Mr. Speaker, these are certainly very difficult and challenging times in the field of agriculture. We see a lot of changes going on throughout the sector worldwide. We have seen with the globalization of trade that is occurring and with the tight fiscal situations governments find themselves in all around the world that this is imposing certain constraints on the way we carry on business.
This government and the minister are facing many challenges in the area of agriculture. Certainly this government and the minister in particular has achieved a number of very significant successes in dealing with these challenges of globalization and dealing with the challenges of a tight fiscal situation.
When we look at the fair and thorough handling of the Crow payout issue in western Canada, the protection of the supply management system at the GATT talks and the successful completion of the GATT talks shortly after the election by the minister and the very favourable settlement of the durum wheat disputes of the U.S., in each instance the minister has dealt with these issues in a fair and thorough fashion, getting good results for the agricultural producers of Canada.
The minister has proven to be a very forceful and successful advocate for all the country's farmers, whether in the west, in Quebec, in Ontario, or in the maritimes. He has always ensured that when dealing with the issues of farmers, each group of producers in each region has its issues dealt with on the merits of the case. This bill is another fine example of dealing with the pressures and challenges facing the agricultural sector. This can be looked at as yet another success.
It is very important to point out that we are dealing with a piece of legislation that allows for compliance agreements. Therefore when there is a violation of a regulation within various parts of the agricultural sector, the usual route is to charge the individual. The individual gets a lawyer; the government gets a lawyer. The government pays for the expense and time of a tribunal to hear the case. Down the road a year or two later there is finally a decision in the dispute. Thereafter, in the event the charged individual or corporation is found guilty, their practices are changed.
This legislation allows for a speedy and fair resolution of the violation when it occurs. It allows the producers or the person charged to come to a very quick resolution of their dispute. The offending behaviour can be quickly remedied.
In a legal dispute in which charges are laid, a person will not change his behaviour for fear that change will lead to an admission of guilt.
When there is the ability for a person to simply change behaviour and get on with business, this is what we really want to see. We want to see our food safe, our industry competitive. Both these issues are dealt with very favourably by this legislation. That type of settlement is encouraged.
As we do not have the resources we used to, the solution put forward by the minister is excellent because it allows cutting the costs of corrective measures. This is very important for all Canadians. It allows industries to continue to be very competitive, to spend their resources doing their job of processing and selling products better rather than spending resources, time and energy worrying and trying to deal with a charge. In this respect the bill is excellent and handles a number of these changes in a very positive manner.
When dealing with the security required to ensure a violator complies with a compliance agreement, it has always been the intent of the minister that it be reasonable. If not included explicitly within the legislation, it is always included implicitly.
If the matter were subject to dispute, I have no doubt the courts would simply read into the legislation that the security required by the minister or the department would be reasonable. However, I suppose one could look at this amendment and say it is exactly what the intent of the legislation is and therefore would be reasonable to include it within the legislation.
One of the motions seeks to remove the possibility for the violator to pay less than the full amount of the monetary penalty where the violator does not request a review. The intent behind the bill includes the provision which enables a violator to pay less than the full amount of the penalty which otherwise would be taken if the procedure were to go to court.
The intent behind it is twofold. It enables a violator who does not intend to challenge the assessment of the penalty to pay a reduced penalty and to get on with life. It encourages the person to take corrective measures. It also promotes compliance without engaging in long and costly hearings. That makes sense. There is a large benefit to the person charged or who has committed a violation to simply change the behaviour and to get on with business. That is what the legislation is all about. If the possibility for the violator to pay less were not there, we would not see many violators voluntarily changing their behaviour.
The legislation deals with the fiscal realities of the government. It encourages a change of behaviour on the part of violators within the agriculture and agri-food sectors. It encourages the improvement of behaviour. Canada will continue to produce high quality goods in the agricultural field and will continue to have a competitive industry. The legislation also assists Canada to compete in the international market because the resources of the companies and the government will not be diverted into long legal disputes.
The legislation accomplishes a number of goals. It is another example of the minister's dealing effectively with the challenges we are facing in the agri-food sector today. I congratulate the minister and all the people who have worked hard to make this legislation a reality.