and, as such, it creates a much better situation for someone to go through a corrective process than we would in getting into the courts and the hassles there.

Mr. Molot: I agree, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Benoit: Mr. Chairman, a fine of $15,000 is a substantial fine. This can be a cost that simply can't be borne by some individuals and small companies. So I question the legitimacy of your last statement.

The witness has referred to the tribunal, that the appeals tribunal - How is the tribunal chosen?

Mr. Molot: I suppose it's chosen by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Privy Council office ordinarily. The qualifications a member must have before he or she can be appointed are set out in, if I can find them -

A voice: The Prime Minister's office.

Mr. Molot: No, they're not. It's the Governor in Council.

The Chairman: I'll have you direct your questions through the chair to the witness. I don't want to get into a -

Mr. Molot: It's the same appointing authority that appoints the CRTC and the NTA and the NEB and all of the major tribunals. If you criticize the appointment process here, then you basically criticize the appointment process with respect to all of these tribunals.

.2030

Mr. Benoit: That is correct; I do.

The Chairman: I think we are moving away from clause 5 when we are debating how, who and what.

Mr. Benoit: The witness referred to the appeals tribunal, so I thought I would ask the question.

The Chairman: Okay.

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Are we voting on section 5?

[English]

Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3

On clause 6 - Duties of Minister re notices of violation

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 6 of Bill C-61 be amended by striking out lines 30 to 33 on page 3 and substituting the following:

(b) establish, in respect of each violation, a short-form description to be used in notices of violation.

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 6 as amended agreed to

On clause 7 - Commission of violation

The Chairman: We have three amendments.

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 7 of Bill C-61 be amended by striking out line 8 on page 4 and substituting the following:

graph 6(a) has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has commit

Amendment agreed to

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 7 of Bill C-61 be amended by striking out lines 16 through 21 on page 4 and substituting the following:

(i) the penalty, established in accordance with the regulations, for the violation that the person is liable to pay,

(ii) particulars concerning the time for paying and the manner of paying the penalty, and

(iii) subject to the regulations, a lesser amount that may be paid in complete satisfaction of the penalty if paid within the time and manner specified in the notice.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I request a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: We have been asked for a recorded vote on the amendment.

Mr. Hermanson: With regard to proposed subparagraph 7(2)(b)(ii), in particular the time for paying and the manner of paying the penalty, one concern I have about this bill is that the timing process as to minimums and maximums is not spelled out anywhere. I feel it is incumbent upon the legislation to suggest what is the minimum or maximum length of time, depending on the situation.

For instance, where an alleged violation occurs, the person who commits the violation must have a reasonable period of time to determine what recourse they intend to follow - whether to pay the fine, to seek a compliance agreement or to take the issue to the minister or the tribunal. Nowhere in this document do they have 45 days or a reasonable period of time to make a determination as to what course of action they want to take.

The legislation must give some direction so that we have assurance that on the one hand, in two days you have to make this decision before you can consider your options reasonably - On the other hand, some of these things can drag out for years and years because the tribunal doesn't get around to making a decision on your behalf and you're stuck at the other end.

.2035

Those are two concerns I have that I think should have been addressed in this bill and aren't, and this is my first opportunity to bring those concerns to the committee.

Mr. Molot: Paragraph 4(1)(f) provides for the making of regulations respecting the service of documents and the manner of service of such documents. It's in that power to make regulations that the time prescriptions would be specified.

The Chairman: It's consistent with all other legislation as well. Time periods are specified in the regulatory process.

Mr. Molot: Yes.

Mr. Hermanson: The time prescriptions can be changed without amending the act.

The Chairman: That's why they're contained in the regulations.

Mr. Hermanson: That's why I suggested there should be at least some minimum protection. I'm not suggesting you have to bind yourself to say it will be 60 days. What I'm saying is there should be some minimum required that you can't move more quickly. You have to allow at least a reasonable amount of time at either end. That protection should be in the act.

Within that framework, the regulations should be changed. I understand that we don't want to amend this act if we decide it should be 45 days instead of 60 days, but I certainly don't want to see a regulation put forward that Parliament has no input on, where suddenly it shall be two days.

The Chairman: Can you give me an example of a bill that would have that type of minimum restriction?

Mr. Hermanson: I suspect that in the Canada Elections Act there are quite a number of regulations that certain things can happen within a prescribed time. I'm talking about where I have some experience, having served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In the Canada Elections Act it's quite common that certain things have to fall within a prescribed time or they just don't happen.

Mr. Molot: I can understand the concern about the possible abuse of this particular power in a regulation, but the regulatory process now is so consultative that you have the various industry associations advised, before regulations are made through the regulatory agenda, that regulations are proposed. So they're on the lookout for those proposed regulations.

