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 Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Did you have anything on this point of order?

Just hang on a minute. We do have our agenda out there. We'd need to change the agenda today. I would require unanimous consent from all the members to change the agenda we circulated previously and agreed to, which said that today we're dealing with Bill C-16. I'm more than happy, after our two hours are up dealing with Bill C-16, to go in camera and have a discussion about future business. Right now we have our witnesses here. We made the agreement in the past that we'd be dealing with Bill C-16 today, and that's the way we should be going.

I need unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent to go in camera, as suggested by Mr. Scarpaleggia? This is a non-debatable motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I too was surprised to see the orders of the day for this morning. In fact, while we did not make any decision concerning our future business, I was under the impression that the Shipping Federation of Canada, the industry representatives, were going to appear this morning. Unless we are told that they were going to talk about something other than Bill C-16, it seems to me that we were to have them with us this morning.

Indeed, we have not agreed on our future business, except that the Chair of the Committee was given a mandate and he undertook to consult with the Chair of the House to see if we were to go ahead with the study of Bill C-311.

I would think that before we proceed with the study of Bill C-16, the Chair should at least report to us on his consultations with the Chair of the House so that we know if we should proceed to Bill C-311 immediately after studying Bill C-16.

Without this information, the government would clearly have an advantage while another bill should also be studied immediately after Bill C-16. Thus I would like the Chair to give us his report on his consultations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order. We're going to study the estimates today, as well as continue on our work on Bill C-16 while we have the minister here.

We do appreciate that Minister Jim Prentice, who's the Minister of the Environment, is joining us today and taking time out of his busy schedule. He's joined by Deputy Minister Ian Shugart. Welcome to the committee.

With that, Minister, would you bring us your opening comments?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

There is a substantial amount of commentary pointing out that in general the higher the penalty, the greater the deterrent. There are studies that demonstrate that our current penalties are inadequate. The minimums proposed through Bill C-16 are part of an overall scheme aimed at giving guideposts to the judiciary and signalling that higher penalties are more appropriate for these offences. They're to be read in conjunction with aggravating factors, purpose clauses, and first principles that serve to establish the need for raising penalty amounts.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

We should start by mentioning that the policy objective behind the amendment proposed in Bill C-16 is not to remove discretion from the judge; rather, it is meant to add a level of accountability to the process of allocation of funds. It's our intention to amend the EDF policy once the bill comes into force. This would be to ensure that where a judge has made a recommendation, priority would be given to the EDF funds directed towards that organization, pending its ability to demonstrate that it can spend the money on the intended project and in the intended timeframe.

There have been rare instances in which organizations have become insolvent or are incapable of spending the funding. When that situation arises, the funds sit in limbo. Although that doesn't happen in the majority of cases, the bill's amendments were aimed at ensuring that the funds would be spent on environmental restoration.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

While the judiciary, I understand, has discretion, the judiciary certainly is bound by what would be set out in a statute if Bill C-16 passes.

[Chantal Proulx, Acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Regulatory and Economic Prosecutions Branch, Public Prosecution Service of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members. On behalf of the PPSC, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this committee in its continuing examination of Bill C-16, the Environmental Enforcement Act.

Joining me is Erin Eacott, a front-line prosecutor with our Edmonton regional office. Ms. Eacott has considerable experience prosecuting offences under some of the statutes that would be amended by Bill C-16.

With your permission, I'd like to make a brief opening statement to frame our discussion. Since the PPSC is a new organization, I propose to provide you with a bit of background on its creation, its mandate, the services it currently provides in relation to environmental investigations and prosecutions, and how we expect Bill C-16 to impact upon current PPSC operations.

The PPSC was created on December 12, 2006 with the coming into force of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, which forms Part 3 of the Federal Accountability Act.

The PPSC replaced the division of the Department of Justice that previously conducted federal prosecutions. The deputy head of the PPSC reports directly to the Attorney General of Canada and is known as the Director of Public Prosecutions, or DPP.

Our enabling legislation, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, outlines the powers, duties and responsibilities of the PPSC. Its mandate is simple—to prosecute criminal offences within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the federal Crown in a manner that is independent of any improper influence and respects the public interest.

In addition, the act mandates us to provide advice to law enforcement agencies such as Environment Canada and Parks Canada Agency in respect of investigations that may lead to prosecutions.

Providing legal advice during a criminal investigation ensures that investigative techniques and procedures are consistent with the evolving rules of evidence and Charter protections.

Our role as legal adviser to investigative agencies is distinct from the investigative roles they perform. The PPSC is not an investigative agency and our prosecutors are not investigators. Although prosecutors provide advice during the course of an investigation, prosecutors do not initiate, direct, or supervise investigations. They do not gather evidence; that is the role of Environment Canada and Parks Canada agency enforcement officers.

Prosecutors and enforcement officers exercise separate and independent roles in Canada. Enforcement officers decide whether to commence an investigation, who to investigate, how to investigate, and whether to lay charges at the end of an investigation. This separation between investigative and prosecutorial authority is well entrenched in Canadian law.

Once charges are laid by the enforcement officer, the prosecutor must decide whether to proceed with the prosecution. The test we use is as follows. The prosecutor examines the evidence to see whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. If there is, then he or she decides whether, in light of the provable facts and the whole of the surrounding circumstances, the public interest requires the prosecution to be pursued. If the prosecutor is not satisfied that the prosecution should proceed, he or she can put an end to it by withdrawing or staying the charges.

