Background

3.1	Legislators spend a significant portion of their time in the 
Legislative Assembly debating proposed new legislation and 
amendments to existing legislation. After they have determined that 
there is a need for legislation in a particular area, it becomes their 
responsibility to ensure that the legislation they ultimately approve can 
be effective in meeting its intended purposes. Therefore, legislators 
should be held accountable for providing a legislative framework within 
which an identified need can be effectively met. 

3.2	As administrators of that legislation, departments have a key 
role in ensuring legislation actually achieves its intended purposes. 
Departments to which the legislation has been assigned should therefore 
be held accountable for administering it efficiently and effectively within 
the framework established by legislation.

3.3	During the past couple of years, we have expressed concern that 
legislation is not always complied with within government. Several 
instances where legislation has not been complied with have been 
reported in recent Reports of the Auditor General. For example, the 
Board of the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation did not select their 
corporate CEO despite the fact that the New Brunswick Liquor 
Corporation Act gives the Board the power to do so. In another case, the 
Financial Administration Act required that all government contracts be 
submitted to the Comptroller, but this was not happening. The work 
reported on in this chapter is, in part, in response to concerns such as 
these.

3.4	A review of legislation could have been undertaken in any 
department of government. However, during a preliminary review of 
the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development we noted that the 
Department had been assigned responsibility for between thirty and 
forty pieces of legislation, by far the most of any department of 
government. Departmental representatives expressed some concern with 
the effectiveness of certain pieces of legislation and the resources 
available to administer them. Given an environment of limited 
resources, we felt the risk of effectiveness and administrative problems 
with individual pieces of legislation would be much greater considering 
the large number of Acts and Regulations under departmental 
administration. Therefore, we decided to build a project around the 
review of a sample of legislation administered by the Department of 
Agriculture and Rural Development.

3.5	Despite the fact that the legislation reviewed in this project was 
all under the administration of the Department of Agriculture and Rural 
Development, we feel that the findings of the project have wider 
applicability. In our opinion the legislation we reviewed represents a 
good cross section of provincial legislation in general. Therefore, we 
believe that the general recommendations we make in this chapter may 
be applied to all government departments, and not just to the Department 
of Agriculture and Rural Development. 

3.6	Subsequent to the completion of the conducting phase of this 
review, a major reorganization of government departments was 
announced. The bulk of legislation formerly handled by the Department 
of Agriculture and Rural Development will likely become the 
responsibility of the new Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and 
Aquaculture. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding the eventual 
assignment of the legislation we reviewed, we refer to the old 
department in this chapter.

Scope

3.7	The objectives of our review of the Department of Agriculture 
and Rural Development legislation were the following:

To determine if appropriate systems and practices are
in place:

•	   to ensure compliance with legislation;

•	   to measure and report on the effectiveness of the
legislation; and

•	   to ensure that resources committed to the
administration of legislation are managed with
due regard for economy and efficiency.

3.8	When we speak of effectiveness in this chapter, we are referring 
to how well the concerns that led to the establishment of legislation are 
being met under the established legislative framework.

3.9	The audit project included making an assessment of how well the 
Department was meeting its administrative responsibilities pertaining to 
legislation it had been assigned. Also, we attempted to determine if these 
results were being adequately measured and reported to the Legislative 
Assembly.

3.10	In order to allow for sufficient depth in our review, we chose to 
review a total of six pieces of legislation. We selected a mix of new and 
older legislation, and ensured that it covered various areas of the 
Department and the agriculture industry in general. In addition to 
reviewing the selected Acts and Regulations, we conducted interviews 
with departmental staff, reviewed related documentation, and performed 
walkthroughs and some additional testing on administrative systems.

Results in brief

General

3.11	None of the six pieces of legislation we reviewed included a 
purpose section that would help readers to understand why the 
legislation was put in place or give them a benchmark for measuring 
the degree to which the legislation has been successful. We 
recommend that a clear statement of purpose be included in all new 
or amended legislation.