Then draft regulations are prepared and published in the Canada Gazette, to which presumably all the industry associations subscribe. If they have objections, they have an opportunity to comment and complain about anything in those proposed regulations.

Then at the other end, once the regulations go through, of course the standing joint committee has a look at the regulations and can criticize them.

There are a lot of built-in protections. There's no reason the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food in this case would want to offend anyone - members of the public or the industry - over something like that. Surely they would want to have cooperation as much as possible. The whole point of this bill is to bring people into compliance, which means the need to cooperate and to gain the confidence of the public.

Mr. Benoit: I'd just like to remind the witness that industry associations have better things to do than go through the Canada Gazette to find out what regulations have been put in place and changed.

This committee had asked for more of this regulation to be brought forth before the legislation was passed. Otherwise you're passing legislation in a blind fashion; you don't know what the regulation is going to be.

I think that would have been reasonable, and I think that's one example of a regulation that should have been put in legislation. At least there should have been a minimum time, as Mr. Hermanson suggested.

Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): I've been doing some research on the Grandin issue. This was a case where industry wanted to get this type of wheat into the country. Agriculture Canada somehow more or less gave instructions to go beyond the Seeds Act because it was of benefit to the industry. Later on we found out that this wheat did not comply with the standards of milling quality, so we've been in a real mess.

.2040

One thing that really concerns me about this bill is that industry sometimes can put on enough pressure that the government will bend and later on we find out it's wrong. How do we get some protection into this act so that doesn't happen? It's going to be very serious.

Mr. Reed: I'm curious to know if this kind of debate, which goes beyond this amendment, should not be accompanied by the amendment of the Reform Party. Should there not be an amendment on the table?

Mr. Easter: That's my point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hoeppner: I think it's very important that we do look at that issue because industries are very powerful at that time and the government does listen at times and it's wrong.

Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, the points are straying a great distance from this particular amendment. I would call the question.

The Chairman: I've been trying to give latitude in order to have fairness come out. Maybe I've given a little extra latitude; I accept responsibility for that. I think we've tried to answer the questions as we've been going along. The question is noted. I think clear notation is here.

Mr. Hermanson: I'd like to go back to the debate on the amendment and the comments that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has a good record. I'm not disputing that, but there was a time when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had a great record and right now there are some real problems with compliance. There are great frictions between the industry and DFO.

When we make laws, we make them for the long term, not for today. That's why I'm concerned that there be some minimum protection on one end and some maximum protection on the other end so that we know where the bookends are. I'm not saying we have to know where the exact benchmark is. I think that should we propose some amendments at report stage, it would be wise for the committee to consider that protection.

The Chairman: Your concern is noted. I think that's clearly in place.

Shall the second amendment to clause 7 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I request a recorded vote, please.

[English]

Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 7 of Bill C-61 be amended by adding, immediately after line 21 on page 4, the following:

Summary of rights

(3) A notice of violation must clearly summarize, in plain language, the rights and obligations under this Act of the person on whom it is served, including the right to have the facts of the violation reviewed by the Minister or the Tribunal, and the procedure for requesting such a review.

Amendment agreed to on division

The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry as amended?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I request a recorded vote on clause 7, please.

[English]

Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

On clause 8 - Notices with warning - request for review

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I request a recorded vote on clause 8.

[English]

Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

On clause 9 - Notices with penalty - payment

.2045

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 9 of Bill C-61 be amended (a) by striking out lines 34 to 38 on page 4 and substituting the following:

penalty and the person named in the notice pays, in the prescribed time and manner, the amount of the penalty or, subject to the regulations, the lesser amount set out in the notice that may be paid in lieu of the penalty,

(b) by striking out lines 6 to 13 on page 5 and substituting the following:

Alternatives to payment

(2) Instead of paying the penalty set out in a notice of violation or, where applicable, the lesser amount that may be paid in lieu of the penalty, the person named in the notice may, in the prescribed time and manner,

(a) if the penalty is $2,000 or more, request to enter into a compliance agreement with the Minister that ensures the person's compliance with the agri-food Act or regulation to which the

(c) by striking out lines 19 to 26 on page 5 and substituting the following:

Deeming

(3) Where a person who is served with a notice of violation that sets out a penalty does not pay the penalty in the prescribed time and manner or, where applicable, the lesser amount that may be paid in lieu of the penalty, and does not exercise any right referred to in subsection (2) in the prescribed time and manner, the person is deemed to have committed the violation identified in the notice.

and (d) by renumbering any cross-references thereto accordingly.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a recorded vote, please.

[English]

Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a recorded vote on clause 9.