In exercising prosecutorial discretion, our prosecutors are guided by a desk book. This document, called The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook, is available publicly through the PPSC's website.

In four jurisdictions in Canada, namely Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick, there is a practice of pre-charge approval in environmental matters. In those jurisdictions, prosecutors exercise their discretion to prosecute once the investigation is completed but before the charges are laid. We apply the same test in pre-charge jurisdictions as we apply in post-charge jurisdictions, except that we must be satisfied the test is met before the police or the investigative agency lays the charges.

I turn now to address the operational impact of Bill C-16 on the PPSC.

Many of the statutes proposed to be amended will include mandatory minimum fines that must be imposed upon a conviction. In addition to mandatory minimum fines, the increase in the maximum penalties, doubling of fines for repeat offenders, mandatory additional fines for economic advantage gained, cumulative and per day fines, purpose clauses, sentencing principles and aggravating factors, are strong signals to the courts that these offences are very serious.

Greater penalties, improved powers to fashion creative remedies in sentencing, and the ability to revoke operating licences, will, we believe, add complexity and lengthen sentencing proceedings. There may also be constitutional challenges to this legislation.

In summary, we anticipate more trials, increased complexity of proceedings, and many more investigations due to the increased number and efforts of the enforcement officers. In terms of implementing Bill C-16, our prosecutors will continue to advise enforcement officers during their investigations and will inform the court on the intent of Parliament in passing the Environmental Enforcement Act. Our prosecutors will advocate firmly but fairly for principled sentences based on the law and the evidence before the court.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Cynthia Wright]

Thank you.

The enforcement bill, Bill C-16, would strengthen environmental enforcement to make polluters more accountable. The amendments are designed to contribute to the three main goals: deterrence of environmental offences, public denunciation of environmental offences, and restoration of environmental harm resulting from unlawful activity. These main goals are achieved through amendments to the fines schemes, to the sentencing provisions, and to the enforcement tools.

The bill proposes to amend six Environment Canada-administered statutes, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It also amends three Parks Canada-administered statutes, including the Canada National Parks Act.

The bill also introduces an entirely new statute, the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which I will discuss towards the end of my presentation.

With respect to the fines, to best understand what the bill proposes, it is necessary to first summarize the existing fines schemes under the statutes it amends. Currently, all offenders under these acts are liable to a maximum fine and/or maximum jail term. The highest current maximum fines are under CEPA, the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, at $1 million on indictment or $300,000 on summary conviction.

Other acts have lower maximum fines. For example, the International River Improvements Act currently provides for maximum fines of $500 on summary conviction and $5,000 on indictment.

Fines imposed by courts tend to be much lower than the maximum fines. The bill attempts to address this by introducing minimum fines for the most serious offences and increasing the maximum fines, by introducing higher fines for corporate offenders than for individual offenders, and by ensuring all statutes authorize the doubling of fines for second and subsequent offences.

This slide shows the fines scheme proposed by the bill. For the minimum fines for the most serious offences—by that term we mean those that are involved in direct harm or risk of harm to the environment or obstruction of authority—the proposed fines scheme includes different fines for individuals, corporations, and small-revenue corporations. These distinctions are meant to reflect the respective financial capacity of each type of offender and to ensure fines achieve their goals of deterrence and denunciation regardless of the wealth of the offender.

The proposed fines scheme also changes maximum fines from the existing high of $1 million for all offenders to $1 million for individuals, $4 million for small-revenue corporations, and $6 million for corporations. Finally, the proposed scheme provides double fine ranges for second and subsequent offenders.

Importantly, the bill authorizes the court to consider substantially similar offences under other federal or provincial environmental or wildlife laws when determining whether an offender is a second or subsequent offender.

The bill adds a provision to each statute directing that the fines collected under the statute are to be credited to the environmental damages fund to ensure they can contribute to environmental restoration goals. Currently, most funds are generally paid to the Receiver General, where they are not necessarily available for restoring environmental damage resulting from offences. The environmental damages fund, which was created in 1995, makes compensation received as a result of court awards, settlements, and voluntary payments available for rehabilitation or restoration projects. Money in the fund is to be used, where possible, for projects in the area where the harm occurred. It may also be used for research and education related to protecting and restoring the environment.

The bill adds a purpose clause to the sentencing provisions of the statutes it amends, which sets out the fundamental purposes of deterrence, denunciation, and restoration of the harmed environment. The bill also emphasizes the importance of accounting for aggravating factors when determining appropriate penalties. It adds to each statute the principle that the amount of the fine should be increased to account for every aggravating factor associated with the offence and reflect the gravity of each of those factors. It adds a list of specific aggravating factors that should be taken into account, including that the offence caused damage to the environment.

The bill ensures that when considering the gravity of aggravating factors, such as damage to the environment, the court takes into account damage to both use and non-uses of the environment. Use value and non-use values are terms of environmental economics. Their inclusion in these statutes will ensure that the full value of the environment is considered by sentencing judges.

Use values include the value derived from the direct use of the environment, such as the use of water for drinking, as well as the value derived from indirect use of the environment, such as the value of a healthy river for recreational fishing. It also includes option value, the value of the environment for a future use.