3.12	There was no reporting to the Legislative Assembly that 
provided information on the effectiveness of any of the six pieces of 
legislation we reviewed. We recommend that the Legislative 
Assembly be provided with regular written reports on the 
effectiveness of legislation in meeting its intended purpose. These 
reports should include comments on all legislation under the 
administration of a Department.

3.13	There are no regularly scheduled reviews of any of the six 
pieces of legislation we looked at. Such reviews would identify 
problem areas in the administration of, compliance with, and 
enforcement of that legislation and suggest appropriate actions to 
take to improve the situation. However we did note that five of the 
six have been subject to varying degrees of review in the past few 
years, some very extensive. Only the Apiary Inspection Act has not 
been looked at recently, although the Regulation under that Act was 
drafted in 1997. 

3.14	The Department is providing no feedback to the Legislative 
Assembly through its annual report as to how well it is doing in 
administering the legislation it has been assigned. Since the effective 
and efficient administration of assigned legislation is an integral part 
of the duties of the Department, we feel that the Department should 
be reporting on its performance in this area.

3.15	We are concerned that the recently-announced downsizing of 
the Department may mean that less resources are allocated to the 
administration of these and other pieces of legislation addressing 
agricultural issues. This may mean that the effectiveness of 
legislation will be reduced.

3.16	Departmental representatives noted two recent cases, one 
under the Topsoil Preservation Act and the other under the Potato 
Disease Eradication Act, where the Department of Justice did not feel 
it was able to enforce the legislation in obvious cases of 
non-compliance. This led to continued defiance of the legislation. In 
general, we feel that a lack of successful enforcement activity will 
lead to a higher level of non-compliance than would otherwise be the 
case, thereby reducing the effectiveness of legislation.

Specific to legislation

3.17	We found that the Apiary Inspection Act, the Topsoil 
Preservation Act, and the Agricultural Land Protection and 
Development Act were not achieving their purposes as interpreted by 
the Department. Based upon our review, we believe that these pieces 
of legislation cannot achieve their purposes unless additional 
resources are assigned within the Department or legislative changes 
are made or both.

3.18	We recommended that the Department consider the 
continued need for legislation to support the apiary industry in the 
Province and make appropriate recommendations with regard to the 
Apiary Inspection Act and Regulation to government.

3.19	We recommended that the Department develop a workable 
alternative to the current Topsoil Preservation Act and Regulation 
that will better achieve the purpose of the original legislation.

3.20	We recommended that appropriate steps be taken to improve 
the effectiveness of the Agricultural Land Protection and Development 
Act in achieving its purpose of allowing farmers to farm without 
undue restrictions and to protect farmland from urban sprawl. This 
will require improvements in rural land use planning in general, not 
just amendments to this Act and Regulations.

3.21	We recommended that the Department consider extending 
the coverage of the Livestock Operations Act.

Legislation reviewed

3.22	We reviewed six pieces of legislation administered by the 
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development pursuant to this 
project. They were:

•	Agricultural Development Act – New Entrant Farmer Loan 
Regulation;

•	Agricultural Land Protection and Development Act and Regulation;

•	Apiary Inspection Act and Regulation;

•	Livestock Operations Act and Regulation;

•	Potato Disease Eradication Act and Regulation; and

•	Topsoil Preservation Act and Regulation.

3.23	There are many reasons why legislation might not be effective in 
meeting its purposes. 

•	It might be poorly drafted or poorly conceived. 

•	Circumstances might have changed since the legislation was drafted 
or last amended. 

•	There may not be enough resources provided to the responsible 
Department for necessary administrative activities to take place. 

•	The Department assigned responsibility may not be administering 
the legislation appropriately. 

3.24	In our opinion, legislators can greatly enhance the potential 
success of a piece of legislation by ensuring that three key requirements 
are in place before an Act is approved.

3.25	First, the legislation must have a clearly stated purpose that is 
documented within the Act itself. This will allow stakeholders to 
understand what is intended. It also provides a benchmark they can use 
in evaluating the “success” of the legislation. As well, having a clearly 
stated purpose within the Act will allow future legislators to consider 
whether the purposes of the legislation are still valid in light of changing 
societal needs.

