Debates of Oct. 26th, 1995

Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 15 stands deferred.

We now move to Group No. 3.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-61, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15, on page 3, with the following:

"committed to obtain a financial benefit, $1,000 for a first violation and $2,000 for any subsequent violation; and b ) in any other case

(i) $1,000 for a first minor violation, $5,000 for a first serious violation and $10,000 for a first very serious violation, or

(ii) $2,000 for a subsequent minor violation, $10,000 for a subsequent serious violation and $15,000 for a subsequent very serious violation."

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-61, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 4, with the following:

"violation and the designated person serving the notice of violation and".

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-61, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 4, with the following:

"paying, which shall not be less than forty-five days, and the manner of paying the".

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-61, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 10, with the following:

"(f) the amount of any reasonable expenses incurred".

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-61, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 14, on page 11, with the following:

"18. A person named in a notice of violation has a defence by reason that the person a ) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or b ) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would exonerate the person.''

Mr. Speaker, we are making a little progress here. Let us see if we can make more.

The minister says he has some good news and he has some bad news. The good news is that he has listened to Reform once. Perhaps the bad news is that he did not listen to us on the first amendment which he should have supported as well.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

The bad news is he is a Liberal.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

We are dealing with motions which my party submitted in this group, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 18 and 19. I will try to be quick and discuss the substance of the motions, dealing first

with Motion No. 3. It is to suggest that Bill C-61 in clause 4 be amended by replacing some lines. We are reducing the administrative monetary penalty for first time violations.

There is a matrix in place which begins to do this, but the matrix is not included in the legislation. In our judgment, this reinforces that matrix component and ensures that the principle is enacted in the legislation.

The administrative monetary penalties fall into three maximum ranges. The first one is for a minor violation, having a maximum of $2,000, a serious violation having a maximum of $5,000 and a very serious violation having a maximum of $15,000. For a second or subsequent violations we think this is reasonable. However for a first violation, often dealing with small business and with producers, this seems rather severe.

I understand also there can be a warning issued as well for a violation. The minister and his department have that option. I am not so concerned about the norm as I am the extraordinary circumstances that this legislation has to be prepared to deal with. It is only reasonable and right that the legislation should contain the principle that on a first violation the amount of the penalty be reduced by half to protect small business and smaller producers and smaller processors.

We have another amendment farther along. If I knew that amendment was going to be passed, this one would not be quite so important. My suspicions are it may not be and that precludes an alleged violator being able to use due diligence and having burden of proof put on the minister. If that fails, it is even more important that Motion No. 3 pass and the first time violations not be subject to quite as severe a monetary penalty.

Motion No. 4 is another real common sense amendment to which I hope the minister is listening and which I hope he will agree to pass. It suggests that when a person is notified of the violation, besides having his or her name served on the notice, the person who is serving the notice has to identify him or herself as well. This is an agent of the Department of Agriculture, an agent of the minister.

This is common sense and common procedure that someone who is imposing a fine, an administrative monetary penalty, on someone who is alleged to have violated regulations under the agriculture act should have the person who served that notice put his or her name on that same piece of paper. That is only common sense. It will be useful, valuable and will also protect the person who is alleged to have made the violation.

Motion No. 5 amends clause 7. The legislation states that the minister may make regulations prescribing anything that by this act is to be prescribed. That is a pretty blank cheque, particularly when it comes to time frame and some of these specifications.

When a person is served a notice of violation, we do not know how long he or she has to respond. This act does not indicate whether that person has 24 hours, 24 days, or 24 months to respond and to make a decision whether they will ask for an appeal, an appeal to the tribunal, agree to pay the monetary fine or seek compliance.

Nothing in the act suggests a time frame for the decision to be made by the person accused of the violation. The amendment we are proposing would suggest that the person have at least 45 days to make a decision on what route they will go.

The minister could argue that it should be 30 days, 25 days or 60 days. I am willing to listen to his arguments. However the fact that there are no restrictions in the act whatsoever is irresponsible and could be dangerous if at some future time Agriculture Canada became very heavy handed and gave people two days to decide what course of action they wanted to follow. Several courses of action are permitted in this piece of legislation.

