Mr. Speaker, this is rather heavy slugging; I hope you are enjoying the debate this morning.
We are dealing with quite a large number of amendments in Group No. 2. I am not going to speak individually on all of the Bloc amendments, but I will lump them together. It seems the Bloc's intention in proposing these amendments is to actually do away with the formulating of compliance agreements altogether. That is not a position I or my colleagues share. We are not opposed to the concept. We want to clarify, quantify and qualify some of the act to make it work better, which is the purpose of our amendments.
If the compliance agreement is properly administered and properly enforced, if it is balanced and gives a proper and reasonable amount of protection to both the minister and his department and to those violators or alleged violators who are affected by this legislation, it can actually be a useful tool that will take violators out of the courts and allow the situation to be dealt with in a less costly and more efficient manner.
Having said that about the Bloc amendments, I suspect the Bloc would have been wiser to simply oppose the bill and offer no amendments at all rather than to actually destroy the intent of the bill.
I would like to speak briefly to the motions we have put forward in this grouping. I will begin with Motion No. 10, which concerns clause 10. We would amend it by replacing line 17 on page 6 with the following: "reasonable security, in a form and in an amount".
This motion deals with the granting of security to ensure compliance of someone who has violated the regulations under one of the acts dealt with in Bill C-61. We suggested there should be criteria in the process, and I appreciate the minister saying that he already has a policy manual in place. I do not know why he and his government would oppose ensuring that policy manual continues and is very open to the public by means of the amendment we have proposed. I cannot understand why the government would not be supportive of the word reasonable in front of the word security. We all want to be reasonable people; I am sure the minister wants to be reasonable, as does his government.
Let us use an example of what this would prevent. It would prevent the minister and his department from demanding an entire meat processing plant for security if the cooler was of a value at least twice as great as the penalty that would be imposed upon the processor for any violation he had committed. That type of approach is reasonable and would prevent abuses by the minister and his department. On the other hand, it would also preclude the minister from going to the other extreme and just demanding the meat grinder for security when the violation was serious enough that he should have more security to ensure the compliance agreement is complied with.
That is a reasonable amendment. It makes the bill stronger. It again qualifies the bill and leads me into Motion No. 11, which deals with the same matter of reasonable security.
Motion No. 11 is that Bill C-61 be amended in clause 10 by adding after line 11, on page 7, the following:
(4.1) Where security has been given under paragraph (1)(a), the notice shall also state that the security shall not be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada unless the amount of security is less than twice the amount of the penalty set out in the notice of violation.
This qualifies what reasonable security in this case would be. It prevents the minister and his department from demanding an unreasonable amount of security in ensuring a compliance agreement is complied with.
This is common sense. It is reasonable. It protects the department; it protects the minister; it protects the Canadian taxpayer. It is an incentive for the offender or the violator to comply with the agreement, yet it prevents abuse.
I will go on to Motion No. 15, which is also in this grouping. It states:
That Bill C-61, in clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page 9, with the following:
14.(1) No later than six months after the Tribunal receives a request for a review under this Act, it shall, by order, as
This seems a bit disjointed when it is read, but a tribunal is established under the act that can review disputes if they are not voluntarily complied with by the violator. If the offender is not able to make an agreement with the minister and his department, he does have recourse to a tribunal.
As we know, we have seen in the justice system in the United States and to a degree in Canada that sometimes these cases drag on and on. They are very costly. They are certainly not fair to the person who is accused or the person who has been alleged to have made a violation, and they are certainly not fair to the taxpayers who bear a large portion of the cost of this process.
Again, this is just a qualifier that ensures that the tribunal cannot delay making a decision forever and ever. In fact, it stipulates that in no case can the tribunal delay its action for more than six months. It requires the review tribunal to complete its review within six months of receiving the person's request for review.
Can the minister offer a very good reason why that is not reasonable or that does not protect taxpayers, why it does not protect the person who is alleged to have made a violation and even protect the department from ongoing cases where this situation is not resolved? It is better for all parties involved in this process.
I request that all members in the House look seriously at Motion No. 15. I suggest they support that as being fair and reasonable, making it a better act rather than a weaker one.
The purpose of these amendments is not to in any way criticize the government or do a one-up on the government; it is to make better legislation that is going to affect us all. It is in that spirit that we bring these amendments to the House.
I request that members opposite have a fair look at these amendments and see whether or not they can support them as being reasonable in this legislation, in this case suggesting reasonable security and a reasonable amount of time for decisions to be made.