Non-use value includes the environment's existence value, the value received from knowing that a resource, a good, or a service exists, and its bequest value, the value received from ensuring that a resource, good, or service will be available to future generations.

The bill contributes to the objective of deterrence by increasing access to information about convictions. It introduces a requirement to each act for the minister to establish a publicly accessible registry of corporate convictions. This would be an Internet-based registry, housed on Environment Canada's enforcement website.

The bill also adds a provision to each statute obliging the court to order corporate offenders to notify their shareholders of the facts relating to a commission of offence and the details of the punishment imposed. This obligation is new to each statute. Previously, courts were authorized under some statutes to order offenders to publish the details of the conviction. The bill retains that discretionary authority, while at the same time adding this new mandatory order. The obligation recognizes the deterrent effect that public disclosure has on corporate behaviour. Contravention of such an order will be considered an offence for which the offenders are liable to the highest fine ranges.

Bill C-16 also proposes to add a provision to each statute, obliging the court to order an offender to pay an additional fine equal to an estimated value of any benefit, advantage, or property gained as a result of the commission of the offence. The bill also introduces explicit authority for the courts to suspend or cancel a licence, or other authorizations issued to offenders under the statute contravened, and for the courts to prohibit offenders from applying for a new licence or permit for an amount of time.

Most of the statutes amended by Bill C-16 already authorize the court to make a number of orders upon sentencing an offender. These range from ordering the offender to undertake restoration work to compensating the government for remedial work. As these provisions were added over time, the bill ensures that each statute has a comparable suite of authorities that are relevant to each one.

Bill C-16 makes amendments to the enforcement tool provisions in the statutes as well. It adds an authority for enforcement officers to issue compliance orders to several statutes. The compliance orders already exist under CEPA. By using them, enforcement officers can cause a person to cease an illegal activity or correct a contravention without having to seek an injunction or initiate a prosecution. Those formal court procedures involve specific steps and take time before remedies can be effected. As such, they're not ideal for addressing an offence that is causing or will cause immediate harm to the environment. However, a compliance order can be issued without delay. Persons who are issued a compliance order can apply to the chief review officer, an administrative decision-maker established under CEPA, to have the order reviewed. As such, fairness is ensured while enabling enforcement officers to have access to a speedy remedy for situations where immediate action is deemed necessary.

Bill C-16 further strengthens the enforcement tool by adding authority to several acts for the minister to designate analysts. Analysts are scientific or technical experts who may accompany enforcement officers to carry out specific inspection activities, including taking samples. They already operate under some statutes, including CEPA, and have been very useful. The bill also extends the limitation period on instituting proceedings by way of summary conviction from two to five years and changes the day on which this period begins, from the day on which the minister becomes aware of the offence to the day on which the offence occurs.

Finally, the bill also gives enforcement officers and analysts operating under each of the acts the same level of immunity from personal liability that is already afforded to marine safety officers, pollution response officers, and inspectors operating under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. It ensures that enforcement officers and analysts can perform their duties in good faith, without fear of civil suits.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, the bill also creates the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. The new act would set out the necessary framework to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties that are applicable to other statutes. The administrative monetary penalties are modest financial penalties that are limited to $5,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a corporation and are meant to provide a quick and more efficient response to the less serious offences than prosecution provides.

Administrative monetary penalties may be imposed on persons or ships by enforcement officers who have reasonable grounds to believe that the person or ship has committed an offence. Persons or ships subject to an administrative monetary penalty may pay the penalty outright or contest it administratively. The bill authorizes the chief review officer appointed under CEPA to hear appeals of administrative monetary penalties.

This ends my formal presentation, but I'd like to draw the attention of committee members to two additional documents that we've provided. One is a general overview of the bill that shows the nature of the amendments, the statutes under which it applies, and the pages and clauses of those statutes. The second one is a table that summarizes through an easy overview all the amendments that are made, where they're made, and where they already exist in the statute.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're going to start our study on Bill C-16. And as we always do with bills, we kick off with a briefing from departmental officials.

Joining us again from the Department of the Environment are Cynthia Wright, acting assistant deputy minister of the environmental stewardship branch; Albin Tremblay, chief enforcement officer; and Sarah Cosgrove, manager, legislative advice section. We also have Linda Tingley, senior counsel, Department of Justice. From Parks Canada we have Darlene Pearson, director, legislation and policy. Welcome, all.

We're going to kick off with a 15-minute presentation from Environment Canada.

Are you presenting on behalf of Environment Canada?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Environmental Enforcement Act

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-16, an act to amend the Environmental Enforcement Act.

This bill, as has been stated previously, would amend environment bills and create one new act. The purpose of the bill is to stiffen penalties for environmental offences. This is the first step in the right direction.

In the past, the effectiveness of Canada's environmental legislation and regulations has been hampered by the lack of an adequate enforcement regime.

Mr. Speaker, before I go forward, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Bill C-16 attempts to address the shortcomings of the current laws and puts in a stronger enforcement regime. It introduces stiffer fines, penalties and new sentencing powers, and strengthens the government's ability to investigate and prosecute infractions. Canadians do need to know that there is an effective environmental enforcement regime. They need to know that polluters, poachers and wild life smugglers will be punished or will be fined and will pay for it.