[English]

Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

On clause 10 - Compliance agreements

Mr. Hermanson: I would just like to know from our experts here why, in paragraph 10(1)(a), we don't know the amount of security. Shouldn't there have been some kind of qualifier such as ``reasonable'' security? We may find that the whole business is asked for, for security for a violation that doesn't warrant that type of drastic action. I'm just wondering why the term ``security'' was in no way qualified in this clause.

Mr. Gatenby: The minister has the discretion to enter into a compliance agreement. If he's going to enter into a compliance agreement, it's to get future compliance, which is the intent of this bill, and the minister is not going to ask for unreasonable security. What the minister wants is security that will ensure the party carries out its part in the agreement.

Mr. Hermanson: I guess that answers my question, but it doesn't satisfy my concern.

.2050

The other question I have is how we understand whether it's (a) or (b). It can go either way. There doesn't seem to be any criteria that it shall be (a) in this circumstance, in other words, it shall be security, or (b) it shall be a reduction, in whole or in part, of the penalty for the violation. What kind of guidance does the department or the minister have as to which route we go? Do we go after security or do we go after reduction of penalty?

Mr. Amundsen: I guess part of the compliance agreement was that it would be a case of where a firm was investing money to comply, or for future compliance, for every $2 it spent, its penalty would be reduced by $1. The security would comply to the compliance agreement, but if it only spent a portion of it, the balance of the penalty would still apply.

Mr. Hermanson: I'm not sure I understand.

Mr. Gatenby: Well, (a) is linked to (b) by ``and'', such that the minister may ask for security and:

provide for the reduction, in whole or in part, of the penalty for the violation.

Mr. Hermanson: Both.

Mr. Gatenby: Exactly.

Mr. Hermanson: Okay. So that makes the need for reasonable demands on security perhaps even more important.

Mr. Gatenby: In what sense?

Mr. Hermanson: Again, I'm concerned about what may happen down the road. Perhaps in some instances an entire private enterprise may be asked for security, and if it doesn't have the money to pay the fine it will be put into a corner. It would have to agree to the compliance agreement; it doesn't have the money to pay the fine; and it has to put up its whole business for security if that's what the minister calls for. Its options are rather limited.

Then, if it's unable to comply, the business is lost, because it was offered as security rather than as a portion of what accurately represents the amount you might be fined.

Mr. Gatenby: The company has four options. It can pay the monetary penalty; it can ask to enter into a compliance agreement; or it can ask for an appeal to the tribunal or to the minister if it feels it hasn't committed a violation. If it asks to enter into a compliance agreement, then what it is doing is choosing an option to take steps to ensure future compliance. The minister has a right, at that point, to ask for security, but he's also going to offset the penalty by the costs of the company's steps in coming into compliance.

Mr. Hermanson: I understand this more clearly now. I don't think I can support the clause.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I've been asked for a recorded vote on clause 10. I would submit that there has been no variation in the recorded votes. Would it be acceptable, where a recorded vote is asked for, if we used the pattern of voting that has come forward on every clause up to this point - unless one of the members wishes to register an exception to that voting pattern?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Clause 10 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 11 - Refusal to enter into compliance agreement

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a recorded vote on clause 11, please.

[English]

Clause 11 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 12 - Review under section 8

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

[English]

Clause 12 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 13 - Review under paragraph 9(3)(b)

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit has called for debate.

You were so slow, I missed you this time.

Mr. Benoit: You're running through them pretty fast, Mr. Chairman. It takes a little time to get all of the paper together here.

The Chairman: Some do go faster than others, that is correct.

Mr. Benoit: Yes. Maybe some of us are paying a little more attention than others.

.2055

The Chairman: That's debatable.

Mr. Benoit: I have it in front of me now.

Actually, with a vote here, we'll probably put forth an amendment at report stage.

The Chairman: You have an amendment to put forward?

Mr. Benoit: We do, but at report stage.

The Chairman: Okay. Shall clause 13 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I request a recorded vote.

[English]

Clause 13 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 14 - Review by Tribunal

Mr. Hermanson: I would just mention here, Mr. Chairman, that this is the place where I talk about minimum times. Here's the example where perhaps there should be some maximum times the tribunal has to perform its duties, i.e., no less than x months down the road. I just bring that to your attention.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote on clause 14.

[English]

Clause 14 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 15 - Debts to Her Majesty

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote on clause 15.

[English]

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Hermanson: Just some clarification here. On clause 15, which is the enforcement and which requires the payment of penalties, it's not clear - and it's probably in some other legislation that I'm not aware of - but I would understand that no interest is charged on any penalties until they are past due. If they are not paid up in the time required is there interest accruing after a certain time? How is that handled? It's not clear in the legislation before us.

Mr. Amundsen: It would wait until it became due, and then it would be an amount owing to the Crown. Until that time, there is no interest charged on it. So it has to go past due to become an amount owing before there would be any interest charged on it.