This gets confusing. I thank members for bearing with me. I want to make sure I have covered all the motions in this grouping. There are two more motions I want to briefly touch on. In Motion No. 18 we are inserting the word reasonable into clause 15 on line 13. If the minister and his department seize goods and dispose of them, the expenses incurred by the department in disposing the seized goods are charged to the violator.

If the word reasonable is not included in the clause, the minister could hire Lloyds of London to come in and hold an auction to sell something of small value that has been seized, say a load of produce. We do not want to see these extremes employed by the department. We want to make sure reasonable means are used and only reasonable expenses are incurred in the sale of seized goods.

Motion No. 19 amends clause 18. It reads:

a person named in a notice of violation has a defence by reason that the person

(a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or

(b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would exonerate the person.

There has been extensive debate in committee over this issue. Many members, even members on the Liberal side, were concerned that the act authorizing administrative monetary penalties and encouraging compliance of those accused of violations does not allow those alleged to have violated to use due diligence as a defence. This is a violation of some of the common law protection in Canada.

It allows for a heavy handed department to preclude people asked to pay the fines under the act from normal defences, normal access to the justice system and the normal common law defence of due diligence and honest belief in the facts as presented to exonerate people.

We were moving into an area where perhaps the rights of those charged under the act were being abused. There needed to be some changes. This was the best way that we could ensure it was an even handed piece of legislation that did not unduly burden and persecute those charged with a violation and preclude them from the defence they required if they were to adequately defend themselves from a department that may get carried away or go a little too far.

Again I ask members opposite to seriously consider each of the amendments. I appreciate that they supported one amendment that made a lot of sense. There are some here that also make a lot of sense. If they have not considered them, I ask them to look at the amendments to see which ones they can support.

I invite all members of the House to support each of the amendments in Group No. 3.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

I ask the member to put his remarks through the Chair. I know it is a bore but it is required by our procedure.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

It is a speeding ticket.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of motions and to some extent to the thrust of the bill.

I represent an urban area, not a rural area. One might be curious as to why a city boy is standing up to talk on an agricultural bill. My family and I eat the food, I acknowledge that. We depend on this constituency for survival.

I did take an interest in the bill from when it was first introduced in the House. Initially it raised some concerns with me. These concerns were expressed to the ministry and to colleagues. They were reduced to writing, it was not just talk. In the end I see the department has adapted the bill and made changes at committee. We are still making a few minor changes in the House.

What is really significant here is that the House will delegate to a department an administrative penalty program that involves a huge constituency, the whole agricultural community. Up until now the House has not delegated that kind of authority. The ability to police, to levy penalties and fines has usually been in the field of criminal law.

We do not delegate that kind of authority out of the House without making sure it is set out very specifically in our laws. In this case we have. It was done earlier in relation to airports and the field of aviation, however, in that area we are dealing with a very small constituency. Here we are doing it with the agricultural community and thousands and thousands of Canadians will be participating in and subject to this new administrative monetary penalty system.

We must be vigilant in the House, as I know all members are. The opposition is certainly vigilant, which is its job. My colleagues on the government side have been vigilant about how this process is to evolve.

We should look at other areas of Canadian life where there are rules and penalties. One that comes to mind, which is a little bizarre, is the National Hockey League in which Canadians play hockey for a living and voluntarily subject themselves to a system of rules. On the ice, hockey players can be fined and suspended. Granted it is a very small constituency but it happens in other areas of amateur hockey in Canada as well.

In this case we are talking about the entire agricultural community. As the minister has pointed out, it has bought into the new system. It is a recognition of evolution and modern government that the old way of doing things does not work any more. It is too cumbersome. Just because somebody ends up with a badly shaped potato should not be a matter subject to a criminal offence or a quasi-criminal offence.

We have a new system evolving here and I think we will make it work. The government has adapted and recognized the extreme difficulty in applying standards of strict and absolute liability. While in the beginning we perhaps were not as sensitive to the issues involved, as my colleague from Malpeque pointed out, the department and the legislation have the issue down very well.