Bill C-16 would not only introduce enforcement tools like fines but also sentencing. The drafting and architecture of the environmental enforcement was accomplished in many stages during three successive Liberal governments, and I am glad to see that this has been carried forward.

Climate change and its impact on the population is a well-known fact. Climate change is a global phenomena and is affecting every country.

Today I was at a breakfast meeting with the deputy minister of Jamaica. He stated that the Caribbean Islands are facing the wrath of climate change. He stated that, as a young man, hurricanes were very rare, once in 10 years, and that now hurricanes hit the islands and surrounding area on a regular basis. This has had a devastating impact on their economy.

Countries that rely on agriculture have seen their crops fail badly or totally destroyed. We have seen devastating results in our own country. In Canada, we have had droughts on the prairies and rivers dry up or overflow. Our rivers are being polluted making the water undrinkable, unsuitable for swimming or anything else and for sea life as well. We have seen the impact of climate change on the northern communities. Their way of life is threatened. The snow is melting and the polar bears are in danger.

The elephant in the room, as we discuss environmental enforcement legislation, has to do with what the government is doing to address the issue of climate change. The government has no regulatory framework for climate change.

The government has made claims that its plan would reduce GHGs by 20% by 2020 but the C.D. Howe Institute, the RBC Dominion Securities and 11 independent groups stated that the government's plan will not work. In fact, at the public accounts meeting, the Commissioner of the Environment stated that the government had achieved nothing with some of its tax credits, for example, the TTC tax credit, which was a waste of $635 million with zero reduction in GHGs, or the Eco-Fund, which is a $1.5 billion boondoggle. There is no accountability, no help in reducing GHGs and nobody knows whether any of the provinces or territories have drawn down the money or have done anything to assist with the greenhouse gas reductions.

The government still does not have a plan. Its Clean Air Act, which was introduced in the last Parliament, was a disaster. The U.S., on the other hand, under President Obama, is moving forward with an aggressive climate change policy because they realize that the science of climate change is real.

We should just look at the desertification in the Sub-Sahara. In many parts of the world, the impact of climate change has led to a lack of water and lack of arable land which has led to conflict and human tragedies.

Therefore, my question is, where is the government's plan on climate change?

With the evaporation of the clean air act from the last Parliament and its being rewritten and greatly strengthened, the government did not like it and therefore, it censored debate. Now the government is waiting for the U.S., but Canada is a sovereign state. Is there an envoy or timeline?

If we are desperately in need of environmental enforcement, we are desperately in need of a climate change plan. What will we do when the temperature increases? What are the crises that will occur?

The line of questioning that I hope will be pursued when the bill is sent to committee is: what about climate change? Where is the government's plan? What has motivated the government to move in the direction of environmental enforcement without moving to put in a proper climate change plan?

The government has put in an aggressive agenda. We would like to ensure that all parties send the bill to committee for better study.

There are 38,000 to 40,000 contaminated sites at the moment. How will environmental enforcement deal with the pre-existing liabilities for the municipalities, cities, towns and regions across the country that have these toxic sites? Who will clean up those toxic sites? How will they clean up brownfields, blackfields, et cetera? It is a troubling issue and therefore it is important that the government work with the provinces, territories and municipalities to come up with a strategy on how to compensate and restore these sites. Those questions have to be answered.

The registry of environmental offenders, which was referred to previously, is a good idea, but how will the government move forward with it? I hope the government takes its time to do a deeper study.

This bill, which relates to environmental enforcement, will bring in specific improvements to the previous legislation. A new structure of fines will be added, and nine acts will be brought under one act. The bill will bring in minimum sentences. Those are some of the positive things about the bill.

It will consolidate nine acts, bring in new enforcement regimes, new sentencing regimes. We need those regimes, but the root question which still remains is, what are we going to do about the climate change crisis? How is the government going to address these issues in the environmental enforcement bill? How will it ensure that we have in place the proper regimes, compensation and methods to clean up our contaminated sites?

With that, I would suggest that the bill be sent to committee for review and sober second thought so that people can have a proper look at it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, before I do that, it is my sincere hope that the discussion on Bill C-16 and its Antarctic provisions and the recent announcement of research and cooperation with the United Kingdom will help all members of the House keep in mind that Arctic issues and Arctic sovereignty are about more than sensational press releases, such as those sharing the details of Russian bomber flights that did not even come into Canadian airspace.

The best way for Canadians to defend the north is to support and feel kinship to the people of the north and to seek and understand our Arctic through many possible means.

As the member said, living in the north, I mentioned years before it became a hot issue that it was accelerating faster than anyone believed. Those of us who live in the north see the permafrost melting, the species moving, new species coming up, the ice melting a lot quicker and the terribly expensive effects on our infrastructure with ice bridges melting, sewers crumbling and roads crumbling that are not frozen. We are depending on winter ice roads. As an example, we had to rent the biggest helicopter in Russia for one of our diamond mines at a huge expense because the ice bridge melted too quickly.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-16, an omnibus bill we are referring to as the environmental enforcement act. I need not tell members in the House that omnibus bills are sweeping in scope. This bill touches on almost any legislation dealing with environmental protection that has a regime for enforcement and levying fines.

The announcement of this bill seemed to be more about re-announcing old funding commitments from budgets 2007 and 2008, including $22 million for hiring 106 new enforcement officers and $21 million to implement environmental enforcement measures, than about the legislation itself.