Mr. Hermanson: Should that be plain in the legislation or is that covered somewhere else? What rate of interest is fixed? How is that determined?

Mr. Gatenby: The interest on overdue accounts is currently - The Financial Administration Act has been amended to allow for charges of interest and the regulations have to be passed. My understanding is that the regulations are going through the process now. Once those are in place, the Financial Administration Act and the interest regulations will cover this particular bill.

Mr. Hermanson: How are they linked? Does the wording in the Financial Administration Act cover this, or does there have to be some recognition in this act that it has to comply with that act?

Mr. Amundsen: The Financial Administration Act covers all the financial transactions, and this act is covered by that one. That one takes precedence.

Mr. Hermanson: That clarifies it. Thank you.

The Chairman: I've called clause 15 and I've been asked for a recorded vote.

Clause 15 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to

On clause 18 - Certain defences not available

Mrs. Cowling: I move to amend clause 18 of Bill C-61 (a) by striking out line 20 on page 10 and substituting the following:

Certain defences not available

18. (1) A person named in a notice of violation and (b) by adding immediately after line 27 on page 10 the following:

Common law principles

(2) Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse in relation to a charge for an offence under an agri-food Act applies in respect of a violation to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Act.

The Chairman: Will the amendment carry?

Mr. Hermanson: Whoa, whoa, whoa - debate.

Is this the part where one of the common law principles is not included? Is that in this clause?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Molot: It was expressly excluded -

Mr. Hermanson: That is what - due diligence?

Mr. Molot: Yes, due diligence in paragraph 18(a).

Mr. Hermanson: So if we believe due diligence should play a role in this, we should vote against this.

Mr. Molot: This is the place to object.

.2100

Mr. Hermanson: That's what I thought.

Mr. Benoit: Mr. Chairman, I think it was at the last committee meeting in the last session that we had a witness, Ghislaine Richard, I believe, who in answering a question from me on this clause said there's really no reason for this clause to be included in here.

In fact, she said there were a few aspects of this bill that she found disturbing. The burden of proof and the impossibility to use the defence of due diligence are both particularly troubling. There is the possibility of obtaining judicial review from the Federal Court, which certainly alleviates your concerns. It's not a full appeal, however.

In answer to my next question she expresses it even more clearly, that she's very concerned that there is no appeal to the court, only on process, not on fact. Further down, in regards to the same question, Miss Richard states that the stated aim of the law is to achieve compliance. I don't see how this further -

Mr. Easter: On a point of order, does Mr. Benoit have an amendment to propose here or are we into a discussion? We're into clause-by-clause discussion of this bill. Does he have an amendment or are we going to continue to rehash what was said at the previous committee?

Mr. Benoit: Mr. Chairman, I'm expressing why I have a concern with this clause and we will be bringing an amendment forth at report stage.

The Chairman: Thank you. Your comment is recorded. I believe we heard the witness and that was recorded at this point as well.

Mr. Benoit: What she says here is that she just can't understand if the purpose of this legislation is to achieve compliance, and this is a quote: ``I don't see how this furthers the goal of the proposed legislation''.

The Chairman: I guess not everyone is going to see the same relevance. I don't know if the department wishes to respond to the comment. We have had response to that comment before. We might just as well go ahead and have it again.

Mr. Amundsen: Again, we want to remind the committee that this is not a criminal thing; there is no chance of jail. In the penalty matrix, intent is part of the evaluation of what the penalty will be. Intent, which is what efforts were made to prevent...was due diligence exercised? So it is part of the penalty process, but it is not a defence for getting out of the whole violation.

Mr. Benoit: The example I used then was a farmer spraying a crop. There's drift onto a neighbour's crop, proper precautions were taken -

The Chairman: I'm going to interfere at this point because we discussed this quite extensively when we were talking about clause 4 and I allowed the discussion to go at that time. I believe I've been very open with you about that and very fair, and I think it could be debated whether it's a legal issue or not. The AMPs process has been answered in full, I think, by the department. We're just going back over the same explanation.

Mr. Hermanson: The intent is reflected by degrees of penalty, but am I correct in understanding that this clause does use due diligence? In other words, that is excluded. The only inclusion in this clause is that due diligence...you may be penalized.

.2105

Mr. Molot: If you go back to the clause that was amended - this was clause 4, page 3 - amongst the factors or criteria that must be included in the penalty matrices is the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation. So due diligence must be taken into account in the matrices.

Mr. Gatenby: It's not a defence, but it will mitigate the penalty amounts if you show due diligence.

Mr. Hermanson: So you're going to be a little bit pregnant.

Mr. Gatenby: No, you're still in violation of the regulation.

Mr. Hermanson: Right.

Mr. Gatenby: But we'll take that into consideration in determining the penalty.

