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.