As I mentioned earlier, I have concerns with the government's commitment to making sure these new enforcement officers will have the capacity to find infractions and enforce environmental regulations. However, I know these will be brought up by fellow members in this debate.

I am here to discuss the provisions of this bill that alter the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act. I am certain that some Canadians will wonder why legislation originating in Ottawa features any mention of the Antarctic. The reason is our commitment to international law.

Since December 2003, people visiting the Antarctic through Canadian expeditions or tours and those operating Canadian aircraft and vessels are required to apply for a permit from the Government of Canada except when granted permission by another country that is party to the Madrid protocol.

The Madrid protocol came into force in 1998, designating the Antarctic as a natural reserve devoted to science and peace. It is also known as the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and its purpose is to ensure that countries regulate the activities of their nationals in the Antarctic. The protocol has been ratified by 30 countries. The amendments proposed in this bill update, clarify and strengthen regulations put in place six years ago when the Liberals were on the other side of the House.

This is truly international legislation. One can review the equivalent Antarctic environmental protection legislation of other Madrid protocol countries, including the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, and note they share many similarities. Much can be learned about Canada's own Arctic through the study of the Antarctic. Recent discoveries indicate there are species that inhabit both northern and southern polar regions. Arctic seas share at least 235 species in common. These include migrating birds and grey whales, but more commonly small and elusive sea life including crustaceans, snails and worms.

In order to learn all we must learn about the effects of climate change on polar regions. We must study both poles and as legislators do all we can to facilitate scientific cooperation between the people who have a passion to carry out this research. Last month, I was pleased to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announce a memorandum of understanding between Canada and the United Kingdom that will see Canadian researchers gain access to British research stations in the Antarctic in exchange for our granting access to British researchers to our stations in the far North.

These opportunities for international cooperation through science provide our researchers with venues to share their knowledge and learn from their colleagues while gaining critical data needed to understand climate change. The Antarctic blocks up about 90% of the world's freshwater. We continue to learn of studies indicating that Antarctic ice sheets are even more sensitive to subtle elevations in greenhouse gases and temperatures than we originally thought they were. We have all seen the maps and models illustrating the dramatic effects that higher sea levels will have on the coastlines and even on the earth's rotational axis.

That is one of the reasons for my private member's bill. The government should look at providing a provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow for environmental refugees because the predictions are that there will be over 50 million refugees coming as a result of climate change. This is all to say that going to the Antarctic to research is not about romantic adventure. It is about the research that humanity's future depends on.

I would also like to note at this time that a Yukon company won a world contract put out by the British to build an airport in the Antarctic and did an excellent job if anyone is looking for further work in the Antarctic. I hope this will serve as an incentive to the government to follow through with its commitments to building research capacity in the Arctic and to do all it can to expedite the creation of the much-discussed new high Arctic research centre.

I noticed that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in Iqaluit last month and that he announced that the federal government will spend $2 million on a feasibility study to help the government figure out where to build the research station: Pond Inlet, Cambridge Bay or Resolute Bay. I understand the study will take a year and a half to complete.

All I can say is that I hope the three communities, along with all the other northern communities, will receive their share of attention and support from the government regardless of which is selected for the research centre.

I also appreciate the money to upgrade existing northern research infrastructure, which I and my colleagues pushed very hard in the House for the government to come up with.

What the government has been harshly criticized for are the dramatic cutbacks in funds for the researchers themselves. As has been stated in the House, we will have a bunch of research facilities in the north that will be empty because they do not have access to sufficient government funds to continue their research.

As I have already noted in this House, the PEARL research centre in Eureka is in jeopardy. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences received no new funding from the Government of Canada in the last budget. Without new funding, CFCAS will be shut down by this time next year taking 24 research networks that are focused on climate change with it. This is insanity.

Does the government not see money spent on climate change research as money well spent? Do we want the opposite of what common sense says we should do? Does the government believe that drought is an important issue facing Canada?

If so, how can the government cut the funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences that funds the only comprehensive drought study ever conducted in Canada? The drought research initiative, DRI, is focusing on drought in Canada, on the prairies, and, in particular, is contributing to the better prediction and adaptation to this crisis.

Does the government support greater resiliency to natural disasters in Canada? How can the government cut funding for CFCAS projects that examine a range of extreme events, such as storms, floods and droughts, over many parts of the country? These projects include DRI and the storm studies in the Arctic, STAR, research networks. DRI was discussed above and STAR is the first ever research project to examine eastern Canadian storms.

Both STAR and DRI are working closely with those affected by natural disasters to increase their resiliency. This includes farmers, water managers, Arctic communities, et cetera. I implore the government to reinstate this critical funding for Arctic and other climate change research.

I find the government all too willing to announce initiatives in support of the north through highly visible events that capture the attention of the media for a day or two and raise the hopes of the people in the north only to go silent for months with no news of progress. We can take our pick, whether it is the deep-sea port at Nanisivik, three icebreakers or supply ships with reinforced hulls or enacting a respectable climate change policy, members of the government are experts at staging photo ops but it is too slow to deliver.

For the benefit of my colleagues and those Canadians with direct interests in Antarctic research, I would like to take some time to outline a few of the changes this bill would bring.