The motions for further changes to the bill by the opposition are useful for the record even if my colleagues on this side of the House do not accept them all. I know some have been. However, it is a further good faith attempt to refine this legislation so that it will work to the benefit of Canadians.

I am pleased to indicate my support for the bill generally. I am sorry I cannot support all the opposition motions for amendment. The minister has the proper system and it will fly well.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on the bill a second time.

Within my riding there are urban areas and there is also a large rural area where agricultural producers provide the food which we all eat and enjoy.

With respect to this motion I will go over a number of the proposals for change put forward by members opposite. There is a motion which seeks to vary the maximum allowable penalty between the first and subsequent violations. While there could be some merit to these suggestions, in light of the fact that the current maximum penalties are relatively modest, it would not be in our interests to start making distinctions between first and subsequent violations for the purpose of setting a maximum penalty which could be assessed. That does not mean that where there is a subsequent violation a larger penalty could not be assessed.

The legislation allows for maximum flexibility when determining the level of penalty to be assessed when regulations have been violated. This flexibility takes into consideration the compliance history in determining the level of the fine. That is, it does not automatically lead to a greater fine. One must also consider all of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation in determining the penalty.

In clause 4(3)(a) of Bill C-61 the penalty amounts can be increased or decreased based on the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation, the amount of harm done by the violation and the compliance history of the person who committed the violation. Therefore we have a system in which all factors are considered in dealing with the maximum level of penalty to be set.

Motion No. 4 proposes that the designated person serving the notice of violation be identified. The bill seeks to achieve administrative simplicity, an inexpensive yet effective system. This is one of the quasi-judicial procedures required by the legislation. I do not believe it would be efficient to have individuals designated within the legislation. By the definition included within the legislation, the designated person issues the notice.

The service of the notice is simply a procedural matter. What we want to see is a flexible yet efficient system for ensuring that the violator of a regulation gets notice. We also want to ensure we are not overburdened with large expenses or complicated mechanisms to get the notice to the person.

The amendments to the act will allow for the provision of service to the person by registered mail. The nature of the offence is a very important factor when considering how a person should be served or notified of the offence. These offences are absolute liability offences. Therefore the procedural requirements to ensure notification, et cetera, are at a minimum level.

At the other end of the scale we have criminal law, the violation of which requires a lot more procedural care, a very much higher standard of proof. Because these offences are of a minor regulatory nature, the service need not be such that it leads to any type of inefficiency.

With respect to Motion No. 5, there is the suggestion to legislate the minimum time of 45 days within which a penalty may be paid. Dealing with time frames within legislation, at one time in our system of government it may have been quite reasonable to include within legislation time frames within which penalties may be paid or within which certain actions may be taken. However, as our legislative requirements have grown it has become more complicated.

Acts have become far more comprehensive. We are dealing with what goes into an act and what should be within the regulations. Acts are not easily amended or changed. Therefore if a provision in an act such as a time frame is found to not function properly we may be stuck with that time frame for a considerable length of time if we are looking at amending legislation to get the change.

What is being proposed is that these time frames be contained within the regulation where it is appropriate. If found to be unworkable or in need of an amendment they can be changed with the minimum amount of disruption to the system. In a cheap, effective manner they can be changed as quickly as is practical. This is what insertion of time frames within the regulations would allow.

Motion No. 18 is another motion to insert the word reasonable within the statute. It is to clarify that expenses recovered by the crown in respect of the disposal of forfeited goods are reasonable. While this was not in the legislation, certainly it was always the intention of the department to be reasonable in the charges and requirements it makes of people who forfeit goods. This is implied within the legislation.

The term reasonable would no doubt be implied in the legislation anyway. Obviously where the goods are forfeited they will not be able to make exorbitant charges. There are limitations.

The Reform Party has put forward a sensible amendment which reflects the intent of the legislation and which therefore should be accepted. It shows the openness of the government and the minister. It shows a lot of flexibility, and I appreciate that flexibility on the part of the minister.