3.26	Second, the Legislative Assembly must be committed to 
providing sufficient resources on an ongoing basis through the budget 
approval process to allow the responsible Department to effectively 
administer the Act and related Regulations. Every piece of legislation 
that is enacted has a cost, both to those who must comply with it and 
those who must administer it. Inherent in the decision to legislate is a 
consideration of whether the benefit of having a piece of legislation in 
place outweighs the costs of administering and complying with it.

3.27	Third, success in achieving the purposes of the legislation must 
be reported back to the Legislative Assembly. There should be two 
distinct components to this feedback. A report indicating the 
effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its stated purposes will allow 
legislators to determine if changes to the legislation are warranted in 
order to ensure that legislative purposes are achieved. Additionally, 
reporting will be necessary that provides assurance that the Department 
is administering the legislation appropriately. Feedback to the 
Legislative Assembly of the type discussed in this paragraph will allow 
legislators to satisfy themselves that the work that went into drafting and 
approving legislation has led to the desired results. If it has not, it will 
allow them to take corrective action. 

3.28	In this chapter, we will be addressing the above areas, as well as 
areas more specific to the administration of the six individual pieces of 
legislation we reviewed. The sample of legislation taken from the 
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development indicates that some 
provincial legislation is ineffective. Because our review was limited to 
one department, we cannot say how common this problem is. However, 
it is an area that is so intrinsic to the role of the Legislative Assembly 
that even a limited indication of problems should be a cause for concern.

3.29	For illustrative purposes we have also included our detailed 
observations and recommendations on one of the pieces of legislation we 
examined, the Topsoil Preservation Act and Regulation, in an appendix 
to this chapter. That particular piece of legislation has not been effective 
in achieving the purposes for which it was intended. 

Purpose of legislation

3.30	None of the six pieces of legislation we reviewed included a 
purpose section that would help readers to understand why the 
legislation was put in place or give them a benchmark for measuring the 
degree to which the legislation has been successful. Staff within the 
Department have made their own interpretations as to the purpose of 
each piece of legislation and are acting based upon those interpretations. 
However, we feel that if legislators want to be sure that their legislative 
intentions are complied with, a good start is providing a written purpose 
section within legislation. That will give every stakeholder access to the 
same information up front. It will also allow future legislators to 
consider whether the purpose of the legislation is still valid in light of 
changing circumstances. We feel that legislation must be understandable 
and stand on its own in order to be effective.

3.31	An example of the problems that the lack of a purpose can cause 
is illustrated by the Topsoil Preservation Act. That Act contains no clear 
statement of its purpose. This has led the public and other stakeholders 
to make interpretations of the scope of the legislation that are not 
appropriate. (e.g. The public interpretation is that the government can 
stop topsoil removal in any circumstance.) This has created a lot of 
confusion and negative feelings towards the Department as it cannot 
meet these public expectations. It is in no one’s best interest for such a 
situation to exist.

3.32	The following is an example of legislation in the Province that 
does contain a purpose section. Section 2 of the Clean Air Act states:

“The purpose of this Act and the regulations is to support and 
promote the protection, restoration, enhancement and wise 
use of the environment in keeping with the following 
principles….”

3.33	It goes on to identify a number of principles that should be 
adhered to. We find the description of the purpose of the Clean Air Act 
very clear. 

Recommendation

3.34	We recommended that a clear statement of purpose be 
included in all proposed new legislation. We further recommended 
that a statement of purpose be included for existing legislation 
whenever such legislation is being amended.

Departmental response

3.35	The Department of Justice provided the following comments on 
this recommendation:

In interpreting legislation, Courts tend to examine the 
substantive provisions of the Act and not merely look to the 
descriptive components to determine the true purpose and 
intent of the Act. Given that background, and from a legal 
perspective, it may be difficult to comply with your 
recommendation.