The provisions would ensure that any polluter, whether the person is Canadian or the person is in the Antarctic under a Canadian licence, would be held responsible under Canadian law. This demonstrates that Canada is capable of meeting its international treaty commitments.

Of course, it is not only Canadian scientists who travel to the Antarctic but increasingly large tour groups organized in Canada and elsewhere.

The reasons for the legislation and amendments are summed up well in clause 50.9, which states:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing for offences under this Act is to contribute to respect for the law protecting the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems in light of the global significance of the Antarctic and the Treaty....

The section goes on to state that the sentencing measures within the act exist to deter the offender, denounce unlawful conduct that puts the environment at risk and to reinforce the “polluter pays” principle by ensuring the offenders are held responsible for effective cleanup and restoration. These were always the objective of the legislation but they are now spelled out in their own section.

I also would point out that sections 30, 32 and 37 would now offer enforcement officers more discretionary powers to compel potentially offending vessels to follow instruction and allow the officer to seize a vessel, regardless of whether or not it is Canadian, if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed.

Section 37 states that a foreign state must be notified that a detention order against a vessel registered in that state was made.

Section 44 states that the offending party shall be held liable for the costs of the seizure, so no need to worry our friends at Treasury Board.

Finally, the last amendment of note is clause 51(2), which states:

If a Canadian vessel or other vessel commits an offence under this Act, every director or officer of a corporation that is an owner or an operator of the vessel who directed or influenced the corporation’s policies or activities...is a party to and guilty of the offence.....

I am pleased to see the legislation take a strong stand on corporate responsibility.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

A former Conservative premier addressed a crowd of reporters and residents in Walkerton, Ontario, where hundreds of people suffered from drinking E. coli. contaminated water and seven people died. He said, “We have a terrible tragedy here”.

Unfortunately, all could have been prevented. Dr. Murray McQuigge, the local medical officer of health, revealed that the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission knew there was a problem with the water several days before it told the public. Illnesses could have been prevented, in part, if cuts to the environment ministry and deregulation of water testing had not occurred.

The environment minister reported that, “If there is something positive that can ever come out of an event like this, it is that changes be made to ensure that it doesn't ever happen again”.

Bill C-16 is an important step to improving the health of Canada's environment. Specifically, it would help enhance and protect environmental health and human health by standardizing and strengthening penalties across all of the federal government's environmental laws and by requiring that violators pay to repair environmental damage beyond paying fines, ensuring that polluting was not just part of the cost of doing business.

The Conservative Minister of the Environment proudly reports:

In the election campaign, our government committed to bolster the protection of our water, air and land through tougher environmental enforcement that holds polluters accountable. Today we delivered...the new measures will provide a comprehensive, modern and effective enforcement regime for Canada.

What assurances can the government provide regarding its ability to implement the provisions? Also, will the newly hired and trained offers be sufficient to do the work that is required to enforce Canada's environmental laws? What accountability measures will be put in place to ensure enforcement? How truly comprehensive is the proposed bill if it fails to address our most pressing environmental issue, namely climate change?

Global warming will in fact impact the very items that Bill C-16 aims to safeguard. As a result of climate change, we are already seeing changes in caribou, polar bear and seal populations, changes in permafrost and impacts on traditional ways of life. In the future, climate change will potentially impact migratory birds, their flyways and possibly the spread of avian influenza.

Our country's current climate policies are widely criticized in Canada by external research bodies, parliamentarians, the public and the scientific community.

In contrast, President Obama is recognized for taking global warming seriously and is listening to scientists who tell us that the situation is outdistancing our efforts to confront it. The President said:

We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way.

President Obama has since called for hard caps on global warming, cleared the way for tougher clean car standards, declared an intention to play a constructive role in international climate negotiations and introduced a serious green stimulus package.

The Prime Minister, however, believes that the differences between the American and Canadian regimes are not near as stark as some would suggest. He said:

When I look at the President's platform the kind of targets that his administration has laid out for the reduction of greenhouse gases are very similar to ours.

Climate Action Network Canada and US Climate Action Network, representing 100 leading organizations in Canada and the United States that are working together to prevent catastrophic climate change and promote sustainable and equitable solutions, argue that Canada needs to overhaul its current approach and raise its level of ambition to have a credible climate change policy.

Today the issue of climate change is more pressing than ever as considerable time lags in the climate system mean that many impacts of climate change are already locked in over the coming decades. Today's buildings, power plants and transportation systems continue to produce increased emissions, meaning an even greater delay and increased warming in the future. Moreover, as some of the climate risks materialize, the economic costs will be much steeper than those from the current financial crisis.

Canadians want action on climate change, as recognized by a former Conservative environment minister who said back in 2007, “Canadians want action, they want it now”.

As testament to this fact, during earth hour 2008, Canada had almost 10 million people participating in 150 cities from coast to coast to coast. People in cities across Canada held candlelight dinners, enjoyed time with family and friends, and went on neighbourhood walks. In Toronto, electricity demand dropped by almost 9%, the equivalent of taking 260 megawatts off the grid or approximately 5.8 million light bulbs.

This hear earth hour falls on Saturday, March 28, with more than 1,500 cities across 80 countries committing to reduce electrical consumption, with more coming onboard every day. Canada currently ranks second for the most city sign ups at 258.