The issue of allowing the violator to rely on the due diligence defence has been carefully addressed by a number of my other colleagues. I will echo those remarks.

Once again, I appreciate the effort that has gone into making this bill such a success. Congratulations to the minister for yet another fine piece of work.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that there is one more error in the Order Paper. I would like to bring that to the attention of the House to make sure it is corrected.

On my Motion No. 11 in the Order Paper and Notice Paper it states: "That Bill C-61, in clause 10, be amended by adding after line 31, on page 7, the following", and it goes on to state my amendment. That in fact is an error. The amendment falls after line 11, not line 31. If we look in the bill it raises it on page 7 before subclause (5) rather than after subclause (5).

I suspect that those members who looked at this carefully and perhaps felt they could not support the amendment when they saw where it was supposed to be will change their position and support my amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. The table officers will check into this matter and the Speaker will get back to the House on that issue.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to have the opportunity to address this House on the subject of Bill C-61, as I represent a region where agriculture is fundamental, where it is one of the underlying sectors of the economy.

I would first like to congratulate the minister and all the members of the House standing committee, who studied the bill and have proposed amendments.

I think Bill C-61 is further proof that our government has paid heed, throughout this 35th Parliament, to all that Canadians from coast to coast have said about the need for the various levels of government and the different departments to manage time and money more effectively.

When producers have less bureaucracy to deal with and less of an investment in time to make the result is a lower product cost; the financial benefits they reap are passed on to food product consumers. In the end, less bureaucracy and less time invested for producers means a lower product cost, which consumers also enjoy.

However, when we look at Bill C-61, we note that all the measures to protect Canadian consumers are still there, along with the added protection afforded by the effective action of departmental officials.

This additional protection for all those who violate the various agriculture-related bills will make it possible to adjust their penalties immediately.

And I also think we will save money if we transfer all these penalties with the possibility of an appeal before a quasi-judicial tribunal. In this way we are saving both time and the taxpayers' money the federal government would otherwise spend to bring all these violators before the courts. The violators themselves may not have to appear in court, but we all know about legal fees and what it costs to be represented in court. What is particularly important in this bill, as in other bills and measures initiated by our government in the past two years, is that it will make our economy, our bureaucracy and our judicial system more efficient.

I think that is what I see as the central focus of all bills on agriculture, because that is what Canadians from coast to coast have asked us to do, and we acted accordingly. We did this in a number of departments. I want to commend the Minister of Agriculture for having the foresight to make changes in these bills so that we can be more efficient.

According to the text of the bill and the proposed amendments, the bill will allow the imposition of penalties through an administrative process, in addition to the criminal sentences authorized by law. The department's officials will be able to set penalties of up to $15,000, based on various criteria provided in the form of tables in the regulations.

It is also worth mentioning that all consultations with the agricultural sector were held before the bill was prepared. When a governments acts in good faith, all the people involved in the bill appreciate the various consultation mechanisms we set up and support the various options we provide. The bill also provides for a reduction of the penalty when the offender pays it within the time limit without challenging it or demanding a hearing to reduce it.

This is another measure that will allow all stakeholders, including governments, producers and those who market agri-food products across the country, to become more effective and efficient and to benefit from large scale savings.

In fact, the industry supports the consulting process and the work done by the standing committee on this bill because we indeed have the effective enforcement of Canadian standards, especially with respect to imported products.

Regarding the importation of agri-food products into our country and the time required to process offenders through the judicial system, we can take measures on site to discipline these offenders

under the threat of monetary penalties. We can provide even greater, almost immediate protection for Canadian consumers.

When I look at the various aspects of this bill and of some amendments put forward by the standing committee, I think that our government has taken a giant step in assuming its responsibilities toward our agricultural industry and toward Canadian consumers. I have no hesitation in supporting this bill and the amendments proposed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The table officers have considered the matter raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister. He is absolutely correct. It changes nothing. It will be amended in accordance with his sharp-eyed advice to the Chair. We thank him for making that correction.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my comments perhaps will be somewhat limited, because I plan to deal with only one aspect of the legislation. That aspect deals with Motion No. 19 and the suggestion that the defence of due diligence should apply to the legislation.