Reporting effectiveness 
of legislation

3.36	One of the most important duties of legislators is to consider and 
approve pieces of legislation. However, in our opinion, that is not an 
end in itself. It is rather a means towards the goal of achieving the 
purpose intended by the legislation on an ongoing basis. In order for 
legislators to satisfy themselves that the intended purpose is being 
achieved, they need feedback. That feedback should allow legislators to 
satisfy themselves that the work that went into drafting and approving 
legislation has led to the desired results. Or, if it has not, they can take 
corrective action to improve results.

3.37	We feel there should be two distinct components to this 
feedback. The first component would be a report indicating the 
effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its stated purposes. Such a 
report would allow legislators to determine if changes to the legislation 
are warranted in order to ensure that the purpose of a piece of legislation 
will be achieved. The second component of this feedback would be 
reporting on administrative activity being undertaken by the Department 
in support of the legislation; this is discussed later in this chapter. 

3.38	There was no reporting on the effectiveness for any of the six 
pieces of legislation we reviewed. However, this is required for at least 
one other piece of provincial legislation. Section 9 of the Clean Air Act 
states:

The Minister shall, in each year, table a written report in the 
Legislative Assembly respecting the success in achieving the 
objectives and respecting such other matters as the Minister 
considers appropriate.

3.39	While providing effectiveness reporting annually, as required by 
the Clean Air Act, may not be necessary for all legislation, we do feel 
that the Legislative Assembly should receive regular feedback on each 
piece of provincial legislation. We would suggest that such feedback be 
provided every three to four years.

Recommendation

3.40	We recommended that the Department provide the 
Legislative Assembly with regular (e.g. every three or four years) 
written reports on the effectiveness of the legislation it administers in 
meeting intended purposes. 

Periodic review of 
legislation

3.41	There are no regularly scheduled reviews of any of the six pieces 
of legislation we looked at. However, five of the six have been subject to 
varying degrees of review in the past few years, some very extensive. 
Only the Apiary Inspection Act has not been updated recently, although 
the related Regulation was drafted in 1997. There are some clauses that 
are obviously out of date in that Act, one being a reference to arsenic 
spraying. Branch representatives indicated that the Apiary Inspection Act 
is considered low priority legislation within the Department, and that 
was why it has not been reviewed or updated. However, we feel that 
every piece of legislation should be periodically reviewed and updated to 
ensure that it continues to achieve the purposes of the Legislative 
Assembly. This process would also be of use in generating effectiveness 
reporting information for the Legislative Assembly, as discussed in the 
previous section. We understand that the federal government requires 
such reviews be conducted every five years. The cost of performing 
these necessary reviews should be factored into the decision whether or 
not to proceed with drafting a new piece of legislation.

Recommendation

3.42	We recommended that reviews of legislation under 
departmental administration be conducted periodically (e.g. every 
four years) to ensure it is up-to-date, that its stated purposes are still 
valid, and that it provides an effective framework within which those 
purposes can be achieved. Results of such reviews could be 
communicated to the Legislative Assembly.

Departmental 
accountability for 
achieving legislative 
purposes

3.43	Each piece of legislation is assigned to a particular Department 
to administer in an effective and efficient manner. The Department is 
accountable to the Legislative Assembly for its own performance in 
administering that legislation. 

3.44	In conjunction with the assignment of responsibility, the 
Legislative Assembly has a duty to provide sufficient funding through 
the annual appropriations process to allow the Department to administer 
the legislation effectively. The Procedures Manual for Executive 
Council Documents recognizes that requirement, and establishes the 
cost-related information that must accompany the background section of 
the Memorandum to Executive Council and the Legislative Approval 
Process for Enacting New or Amending Acts. It states:

Financial Considerations – The importance of this section 
cannot be overstated, and every effort should be made to 
develop accurate cost and revenue estimates for the legislation 
being contemplated. If this cannot be done, then the reasons 
should be clearly stated. The financial impact on other 
departments and agencies as well as external groups and 
organizations should also be included. Assembling this 
information will help to determine the economic development 
implications that must be documented in the Background 
section.

