Bill C-16 (Historical)

Environmental Enforcement Act

An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment

This enactment amends certain enforcement, offence, penalty and sentencing provisions of the following Acts:
(a) the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act;
(b) the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act;
(c) the Canada National Parks Act;
(d) the Canada Wildlife Act;
(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;
(f) the International River Improvements Act;
(g) the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994;
(h) the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act; and
(i) the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.
It adds enforcement officer immunity to the Acts that did not expressly provide any. It also adds the power to designate analysts for the purposes of the Canada Wildlife Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. It also adds inspection and search and seizure powers to the International River Improvements Act.
It amends the penalty provisions of the Acts by establishing distinct ranges of fines for different offences, by creating minimum fines for the most serious offences, by increasing maximum fines, by specifying ranges of fines for individuals, other persons, small revenue corporations and ships of different sizes and by doubling the fine amounts for second and subsequent offenders.
It amends the Acts to make the liability and duty provisions of directors, officers, agents and mandataries of corporations, and those of ship masters, chief engineers, owners and operators, consistent between the Acts.
The enactment amends the sentencing provisions of the Acts by adding a purpose clause, by specifying aggravating factors that, if associated with an offence, must contribute to higher fines, by requiring courts to add profits gained or benefits realized from the commission of an offence to fine amounts, by requiring courts to order corporate offenders to disclose details of convictions to their shareholders and by expanding the power of the courts to make additional orders having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission.
The enactment adds to each of the Acts a requirement that details of convictions of corporations be made available to the public and that all fines collected be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund and be available for environmental projects or the administration of that Fund.
This enactment also creates the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act which establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme applicable to the Acts listed above as well as to the Canada Water Act.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

It's consistent with the proposals between Bill 16...and the government motions would then ensure consistency of all nine statutes and that they reflect this list.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

Your question has a complicated answer, in that it's inconsistent across the statutes. We compiled the comprehensive list in the overview we distributed on the first day of consideration of Bill C-16. It's on page 23 of that document. We can pass that page around in both languages, if that assists the committee.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

Three already do, and there are proposals to ensure that all nine being amended by Bill C-16 contain this provision.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, one of the things the bill attempts to do is to make the sentencing options that are available to judges uniform across a number of the acts that are being amended. In the course of reviewing the bill after it was tabled, it was discovered that some of the sentencing powers that were intended to be made uniform were in fact left out of parts of Bill C-16. So this is a housekeeping thing.

We're now in the area of the Arctic.... I'm sorry, I've lost track of the name of the act, but it's the Antarctic waters act or something like that. In this particular act, the amendment of Bill C-16 inadvertently left off an ability for the judge to direct an offender to pay an amount to an educational institution for scholarships for students enrolled in studies relating to the environment. It was an inadvertent omission, and because we're trying to give uniform powers to judges for all of these acts, it should apply to this act as well as to others. In fact, that provision was omitted from some of the others too, so we're putting it in to ensure that there's uniformity.

These studies that are related to the environment can include, for example, a broad array of subject matters, including biology, geography, engineering, and other disciplines, and the term that was used in Bill C-16 in fact only referred to environmental studies. So we have broadened that out to “studies related to the environment” in order to make it consistent and broad across the board.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the amendment is that Bill C-16 in clause 17 be amended by replacing lines 32 to 35 on page 23 with the following: (5.1) Paragraph 66(1)(m)

Would you like me to read the whole text?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, Bill C-16 is a huge bill, but there's a suggestion of how to deal with it efficiently. Maybe the legislative clerk can give us some guidance.

If we were to begin with “Shall clauses 2 to 11 carry?”, we could deal with that in a lump, because there are no amendments proposed to any of those clauses. The first amendment deals with clause 12, and then we can deal with the amendment. I don't know if there's consensus support to move that way, quickly and efficiently.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Let me phrase it in the opposite manner, then. Bill C-16 does require notification to the Attorney General in relation to prosecution of foreign vessels where UNCLOS might be involved. Am I right about that?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Is it proposed that the same prosecutorial policy that has been used and is currently being used for the Canada Shipping Act will also apply to prosecutions under the legislation referred to in Bill C-16?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Does the Canada Shipping Act, like Bill C-16, generally impose liability, including prison terms?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In that sense, it's on all fours with the legislation we're dealing with.

Secondly, Mr. MacCallum, in response to Mr. Bigras' question about what degree of certainty you feel on this issue, I want to verify that I heard the answer correctly. Did you say that the courts almost universally accept the position that you're proposing in analyzing Bill C-16?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

There are two points raised there, Mr. Chair. The first related to international law and the application of UNCLOS. It's a matter of reliable practice that the Attorney General is made aware if charges are ever laid in the zones of maritime waters that would trigger UNCLOS requirements and restrictions on the use of prisons. The Attorney General would not, at that time or during sentencing hearings, request prison. So the bill as drafted is not in violation of international law, and it is a matter of reliable practice that prison terms are not sought when they are in contravention of international law. There has been no history of that scheme not working to date.

In terms of enforcement policies, I believe Cynthia Wright answered that question when we first appeared. We've been focusing, obviously, on the development of this bill. If and when it comes into force, we would update existing enforcement policies and procedures. Those do exist now, and they obviously don't currently reflect Bill C-16. We definitely need to see how this evolves through the parliamentary process first. Those policies and procedure will then be updated, though.

Mr. Chair.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Ms. Caron, do you think that Bill C-16 is consistent with Canada's international commitments respecting the Convention on the Law of the Sea?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

And I want to get to those limitations. Without necessarily stating it with any certainty, the industry suggested to us that the 1991 judgment couldn't apply in the case before us. What certainty do you have? Perhaps the industry could institute proceedings to establish that the Wholesale Travel Group Inc. judgment does not have to apply in the case before us, with respect to the provision of Bill C-16 or to the act as such.

Do you have any legal opinions? What certainty do you have that this doesn't open the door to legal challenges?