Mr. Speaker, I must take part in the debate on Bill C-61 today, because this bill cannot be agreed on as presented by the government, on the basis that it would save time and money for the taxpayers.
I entirely agree with the principle, and so does my party, but the government always has to leave the door open to all kinds of adverse consequences.
This bill could have serious consequences in terms of disregard for judicial fairness. If the department introduces a system of monetary penalties, it must be because it believes that this will significantly reduce the need for enforcement actions, thus generating substantial savings for taxpayers.
The big problem is that the government did not foresee the risks that making totally arbitrary decisions on the enforcement of such penalties entail. We object to reducing penalties imposed on offenders by concluding compliance agreements. That is unfair.
It would have been enlightening for the government to advise us of the potential savings resulting from this bill. This legislation contains a totally unacceptable principle, authorizing the person designated by the minister to conclude an agreement with the offender, whose fine would be reduced by $1 for every $2 invested by the business into improving its process, buying new equipment or training its employees. As far as I know, penalties are not negotiable in our justice system. Bargaining fines is not something we do in Quebec. Anyone who was stopped for speeding knows what I mean: either you are guilty and you pay the full amount of the fine or you go to court and let the judge decide.
The existing justice system provides that the person who is guilty of a fault must bear the consequences of his or her actions. Instead, with this bill, a wealthy offender, one who can more easily afford making investments to remedy a particular situation, is rewarded. In the way of unequal treatment, you can hardly find worse. This is preferential treatment based on the financial capability of an individual or business, and that is unfair.
I would also like the government to tell us who will be in charge of assessing the cost of the efforts made by offending individuals or businesses to remedy the situation. Training, equipment, all that can cost more in one region than in another. In a region where it costs more, offenders will be penalized. Moreover, will they be informed of all the means made available to them to correct the situation? And what if an offender, in collusion with suppliers, presented inflated bills? Frankly, there are tax or other incentives which could be used to promote investment and training by companies. For heaven's sake, let us not negotiate penalties.
Another unacceptable provision in this bill is the one which provides for a 50 per cent reduction of the penalty if the offender pays it without appealing the decision or asking for a hearing. With that provision, the government undermines the presumption of innocence. A number of members of this House are lawyers and they know that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. Indeed, under our legal system, a person is deemed innocent until there is evidence to the contrary.
Let us take an unclear situation where there would be grounds for challenging the decision. The minister would tell the individual or business that it is in their best interest to keep a low profile, otherwise, they would of course have to submit to a hearing-