The cost, if any, of the proposal for the current fiscal year and 
each of the succeeding two fiscal years should be shown. If 
expenditures are to be incurred in the current fiscal year, the 
Program to which expenditures will be charged should be 
cited. The estimate of cost should include all direct and 
indirect expenditures and should take into account all cost 
recovery potential or increased revenues.

Savings that will result from the proposed action for the 
current fiscal year and each of the succeeding two fiscal years 
should also be shown.

3.45	The Legislative Assembly cannot hold a department accountable 
for poor performance if they do not provide them with adequate 
resources to administer a piece of legislation. We have a concern that the 
recently announced cuts to the Department of Agriculture and Rural 
Development will make it more difficult or even impossible for the 
Department to successfully achieve the purposes of legislation for which 
it is responsible. 

3.46	We noted during our review that in two cases, Branches did not 
feel sufficient resources were being allocated to appropriately administer 
pieces of legislation. In one case, the Topsoil Preservation Act, the Land 
Resources Branch felt that sufficient resources were not available within 
the Department, but felt that adding additional resources would not 
improve effectiveness unless significant legislative change occurred 
first. In another case, the Apiary Inspection Act, the Potato and 
Horticulture Branch had made a conscious decision that administration 
of the legislation was of lower priority to the Department than other 
pieces of legislation it had been assigned. Therefore, limited resources 
were provided and the level of activity connected with that legislation 
was lower than would be required to ensure its success in meeting its 
purpose. This decision appears to have resulted from a need to prioritize 
the allocation of scarce resources within the Department. 

3.47	We feel that cases where resource limitations are having a 
negative impact on the Department’s ability to administer legislation 
should be reported to the Legislative Assembly. The appropriate vehicle 
for this reporting would appear to be the Department’s annual report. 

3.48	The annual report policy of the Province of New Brunswick 
states that the primary accountability vehicle for departments is to be the 
annual report. Since the effective and efficient administration of 
assigned legislation is an integral part of the duties of the Department, 
we feel that the Department should be reporting on this area through its 
annual report. This would require the development of a departmental 
strategic objective covering administration of legislation. One or more 
performance indicators could then be set to measure success in achieving 
this strategic objective, and annual targets could be set for each 
performance indicator. Actual performance in administering legislation 
could be compared with the targets and explanations could be provided 
where targets are not achieved. Such information would be provided 
through the departmental annual report.

3.49	During our review, we noted that individual performance 
indicators had not been established that specifically addressed the 
administration of the six pieces of legislation we looked at. In most cases 
operating statistics for these pieces of legislation were provided through 
the 1998-99 departmental annual report, although there was nothing 
included for the Topsoil Preservation Act. We agree that some pieces of 
legislation have relatively low levels of activity associated with them at 
the present time. However, it would be appropriate to formalize 
standards for those with higher activity levels. For example, the 
percentage of census agricultural land that is registered as agricultural 
under the Agricultural Land Protection and Development Act could be 
used as an indicator of performance for that piece of legislation. A target 
percentage could then be set each year to encourage staff to promote the 
registry. Establishing such indicators and reporting them in summary 
form through the departmental annual report would allow readers to 
evaluate administrative activities undertaken by the Department in 
support of assigned legislation. At the operating level, it would also help 
staff prioritize their own work activities.

Recommendations

3.50	We recommended that the Department develop performance 
indicators that it can use to evaluate administrative activities 
undertaken by the Department in support of legislation.

3.51	We further recommended that the Department report on its 
administrative activities related to legislation through the 
departmental annual report. Where annual targets have not been 
met, explanations (e.g. negative impacts of resource limitations) 
should be provided.

Departmental 
enforcement system

3.52	A majority of affected parties will comply with a piece of 
legislation if they are aware of it, regardless of associated penalties. 
However, some will only comply if they see negative consequences 
associated with non-compliance. Therefore, in order to minimize 
non-compliance with a piece of legislation, it is necessary to have an 
effective enforcement system in place. There are two components 
required in an enforcement system that provides an effective deterrent. 
First, the penalties must be of sufficient magnitude. Second, the 
Department must be willing and able to enforce the legislation. 