Mr. Hermanson: So due diligence is not a factor in whether or not there has been a violation.

Mr. Gatenby: It's not a defence, that's right.

Mr. Hermanson: That's the way I understand the clause.

The Chairman: Shall the amendment to clause 18 carry?

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

A voice: No, a recorded vote.

The Chairman: Carried, as recorded.

Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 19 - Burden of proof

Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 19 of Bill C-61 be amended by striking out line 29 on page 10 and substituting the following:

lation are reviewed, the Min-

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman, please.

[English]

The Chairman: Did someone mention debate? He wishes a recorded vote after the debate.

Mr. Hermanson: Actually, I'll debate after we deal with the amendment but before we carry the clause.

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Shall clause 19 carry?

Mr. Hermanson: When the committee dealt with clause 19 and heard witnesses, Mr. Chairman, you yourself with regard to burden of proof said, and I'll quote you:

Number two, you mention as well and very clearly the question I raised earlier in the committee, and that is the burden of proof. It seems to me that when a person is charged by the ministry or is charged by anyone else, it is the burden of proof upon the ministry. If the ministry is saying this person is doing wrong, I think the ministry has to prove that to be the case.

I do have a bit of a problem where someone has to prove they didn't commit the crime or the offence, rather than burden of proof being the other way. I believe the ministry has to prove this person did something wrong and, no question there in my mind, in a democratic process as well. Would you give me your comments on those issues?

Mr. Chairman, has this been amended since you made those comments?

The Chairman: I believe the ministry's comments are very clear on that issue.

Mr. Molot: I think the origin for that was the point made by Mr. Benoit earlier that Ms Richard erroneously referred to the fact there wasn't a burden of proof requirement on the minister. Mr. Vanclief at the time pointed out that there was indeed a burden of proof provision in the bill, and this is it.

Mr. Gatenby: This is the same burden of proof that the Ministry of Transport has for the Civil Aviation Tribunal, of which Ms Richard was the chairperson.

Mr. Hermanson: So what, then, is the burden of proof?

Mr. Gatenby: It's on the balance of probabilities -

Mr. Molot: And it's on the minister.

Mr. Gatenby: It's on the minister to show on the balance of probabilities that the person named in the notice of violation committed the violation.

The Chairman: The feeling that everyone had initially was that there was no requirement, and we did go through the process the ministry would have to follow in order to prove that. They did put in, as far as I'm concerned, a clear explanation on how the ministry has to prove that the violation occurred.

Mr. Hermanson: Has Ms Richard indicated to you or to the committee that she was in error when she made those allegations?

The Chairman: No. I dealt with the ministry officials. I don't know if they talked to Ms Richard.

Mr. Gatenby: She admitted during her testimony that she had misinterpreted the bill on clarification from Mr. Vanclief.

Mr. Hermanson: I'll investigate that later, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Shall clause 19 carry as amended?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote on clause 19, please.

[English]

Clause 19 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 20 - Vicarious liability - licence holders, etc.

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 20 of Bill C-61 be amended by striking out line 36 on page 10 and substituting the following:

document issued under an agri-food Act is liable for a violation that is com-

.2110

The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: I just call the question.

The Chairman: Okay, I'm sorry. I thought you had a question.

Mr. Hermanson: This is housekeeping.

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 20 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to

On clause 23 - Notations removed

Mr. Hermanson: I have a question here. I wonder what the purpose is for the phrase in subclause 23(1), line 38:

unless the removal from the record would not in the opinion of the Minister be in the public interest....

How is the minister determining what the public interest is? It seems like a lot of jurisdiction there for the minister without clarifying.

I understand the second part. If there has been another violation in the five intervening years, yes, maybe there's a reason to keep this up. But why do we give so much discretion to the minister as to whether or not it's in the public interest to not remove a violation from the record? What's the rationale there?

[Translation]

Mr. Robichaud: One moment, Mr. Chairman, we are consulting each other.

[English]

Mr. Gatenby: I guess the minister has some discretion in terms of whether or not it gets removed after the five years, in case there's something that's being investigated that may go in front of the courts and that sort of thing, where he would want to keep that record for presentation to the courts.

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, because there are no qualifiers there - let's hope it never happens - the minister could wipe the record clear for a friend and leave a blight there for a political enemy. It concerns me that there are no qualifiers whatsoever. It's totally what he determines to be the public interest.

The Chairman: I think you have to have some faith in humanity.

Mr. Hermanson: Exceptions I worry about, not the norm. That's why I'm asking these questions.

Clause 23 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 24 - Service of documents

Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 24 of Bill C-61 be amended by striking out lines 5 and 6 on page 12 and substituting the following:

in accordance with the regulations, either personally or in such other manner as may be authorized in the regulations.