Canadians understand that earth hour will not reverse or reduce climate change but, rather, will raise awareness about the climate challenges the world is facing. Earth hour presents a good opportunity for people to show their federally elected representatives that they support actions to fight climate change.

However, it is worth noting that most Canadian provinces have emission reduction targets that are much more ambitious than that of the federal government. Canada's largest province, Ontario, is moving ahead with the cap and trade system based on absolute caps aimed at meeting its reduction target of 15% below 1990 levels by 2020, with an implementation date of January 1, 2010.

The Conservative government must protect our atmosphere. It must build partnerships with business, consumers, local authorities and the energy sector. It must find abatement solutions and reduce fossil fuel subsidies that currently put a premium rather than a penalty on CO₂ emissions.

Many policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have significant implications for government revenues and expenditures. An OECD analysis provides examples of ambitious emission reductions that can be achieved through auctioned tradable emission permits, with estimates of fiscal revenues reaching over 5% of world GDP by 2050. Although we are talking about domestic policy, it is important to note that tackling climate change requires strong collective action worldwide.

Indications of climate change must be treated with the utmost seriousness and with the precautionary principle uppermost in parliamentarians' minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of humankind. They may lead to greater competition for the earth's resources and induce large-scale migration. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries.

In closing, my appeal to the government would be to please listen and reflect on the voices of science and Canadians regarding climate change and, most importantly, to act with determination and a sense of urgency.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in the House to speak in support of Bill C-16, but with serious reservations. I look forward to the opportunity to review the bill with the appropriate officials in committee so some of those reservations might be addressed and so I can fully support the bill.

I worked in the field of environmental enforcement for 35 years and had the opportunity to be the first chief of enforcement for Environment Canada. As a result of that work, I count as some of my best friends and most revered colleagues the former chiefs of investigation for each of the regions of Environment Canada, who deserve to be lauded as heroes of the planet. They often go unheralded in our move to protect the environment.

When I taught at Dalhousie Law School, I simultaneously did my master of law. The topic of it, which I would like to donate to the library for everybody's use, was “Effective Environmental Enforcement: the Missing Link to Sustainable Development”. What does that mean? It essentially means there is no point of having laws and policies in place unless there is the political will of the government to actually abide by and enforce those laws and policies. The bill is supposed to be about that.

The bill provides for a much welcomed array of expanded tools for enforcement officers, long overdue tools, many of which I recommended to the Government of Canada in 1988. I applaud the government for finally bringing forward this massive bill of almost 200 pages, which is a compendium of amendments of eight bills and the addition of a new bill. However, I have some serious reservations on some of the provisions and the rationale for why those changes are being made, which I wish to address.

When the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA as it is called in short form, was first tabled by the then Hon. Tom McMillan, minister of the environment, he took very profound action and that set a change in environmental enforcement right across this country.

When Minister McMillan tabled the first CEPA, he also tabled in the House an enforcement and compliance policy. This was an historic step. When the minister tabled that policy, he stated to the House:

As strong as the Act is, it is not good enough to have only a sound piece of legislation; it must be enforced. To that end, I am releasing today, as a companion to the legislation itself, an Enforcement and Compliance Policy designed to prevent pollution, to encourage co-operation and to deal harshly with those who would violate the Act.

That simple action of the minister tabling the policy in the House set in motion a change across the country and necessitated all provincial jurisdictions and all provincial departments of the environment to do the same. In order for the provinces to claim equivalency under CEPA, which would mean that they could enforce their laws instead of the federal law, they also had to put in place an equivalent enforcement and compliance policy.

What did that do for Canadians, what did that do for Canadian industry and what did that do for enforcement officers? It basically made a clear statement saying: first, they were obligated to obey environmental law; and, second, if they violated this environmental law, then a number of things could happen. It set forth very clearly what the various enforcement measures were available in the legislation and in addition to the legislation so any violator would know what to anticipate. It also set out clearly the criteria for when each of those measures would be used.

There is one thing that I find missing, very sadly, in the hon. minister's tabling of this legislation. Even though it may include a lot of important measures, he has provided the House absolutely no clarity on how those various new tools will be used. When are we going to go to court? When are we going to use administrative penalties? When are we going to recommend that permits be withdrawn? I encourage the minister to come back to the House, before we finally deal with this bill, and bring forward a strategic document. What guidance will be provided to his officials and how they will exercise the various new powers under that law?

In general, I am rising in support of Bill C-16. There is no one more important in Canada right now for the protection of our environment than our enforcement officers. They are often forgotten and they are often at the bottom of the list for additional funds and tools. It is long overdue that they be lauded for the role they play in protecting the health of Canadians and the environment. I rise in the House as well to commend and honour them and the good work they have done for Canadians.

I have some reservations and I look forward to the opportunity in committee, as I have mentioned to my fellow members of the parliamentary committee, to bring forth the appropriate officials from the Department of the Environment, from Parks Canada, and from the Department of Justice, as well as independent environmental enforcement experts, to talk to us about what the implications are of the various measures in the bill, so that we can fully understand the bill before us.

If we deem it appropriate, we can rise and support the bill and it can be expeditiously put forward and made available to the enforcement officers.

First, as did the hon. member from the Bloc who spoke earlier, I want to speak to the irony of the minister tabling this bill claiming commitment to the enforcement of federal environmental laws.

