The first thing I would say is that with regard to the example you have from Bill C-11, in terms of how we set out the prohibitions and the controlled activities, linking back to the powers of the inspectors, as well as the licensing regime that is envisioned, the model that's used is quite a common model. We have various other examples. Whether it's the Food and Drugs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or the Hazardous Products Act, these types of schemes, under the criminal law power, are set out that way.
You put into regulations the specificity that you need for the different components. For example, what will the standards be for the biological safety officers? What specific conditions will you have for licence-holders? What specific elements will you need for the biosafety aspects of the bill?
The reason you frame it this way is to allow flexibility and adaptability in order to reflect in the regulations the concerns you are expressing. If you fix it in the statute itself, it's frozen. It can never be changed. It can never be amended.
The regulatory process itself is quite an onerous process. There is a duty and an obligation on the part of the government, when they go out and develop the regulations, to consult. The consulting is open, meaningful, and balanced, as they are required to do. They are required to basically prepublish what they intend to do in the regulations, in the Gazette, before they actually make them. There will be a period in which you will see the actual regulations and be able to comment on them. They will be reflective of the changes that are needed, or based on the intended dialogue with the various communities.
That's the first thing I would say in terms of the regulatory process and why you design a law the way you do. The second thing I would say is about penalties.
When we develop penalties for legislation, we don't do it in a vacuum. We always look at other pieces of legislation that are similar in aspects. We try to have some kind of uniformity and consistency between these different types of evidences. The rationale for this is to try for some consistency across Parliament so that when they're exercising these laws and enforcing these laws, they have a similar-type range of penalties.
I'd just like to indicate that these penalties are quite similar. Under the Food and Drugs Act, if you sell harmful food, or use misleading advertising, or prepare food in unsanitary conditions, that is a violation. A person would face three years in jail or a $250,000 fine--