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 24 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to

The Chairman: Clauses 27 to 90 are all consequential to other acts, other apparatus that is in place now. We could deal with those as a unit because they are all just amendments to other documents, other acts.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I will vote against clauses 28 and 29. I request a recorded vote only for clauses 28 and 29 of the Bill.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.

.2115

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, in the good use of time, I would be agreeable to some format to move more quickly. However, I have at least two concerns that deal with several parts of the remaining sector. If we could speak in more general terms about some of our concerns, we might save some time. Depending on what my colleagues from the Bloc and government want to do, perhaps we can go with a recorded vote on groupings of clauses rather than having to go through all the remaining clauses.

The Chairman: Any means by which to enhance the procedure would be acceptable to me.

I believe Mr. Landry has suggested a look at clauses 28 and 29. Did you want to comment on those, Mr. Landry?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Yes. I will vote against those clauses and I would like a recorded vote on those sections 28 and 29. As far as the rest is concerned, everything is fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Your vote against those will be recorded when we come about.

Mr. Hermanson, you have the floor to raise the concerns or points you wish to raise. Do you want to do it by clause, or do you have spelled out within the clauses the areas you have concerns about? How would you handle that?

Mr. Hermanson: I would like to deal with three issues. First is the make-up of the review tribunal that Mr. Landry also wants to deal with. Second is the forfeiture of goods, presumption of guilt until proven innocent clause. Clause 40 is one that we've used. And the size of the financial penalties in these clauses is the third area I would like to address.

The Chairman: What number...?

Mr. Hermanson: Many clauses throughout the remaining part of the -

The Chairman: Would a general statement about those clauses be satisfactory?

Mr. Hermanson: Yes.

The Chairman: Would you like to record an opposition to all of them or some of them?

Mr. Hermanson: To all of them, because they all include the phenomenally expensive -

The Chairman: We can do them as a group and ask for feelings on that.

Okay, let's deal with clause 27 first.

Clause 27 agreed to

On clause 28

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: I will use the same process I used with recorded votes earlier, unless there is an objection to that.

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, because this board of arbitration is dealt with in the other act, I presume it's already in existence now and I presume it is composed of public servants. Am I correct?

Mr. Gatenby: It's composed of public servants plus industry representatives.

Mr. Hermanson: Perhaps it would be useful - if it does not take too much time - to find out about the composition of that board, how busy it is and what it does. Very briefly - I'm not looking for a long explanation.

The Chairman: Mr. Gatenby, just continue and give us an idea about the composition.

Mr. Gatenby: The board arbitrates disputes between purchasers and sellers of fruits and vegetables. I'm not an expert on the board of arbitration, but my understanding is that you sometimes have disputes between a purchaser and a seller about quality. If someone has purchased the top quality and there's an argument as to whether the fruits or vegetables arrived from the seller in that quality and they can't come to an agreement, they can appeal to the board of arbitration. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will investigate and inspect the produce, setting up a board of arbitration to hear the dispute and rule one way or another.

Mr. Hermanson: In light of that, why are we amending this clause? It looks so minuscule. What is the purpose of putting ``The'' in front of ``Board'' and ``such'' and ``as are'' and ``Chairperson'' and ``Vice-Chairperson''? What are we doing here?

Mr. Gatenby: The review tribunal was there to hear appeals from the board of arbitration. As you mentioned, the chairperson of the review tribunal used to be a civil servant, the chairperson of the board of arbitration was a civil servant, and members were made up of industry representatives.

.2120

We now want to amend the review tribunal so that the chairperson is not a civil servant. We want a person with a legal background and knowledge of agriculture who is going to be Governor in Council appointed. So we had to make some consequential amendments to the board of arbitration to allow the review tribunal to have a broader role, to serve both the administrative monetary penalty system as well as appeals from the board of arbitration.

Mr. Hermanson: Then the board of arbitration members and the tribunal members are not the same people, are they?

Mr. Gatenby: No, they're not. Other than the chairperson of the review tribunal...will also hear appeals from the board of arbitration, as well as appeals of administrative monetary penalties.

Mr. Hermanson: If they're not the same people, why then are we changing the composition of the board of arbitration?

Mr. Gatenby: No, they're not the same people. Let me clarify this for two seconds with legal counsel.

Mr. Hermanson: That just doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand.

Mr. Gatenby: That's going back a while, but we had to do that to offset....

The changes are not substantive. Regarding the change here, first of all, the old legislation referred to ``Chairman'' and it now refers to ``Chairperson''. The older legislation established a board of arbitration and review tribunal and referred to each together, and we're now splitting off the review tribunal and making it more independent from the board of arbitration.

Mr. Hermanson: So this doesn't change who can sit on the board of arbitration.

Mr. Gatenby: No, it doesn't.

