I understand that it is because of the provisions of section 82 that the Department of Justice recommended the amendment which they did, which I have now withdrawn. I have an open mind on the subject, but my first thought was as I have suggested.
I think when we are dealing with penalties for breach of regulations, if the regulations have been very much the same for many years it is much better to embody the regulations as far as possible in the act itself than to leave them subject to change from time to time and have penalties imposed for a breach of regulations that we know not of.
If I catch the hon. gentleman's idea correctly he suggests that the regulations should be embodied as substantive provisions of the bill. I do not think the department ought to be hampered by having to come to parliament to get regulations to meet the situation when, for instance some new scientific invention comes into general use. If we did not have the power to make regulations the department would be handicapped. I am advised that there have been no changes in the regulations since 1929.
Referring to the amendment that the minister proposes to move, it seems to me that $25 is a pretty stiff penalty for a first offence, and that not less than $25 or more than $100 is also very high for a second offence.
That is the maximum. The magistrate does not need to impose $25. The experience of the department is that magistrates are pretty lenient; ten dollars is about the average, and sometimes it is one dollar.
It all depends on the offence. It is very difficult to legislate here in advance. We do not know what the contravention of the regulation in question may be. With respect to sections 63 and 64, the short weights and unjust scales sections, the hon. gentleman will observe, if he reads the bill, that very severe penalties are suggested. However, it is very late now to go
into that and I therefore move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.