As much as I believe in the system of justice we have and that we must always put in all defences possible for the enforcement of laws and the defendant should have defences such as due diligence, et cetera, available, I am suggesting that the motion should be defeated and that such a defence should not be allowed and not be applicable in a bill such as Bill C-61. There are a number of reasons why I suggest this. It comes from looking at the system we have in Canada in the food processing industry, which is perhaps one of the best in the world. If we allowed such a defence of due diligence to apply, we would be diluting the system we have. We would be regressing rather than progressing.

Let me give an example of a possible occurrence. I have earned money in the past by defending individuals using defences like this. Let me give an example of why the system perhaps should not have this particular defence.

If an importer brings in a particular product, whether it be cheese, bread or whatever, and there is something wrong with the product and it is contrary to the legislation and therefore subject to penalty under this statute, the person could be brought forward and could claim due diligence. He could say: "I contacted the manufacturer and he absolutely guaranteed that there was nothing wrong with this product. The foreign processor told me that every precaution was taken to make sure this food was safe. The foreign processor told me that spot checks, et cetera, have been done on this food and it is fine. I have used all due diligence in making sure the product is safe."

If the defence is available, the person should not be subject to the penalties. That certainly does not help the consumer who may be ingesting this food and getting ill or perhaps even dying from that food. The importer must go further.

If the importer is subject to the penalties in this act, the importer must be in a position to say: "I did spot checks. I tested this food and I made certain it was safe". It is not good enough because if due diligence applied, the importer could always rely on it and always bring in unsafe food although the processor in the foreign country indicated it was good enough.

We require this rule so foreign processors cannot bypass the safety standards of our country. We require it so that if the importer is in violation of this act, the importer can go back to the foreign processor and say: "What you told me was not good enough. You must take other steps to ensure and guarantee this product is good. If you do not do that, I will change suppliers because I do not want to be brought forward again and punished for being in contravention of the act". That is why due diligence should not apply.

Due diligence is applicable in many other areas of our justice system but should not be in the food processing industry. Again, this shows why Canada has one of the best food systems in the world. If we allow such a defence we are going to be regressing rather than progressing in the future, regressing because errors will not be corrected and the same problems will arise. If we allow it, this would be small comfort to an individual who might ingest an adulterated food that might cause serious injury or possibly even death.

The system put in place by Bill C-61 is a quick system. It is effective but it will not be painless. It cannot be painless. There has to be some pain but it does not have to be overly excessive. The person who violates the provisions of the bill must be brought to task for what has been done. However, Bill C-61 does not provide for imprisonment. It does not give the person a record of conviction of an offence and the penalties are rather modest but they are punitive to some extent and therefore serve the purpose required. The person who is contravening the legislation does not want to be brought back over and over.

Absolute liability offences are absolutely necessary in the food industry. They are absolutely necessary to protect people. Everyone knows this. I am sure the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster knows how important it is that any grain produced on his farm is not adulterated, that it has not been treated or accidentally adulterated with some chemicals, then sold and put into the food processing chain for someone else to eventually consume. It is as important there as it is in the processing industry. It is as important there as it is in the importing business.

How do we deal with it? Do we adopt a system where a person ends up going through a regulatory system with charges laid and the process going on and on? People like me in my other world relish such a system where things would work well for me. Or do we put in a system that is effective and efficient? I suggest when it is contraventions in the food industry, it has to be done quickly. It has to be done effectively because we cannot afford to have contraventions that continue over a period of time with adulterated food that keeps entering and maintaining itself in the food system while the possible contravention is being dealt with in the court system. It has to be quick. It as to be effective. The health of our public is too important.

The health of the people to which we export is too important. Canada's reputation is too important. We cannot afford to tarnish it by having our food system in any way hampered and looked on by people in this country and foreign countries, saying: "We do not know if we can rely on it. It is generally a good source, but it is not that good a source". We cannot afford such a reputation. The reputation has to be that ours is superior to everyone else, or as good as the best that there is.