Mr. Hermanson: It's just politically correct language and proper grammar.

Mr. Gatenby: Exactly.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you. That clarifies that.

Clause 28 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 29

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I would ask for a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: Clause 29 carries as -

Mr. Hermanson: There is debate on clause 29. Clause 29 was the one I had a question on.

The make-up of the tribunal - and I may have an amendment here, just to forewarn you so that you can prepare - is a reasonable one, I think, because the red book talks about giving committees more power and meaningful work. I think these appointments should be ratified by this standing committee after the minister has appointed them.

Under clause 29, proposed subsection 4.2(1), it says right at the bottom of the page:

A member of the Tribunal may not be a person employed in the public service of Canada.

Would a definition of a person employed in the public service include MPs and members of provincial legislatures? Do we need to clarify that, or are we just talking about the narrower definition of the public service?

The Chairman: From my knowledge - and I think we'd have to have a legal opinion on it - MPs as such are not civil servants. There is a connection between the minister and the secretary to the ministry, but I would have difficulty getting that.... Maybe the legal interpretation would be better.

Mr. Molot: Mr. Chairman, I believe you're right, that the public service - small ``p'', small ``s'' - does not include members of Parliament or senators.

Mr. Hermanson: Other legislation would exclude them from serving on this tribunal, I would hope. There must be some other conflict of interest -

Mr. Molot: The Parliament of Canada Act has conflict of interest provisions in there with respect to both MPs and senators.

Mr. Hermanson: That should exclude them from serving on this tribunal, but the other may be more important. Is there any way of excluding individuals who may have contracts with government agencies - even the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food - that may put them in a conflict of interest? Or it may be lobbyists in the agricultural sector.

Mr. Molot: There are conflict guidelines that have a role to play here - I think they were issued about 1985 - that deal with engaging the services of people within the caucus or relatives of caucus members. I believe it's been done that way.

.2125

Mr. Hermanson: But what about the broader concern of lobbyists and those individuals who may have contracts with the government or with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, for that matter? Is there legislation that excludes them from serving on this tribunal?

The Chairman: Not that I know of.

Mr. Hermanson: Shouldn't that be included in here somewhere?

The Chairman: If you feel that is the case, I would suggest you draft an amendment and put that amendment forward. Your comments are duly noted here. It's very difficult for me, off the top of my head, to make a comment as to who should be excluded or not. Certainly in many cases, if there is a conflict, I would expect the department to recognize that.

Mr. Molot: I'm not sure whether this answers your question, Mr. Hermanson, but on the next page, proposed subsection 4.2(2) provides that:

A member of the Tribunal shall not accept or hold any office or employment that is inconsistent with the member's duties.

It's true that is after the appointment, because it does refer to a member, but it means he or she cannot have any continuing relationship that would put him or her in a conflict of interest situation.

Mr. Hermanson: So do I understand that while it may in a sense be understood, it might not hurt to clarify this a little more through an amendment? I haven't heard any strong argument to suggest it's already covered in other legislation and is totally redundant.

The Chairman: The comment we just received suggests they think they've covered the bases, but if you don't feel comfortable with that, certainly it's your right to bring forth an amendment. I think that's the procedure you should follow.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: May I ask for a recorded vote.

[English]

Clause 29 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4

Clauses 30 to 39 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear that the reason we are asking for a recorded vote is that there are some clauses we are quite strongly opposed to. There may be some we would have in fact supported or opposed on division. I just want that on the record. It's not a big issue. I don't think it's going to change the outcome of the referendum on Monday, but I just want to make that clear.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

To expedite the issue, the Reform has allowed it to go through this way.

On clause 40

Mr. Hermanson: Clause 40 changes subsection 28(1) as follows:

Where the Tribunal decides that a person has committed a violation, or a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the Tribunal or the convicting court, as the case may be, may, on its own motion or at the request of any party to the proceedings, in addition to any penalty or punishment imposed, order that any thing by means of or in relation to which the violation or offence was committed, or any proceeds realized from its disposition, be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.

This is a drastic change from the old system whereby a person would have to be convicted before goods or property could be seized. If someone had done something serious enough to have their property seized, the wrongdoing should be deemed an offence, not a violation. This would ensure that due process of law is carried out before property is seized.

.2130

I think it also infringes upon something we don't have but should, and that's property rights, which aren't entrenched in the Constitution. I think this is another step. We're digressing from what we should have. We are concerned about this and we feel it's a move in the wrong direction.

We would appreciate a comment from our officials, whoever would care to respond. I know that our concerns are duly noted by the committee.