3.53	In general, the Department indicated that penalties under the 
various pieces of legislation would be an adequate deterrent if they were 
applied. They also indicated that most cases of non-compliance with 
legislation are dealt with on an escalating basis, and are resolved before 
reaching the level where prosecution would be the only remaining 
option. However, in the two cases of which we are aware where 
prosecution became the only option remaining to support compliance 
with a piece of legislation, it was not pursued successfully. 

3.54	In a recent case, a farmer would not produce the required 
certificates showing he had planted seed potatoes, as required under the 
Potato Disease Eradication Act and Regulation. This has occurred over 
a period of a few years. Other remedies were attempted, but proved 
unsuccessful. However, the Department of Justice felt it was unable to 
prosecute unless a great deal of evidence was gathered, more than was 
feasible in the circumstances. It is unclear whether this is a problem with 
the way the legislation is drafted or something else. In any event, the 
inability or unwillingness to enforce the legislation sends a message to 
growers that they may not have to comply because the threat of penalties 
is an empty one. 

3.55	The Topsoil Preservation Act appears to have even more 
problems in this area. First, the Department considers the level of fines 
to be insufficient. The minimum fine is only $120, about the equivalent 
of one truckload of topsoil. In relation to enforcement, the Branch has 
gone to the extent of hiring costly private investigators to gather 
evidence in cases of non-compliance. However, for a number of 
reasons, as discussed in the Appendix to this chapter, they have not been 
able to develop a strong enough case to convince the Crown prosecutor 
to attempt a prosecution under this legislation. Not surprisingly, the 
Branch has noted repeated cases of non-compliance among certain 
topsoil removers. Branch representatives have also noted some slippage 
in terms of the number of permits being issued, and attribute this to the 
lack of successful enforcement activity.

Recommendation

3.56	We recommended that the Department, in co-operation with 
the Department of Justice, make any changes necessary to facilitate 
successful enforcement in the future for all legislation under 
departmental administration. Changes may involve enhancing or 
increasing administrative penalties such as fines, employing different 
techniques for evidence gathering, or proposing amendments to 
legislation.

Evaluation of 
legislation examined 

3.57	The main purposes of the Apiary Inspection Act, per Potato and 
Horticulture branch staff, are to register all beekeepers in the Province 
of New Brunswick and to prevent the spread of bee diseases and 
parasites into, and throughout, the Province. During our review we were 
told that only between thirty-three and sixty percent of active beekeepers 
in the Province have been registered in the provincial system. 
Additionally, we noted that there are few general inspections of bees in 
the Province, and that bees being imported into the Province are not 
being checked for certification. Therefore, we feel that the purposes of 
this legislation are not currently being achieved. Branch staff indicated 
that this legislation has a low priority in relation to other legislation 
administered by the Department. Consequently, few resources have been 
allocated to its administration. 

3.58	The main purpose of the Topsoil Preservation Act, per Land 
Resources Branch staff, is to protect agricultural land from degradation 
caused by topsoil removal. For a number of reasons, as discussed in the 
Appendix to this chapter, the purpose of this legislation is not being 
achieved. Major among those reasons is that the framework established 
by the legislation is not working in practice. 

3.59	The main purpose of the Agricultural Land Protection and 
Development Act, per Land Resources Branch staff, is to allow farmers 
to farm without unwarranted restrictions imposed by local bylaws, and 
to protect farmland against urban sprawl. Additional legislation and 
amendments to existing legislation that were expected to be developed in 
conjunction with this Act have not yet been enacted. As a result, there is 
no current legislative protection for farmland, and the purpose of this 
legislation is not being achieved. 

3.60	The other three pieces of legislation we reviewed, the 
Agricultural Development Act – New Entrant Farmer Loan Regulation, 
the Livestock Operations Act, and the Potato Disease Eradication Act, 
are achieving their purposes at present. 