The policy obviously is to maintain a very high standard. We must maintain it. It helps exports in the future and it certainly helps in the production and the processing of products.

As indicated by the hon. member for Malpeque, other common law defences are still available to a person. Due diligence is not the be all and end all if we do not accept it.

For the reasons I have given, I suggest that due diligence should not be a defence. Motion No. 19 should fail.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

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

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

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

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak this morning on the agriculture and agri-food administration of monetary penalties act. It is good legislation in the circumstances.

Presently, when an inspector under the agri-food act determines that offences have been committed under the statute, he must proceed through the criminal justice system and the whole process gets rolling. An information is laid through the attorney general's office, appearances begin in court, adjournments are made, the cost and time of not only the court administration, the cost of defence counsel, the cost of prosecuting counsel and the time it takes from beginning to end could be months if not years, depending on what the situation is.

The alternative method proposed in Bill C-61 is to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties, so that an inspector when he determines that an offence has taken place under the agri-food act, can impose a fine on the offender immediately, rather than proceeding through the judicial system. I think that is a very good procedure to be following.

The objective is to create a system that allows the officials of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to issue monetary penalties for serious or repeated violations of the regulations. The monetary penalties vary from $15,000 for companies to $2,000 for individuals. The legislation also establishes an independent tribunal to hear appeals of the proposed monetary penalties. Safeguards are still built into the system.

The AMP, if I may refer to that acronym, adds to the enforcement options available to agri-food prosecutors. The system still provides the department with appropriate responses when dealing with the violations of regulations such as in the marketing of inedible food products or the inhumane transportation of animals.

The term administrative monetary penalty is used to differentiate the monetary penalties which are administrative in nature from fines which are imposed by the court system for convictions of regulatory offences.

I will speak to some of the motions involved, but I submit that this is good government. It still provides a framework wherein Canada's high standards for food safety are maintained. That is essential. We are also assisting Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

to enforce health and safety standards consistently, not only for imported foods but for domestic food products as well.

Further, we are regulating in a more efficient and cost effective way. In this time of restraint, cost effectiveness is a very important item. Therefore, we are going to require less time and money to pursue these offences than we would otherwise do through the provincial court system.

The maintenance of a safe food supply is essential and Bill C-61 allows for the issuance of monetary penalties and is necessary to encourage industries to adhere. We do not really want them punished if they do not comply but we do want compliance. It is necessary that they adhere to these regulations such as in the areas of pesticides and animal and plant health. On matters touching food, the food chain and public health standards of conduct, they must be extremely high and the reasons are obvious.

I would also like to refer to the competitiveness of Bill C-61. I suggest that it supports the competitiveness of the agricultural sector by responding to requests for more equitable enforcement of regulations for imported and domestic products. Our domestic industry has complained for years that the standards for safety and quality are more strictly applied to them than to their competitors, especially offshore competitors and that is not fair.

Our industry supports the system because it allows Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to respond quickly and effectively when importers or domestic industries market products that do not conform to our high standards in the area of food safety or in the safe use of pesticides. Equal enforcement of these standards for both imports and domestics enhances the competitiveness of the agricultural sectors.

Giving Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada the proper tools to effectively enforce these standards will help it to maintain Canada's fine reputation for healthy and safe food products. It is the reputation of our agri-food sector that suffers when exported products do not meet our health standards. They blame it on us, as a domestic supplier and that is not fair. Let us bring it all up to the same standards.

As an alternative to prosecution and with my background, I think this is a very key item in times of restraint. In the current climate of restraint, we need simple, efficient, cost effective ways for dealing with industries that do not comply with the regulations for food health and safety. Bill C-61 provides a fair but quick and expedient method for responding to regulatory violations.

The administrative procedure provided by Bill C-61 is an alternative to prosecuting regulatory offences in the provincial courts. It is faster and far less costly to both the department and the offender. We have to also remember the offender has to put up the cost of legal counsel and is away from the business, et cetera.