Mr. Gatenby: This clause is there so that where, for example, a company is marketing a product that's inedible - perhaps the traces of pesticide in it are too high and it's not fit for human consumption - we don't want that product. We want the tribunal to have the same power to order forfeitures as the courts do. If we didn't have this power, then that person would pay an administrative monetary penalty of perhaps $2,000, have the product returned to them, and perhaps be able to put it back in the marketplace. We want the power to be able to forfeit product that's unfit, that can't be brought back into compliance, and that's to protect public health and safety.

Mr. Hermanson: That portion makes sense, but there are no qualifiers in this legislation. It would apply to all alleged offences under the act. Anything could be seized, whether it had a health and safety factor or not. Perhaps there should be some qualifiers in here.

I understand the health and safety aspect: if there's a contaminated product, we have to protect the health of our people and prevent that product being distributed to the public. On the other hand, there may be cases where assets are seized that have no safety or health implications, cases where it is going beyond the spirit of the administrative monetary penalty concept that we're promoting.

Mr. Molot: Mr. Chairman, on what can be seized, it says here that anything ``by means of or in relation to which the violation...was committed''. So try to limit it to matters closely related to the violation, not just to any piece of property.

The Chairman: Does that answer your question, Mr. Hermanson?

Mr. Hermanson: That qualifies it to a degree. I was looking for qualifiers, so I respect that he is qualifying this somewhat. That helps a bit.

Clause 40 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We now have the balance of clauses 41 through 90 inclusive. Shall clauses 41 through 90 carry?

Mr. Hermanson: This is the last point that I said I would bring up. In some cases we are seeing the monetary penalties for violations under these other acts increased from as little as a few thousand dollars to $250,000. Why such a drastic increase in the maximum fines, from numbers you and I might get in our monthly pay-cheque to numbers that some of these members will only receive after they get their pension?

Mr. Gatenby: These increases recognize that prosecutions will now only be used for very serious offences. As well, a lot of these acts have not been amended for several years - the ones that have the smaller fines. In general terms there is now consistency across all eight agricultural acts, and that's what we are looking for.

A number of acts have been amended in the last few years, and they have these higher fine amounts. Some of these acts have not been amended since 1960, so they haven't been brought up to date in terms of fine amounts.

If you look look at misuse of feedstuff from the Feeds Act and that sort of thing, it can carry consequences as serious as the other acts that have these fine amounts. So it gives us consistency across all our legislation and brings these other fine amounts up to a realistic level for very serious offences.

Mr. Amundsen: These would only be supplied by the courts. These are not something that anybody within the department -

Mr. Hermanson: Because they're not -

Mr. Gatenby: They're only for offences. That's right.

Mr. Hermanson: - for violations that don't go through the....

How does this punitive structure relate to other industries such as lumber, fishing and the environmental industry? Are we talking the same types of penalties or are we talking penalties significantly higher or lower?

.2135

Mr. Molot: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't guarantee this answer. I know there has been a move in the last few years to try to bring some uniformity with respect to all of the maximum fines provided for in federal legislation. I assume this reflects that policy which the criminal law policy section in the Department of Justice has been responsible for.

Mr. Hermanson: What I'd like to know is if I happen to be dumping some phosphates into Lake Diefenbaker, which is where I live, is the penalty going to be the same as if I have a feed lot and something is oozing into the water from that?

Mr. Molot: Now we're into, I suppose, the problem of getting some uniformity in sentencing across the country with respect to similar contraventions.

Mr. Hermanson: You don't know?

Mr. Molot: This is a problem that every country has - trying to get some uniformity in sentencing.

Mr. Hermanson: So there was no looking at other industries other than agriculture when these penalties were -

Mr. Molot: No. The figures will be the same across the board. Probably in all of the federal statutes you'll find the same figures.

Mr. Hermanson: That's what I was asking.

Mr. Molot: I'm sorry. I believe that's the policy.

Mr. Hermanson: So it's about $250,000.

Mr. Molot: This is an indictable offence, so it's considered extremely serious. There are probably statutes where it's even higher than this, depending on what the statute relates to.

Mr. Gatenby: Our intention when we did this, though, was to have consistency across our eight bills. That's what we were concerned with, because our eight bills can lead to equal levels of severity. They're all related to the food chain. If you introduce disease or inedible products into the food chain, it can all have the same desirable effect. All these bills are linked to the food chain, so our desire was to have equal maximums for prosecution across all of our bills.

Mr. Hermanson: I could ask more questions, but I think I have enough here to inform me. Very good.

The Chairman: Shall clauses 41 through 90 carry on division as recorded?

Clauses 41 to 90 inclusive agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I go now to the title. Shall the title carry as recorded?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry, on division?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I want the vote on the bill be recorded.

[English]

The Chairman: The bill carries as recorded.

Now we're into printing. Shall the committee order a reprint for use at the report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you for all of your cooperation. Have a good evening.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.