3.61	However, the scope of the Livestock Operations Act is extremely 
limited. As of March 2000, five new livestock operations had been 
licensed under the legislation. An estimated 1,500 livestock operations 
were in existence when the legislation came into effect and are currently 
exempt from the terms of the Act and Regulation. Over time, in order 
for the Department to be truly successful in achieving the purpose of the 
legislation, we would expect to see a larger percentage of livestock 
operations subject to the licensing requirements. We feel that the 
Department should consider recommending to government that the 
coverage of this piece of legislation be extended.

Recommendations

3.62	We recommended that appropriate steps be taken to improve 
the effectiveness of the Agricultural Land Protection and Development 
Act in achieving its purpose of allowing farmers to farm without 
undue restrictions and to protect farmland from urban sprawl. This 
will require improvements in rural land use planning in general, not 
just amendments to this Act and Regulations.

3.63	We recommended that the Department consider the 
continued need for legislation to support the apiary industry in the 
Province and make appropriate recommendations to government 
with regard to the Apiary Inspection Act and Regulation.

3.64	We recommended that the Department develop a workable 
alternative to the current Topsoil Preservation Act and Regulation 
that will better achieve the purpose intended for the legislation. That 
alternative should be presented to government for consideration. If a 
workable alternative cannot be developed in the near term, the 
Department should strongly consider recommending to government 
that the Act and Regulation be suspended until such an alternative 
has been developed.

3.65	We recommended that the Department consider extending 
the coverage of the Livestock Operations Act to more livestock 
operations and make recommendations to government as considered 
appropriate.

Conclusion

3.66	The objectives of our review of the Department of Agriculture 
and Rural Development legislation were the following.

 To determine if appropriate systems and practices are in 
place:

•	   to ensure compliance with legislation;

•	   to measure and report on the effectiveness of the legislation; 
and

•	   to ensure that resources committed to the administration of 
legislation are managed with due regard for economy and 
efficiency.

3.67	In relation to these objectives, we would make the following 
conclusions:

•	In our opinion, the Department is making reasonable efforts to 
comply with duties assigned to it under legislation. However, the 
current downsizing plan for the Department increases the risk that 
sufficient resources will not be available to allow necessary 
administrative activities under legislation to take place in the future.

•	For a variety of reasons as discussed in this chaper, compliance with 
the legislation we reviewed varies greatly. For example, 
enforcement of legislation has been a problem, in some cases due to 
poorly drafted legislation that does not appear to be legally 
enforceable. (e.g. the Topsoil Preservation Act) 

•	We feel that measurement and reporting of success to the Legislative 
Assembly in achieving intended legislative purposes should be 
improved. One important step in facilitating this would be to ensure 
that the purpose of each piece of legislation is clearly documented. 
Another important step would be to periodically review and update 
each piece of legislation under departmental administration to ensure 
it continues to be current and relevant. Additional steps would 
include providing regular reporting to the Legislative Assembly on 
legislative effectiveness and enhancing performance reporting in the 
departmental annual report relating to administrative activities.

•	In our opinion, only three of the six pieces of legislation we 
reviewed are currently effective in achieving their purposes. These 
include the New Entrant Farmer Loan Regulation under the 
Agricultural Development Act, the Livestock Operations Act, and the 
Potato Disease Eradication Act. The Agricultural Land Protection 
and Development Act, Apiary Inspection Act, and the Topsoil 
Preservation Act appear to be ineffective in achieving their 
purposes.

•	We saw nothing during our review that would lead us to believe that 
resources committed to the administration of legislation are not 
managed with due regard for economy and efficiency.

Departmental responses

3.68	Subsequent to the completion of our work, the Department of the 
Environment and Local Government took over responsibility for the 
administration of the Topsoil Preservation Act. The Department 
provided the following comments on our observations and 
recommendations:

The Department agrees with your determination that the act 
is not currently achieving its purpose. We also agree with your 
recommendation that we develop, and present to 
[government], a workable alternative to the current Topsoil 
Preservation Act and regulation. In developing an alternative 
approach, the recommendations made in your report will be 
carefully considered.

3.69	The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture 
responded positively to our recommendations.