Administrative penalties are another step in the decriminalization of regulatory infractions. Unlike the situation where regulatory principles are prosecuted by the courts, Bill C-61 creates a decriminalized system. It does not provide for imprisonment or receiving a record of conviction of an offence. We do not want to make criminals out of these people, but we do want them to comply.

Administrative monetary penalties are a much fairer way of enforcement for most regulatory infractions. When it hurts you in the pocketbook, it hurts. A record may be a stigma in perpetuity, but when you have to come up with some hard cash out of your pocket you often think twice, and deservedly so.

Another aspect is negotiated settlement possibilities. This allows for negotiated solutions to non-compliance. What we really want them to do is comply. Even the monetary penalties can be reduced to zero if they would use the money to buy corrective equipment. Immediate action to correct the situation is much better than money into the coffers of the judicial system.

I might address some of the motions that have been put forward. Dealing perhaps with Motion No. 3, to vary the maximum penalty between first and subsequent violations, the current maximum penalties are relatively modest when we look at them. The bill does not make any distinction between first and subsequent violations for the purposes of setting a maximum penalty that could be assessed. However, the regulations will determine a base penalty in the range amount and circumstances under which the penalties may be increased or reduced.

Compliance history is one of the factors we set out in the regulations. Penalties will be reduced for violators with no previous history of non-compliance and increased for those who commit subsequent offences, as they deservedly should. Under subclause 4(3) of Bill C-61, penalty amounts may be increased or decreased based on the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person who committed the violation, the amount of harm done by the violation, and the compliance history of the person who committed the offence.

Perhaps I could address Motion No. 4. The purpose is to have a notice of violation identify the designated person serving the notice. Service is an essential point of any court proceeding, and sometimes technicalities arise on service that result in the offender walking from the situation.

I suggest that the bill allows that a notice may be served by various means. That is progression. The server of the notice may not necessarily be the designated person. By definition, the desig-

nated person is the person who issues the notice. Service of the notice is a procedural matter and is best addressed by maintaining a degree of flexibility. We want to be flexible.

The bill allows that the matter of service of all documents, including notices, will be addressed by regulations. For example, the regulation will make provision for service in person or by registered mail. We have these procedures in other court systems, in family law, et cetera. That is not unreasonable.

The purpose of Motion No. 5 is to legislate a minimum of 45 days within which a penalty may be paid. Again I suggest that this is a procedural matter which could be determined by the regulation. To put time frames such as this in legislation really is impractical. It makes it very difficult to make changes in the event that the penalty could not be paid within the time frame.

Procedural details are generally contained in regulations or in policy documents. That is where they belong. The regulation making process really is open and fair. The preparation and drafting of regulations includes consultation with industry and the prepublication of the regulations in The Canada Gazette to give everyone sufficient notice. The process will ensure that a reasonable time frame is put in regulations for the payment of a monetary penalty. They are not going to escape. We have to be reasonable. Forty-five days may not be, as the minister of agriculture has suggested.

Motion No. 18 seems acceptable to us. The object of the motion is to clarify that expenses recoverable by Her Majesty in respect of the disposal of forfeited goods are reasonable. We want to be reasonable and we accept this motion as certainly reasonable in that situation.

The purpose of Motion No. 19 is to enable a violator to rely on the defence of due diligence. Bill C-61 allows for the issuance of monetary penalties based on absolute liability. That situation happens when the department only needs to prove that the alleged violator committed an act that was in violation of the regulations. The bill does not allow for the defence of due diligence by which a violator can avoid liability for the offence by establishing that he or she was not negligent.

Under Bill C-61 there is no possibility of imprisonment. There is no record of conviction for an offence. Penalties are modest rather than punitive in nature. Because of these factors there is no constitutional or other legal impediment to proceeding on the basis of absolute liability.

From a policy perspective, the use of absolute liability is essential to encourage the food industry to exhibit a high standard of care. This is important for matters involving the food chain and is consistent with the approach of courts in civil matters. The concept of absolute liability is important to the effectiveness of the system as a preventive measure.

We had the situation of some children being allergic to peanut butter. There was a very important incident where a young lady reacted to peanut butter and died rather quickly.

I see that you are rising, Mr. Speaker.