When a department moves to impose criminal sanctions under a specific act, basically it looks at the sanctions provided for in comparable acts. It compares penalties and offences in an effort to enforce the act's provisions in a coherent manner. The aim is to look at the impact of the offence and to determine the gravity of that offence. In order to assess the risk, one must look at the penalty and match it to the offence.
Differences are also important. Penalties exist to encourage people to uphold the law. We looked at a number of health and safety provisions. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Act, an offence punishable on summary conviction carries a fine of $50,000 and six months in jail. In the case of the sale of food that can harm people's health, of hazardous products, conviction under the act carries a fine of $100,000 and six months of imprisonment. Failure to comply with an order from a quarantine officer carries a fine of $200,000 and six months of imprisonment.
SInce my notes are in English, I will now switch to that language.
For the Health of Animals Act, contravention of the act or the regulation has a summary conviction offence of $50,000 or imprisonment of six months. It goes up to an indictment of $250,000 or two years. If there's a contravention of the Plant Protection Act or regulation, for summary conviction it's $50,000 or six months in jail. By way of indictment, it's $250,000 or two years in jail.
I would underscore as well that both under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act a person simply possessing or disposing of an animal that was imported into the country in violation of the act or regulations faces a possible maximum penalty of $50,000 and jail. So we believe this amendment is consistent with those other statutes and sets the same type of threshold as well as a means of deterrence.