The irony is that the government has issued a full frontal attack on environmental protection ever since it came to power. There are still no enforceable regulations for greenhouse gases or for the countless toxins or pollutants awaiting regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the federal Fisheries Act. Therefore, while it is nice to have these enforcement powers, there is not much to enforce.

The government has opposed Kyoto as a socialist plot. When will it come forward with binding regulations, as my colleague said previously, so that the enforcement officers can actually inspect, validate and enforce those laws, even if they are emissions trading rules?

In the fall 2008 Speech from the Throne, the government brought forward basically the same principles it put forward in its Turning the Corner report. Those principles were that environmental laws are simply red tape.

We witnessed just last week the action by the Minister of the Environment to unilaterally change significant regulations that have been in place following in-depth consultation with regulated industry, members of the public, and provincial and territorial governments, to unilaterally amend regulations without even providing a Canada Gazette notice in advance, essentially violating its own regulation-making power.

This removal of red tape is going to have a profound effect on the people who live downwind or downstream of these projects that the government is fast-tracking without any environmental impact assessment.

The concerns have been raised over and over in the House. The sad thing is that just when we finally get some strong environmental laws in place, including the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which has been in place for many decades, the federal Fisheries Act, which has been updated over time, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government moves forward and simply erases most of the laws that are in place to protect the public. Essentially the government is saying it has no interest in enforcing those important measures. Where is the real commitment of the federal government to enforce environmental law?

In its own Turning the Corner report, in its throne speech and in its budget, which has passed, there is absolutely no mention of support for clean energy or renewable power in its proposals for clean electricity. So where are the strong measures that in fact we will put in place to protect people's health and environment?

The 2009 budget was an assault on environmental protection, an assault on renewable power, an assault on scientific research, which was very critical to determining environmental cases, and an assault on the precautionary principle, which is exactly what the Navigable Waters Protection Act is all about and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

What is even more important is that in bringing forward those measures, those changes to our critical environmental laws without providing the opportunity for advance notice and comment by either regulated industry or the public, the very government that says it is getting serious about environment enforcement has abrogated international agreements.

It has abrogated the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. That is the sidebar agreement to NAFTA, between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Provisions of that agreement require, under article 2, that the government has committed not to downgrade any environmental law for an economic benefit.

In article 3, the government commits to advance notice and comment to any concerned party on any proposed environmental policy.

So the government, by doing that action without even gazetting its regulation, by passing it without any opportunity of advance notice or comment, has also abrogated an international agreement with the United States of America, which it claims to be in co-operation with.

What is in the bill? There are a number of good measures in the bill, and there are also a number of significant measures that are not in the bill. I took the time to look at previous reports of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which of course includes members from all parties.

The report from 1998 is very instructive. It provided almost 30 recommendations to improve the environmental enforcement system in Canada. There is something very profound and different about that particular parliamentary committee review. For the first time in history they actually brought in the regionally based enforcement officers to testify and to talk about what the real barriers were to effective enforcement of environmental law. Those recommendations are very instructive and I encourage members to reference that report by the parliamentary committee.

Some of those recommendations, to the credit of the government, have been acted on, some long overdue. The government has expanded the powers of enforcement officers, which is very appreciated by them. There is partial response to the recommendation to publish all enforcement data and to table that information in the House.

Provinces such as British Columbia have been doing that for quite some time. It regularly reports to the public online and provides written reports and tabling in the House so that all can know who is violating the law and what kind of action the government has been taking.

Unfortunately the government has chosen to implement only a very small part of that recommendation—the recommendation, by the way, that has been endorsed by many of the 100 member countries of the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, which Canada participates in.

The government has agreed to table with the public and inform them of parties who are convicted. That is not really a great measure, because anyone can find out who is convicted, by looking at the court proceedings.

The measures it has not included are all violations, all warnings issued, all orders issued, all tickets issued, all agreements and all charges. Those are matters that the committee recommended and has not had action taken on.

The government has strengthened penalties, although there is no rationale for the minimum and maximum penalties, and I look forward to that description being provided in committee. I have yet to see the government table any kind of specific rationale from any kind of independent authority, or even its own government, explaining why it is that we have to shanghai the courts' powers to tell them what the minimum penalty and maximum penalty might be.

The maximum penalty has been increased to $6 million, but who is to say that is sufficient if an entire watershed is destroyed, or perhaps in a situation such as the Valdez, if that should occur in the Arctic? Where the entire food source of people in the Arctic or their ability to continue activities would be completely annihilated, it could be more in the order of billions of dollars lost. So I look forward to elaboration of that in committee and later in the House.

There is a broader array of enforcement tools, and orders are a welcome tool. However, the suspension of licences and permits is a complete mystery to me, because that is generally understood as being a provincial-level power. Perhaps that is what the Liberal critic was speaking to, that his party questions some of the constitutionality of the measures. I suppose the minister and the officials will come and defend that in committee.

The one really critical issue is fettering the discretion of the court. One of the measures in the bill actually fetters the discretion of the court. The court currently in the law has the power when it convicts a party to order that the convicted party actually compensate an affected community, or to actually award moneys to people who have been working to protect the environment and can further that cause. Regrettably, the government has decided that the court may only recommend to the minister those people it may compensate, which introduces some level of ministerial and political interference. It is basically recognized in the environmental enforcement profession as a completely inappropriate interference in the discretion of officers in enforcement. I look forward to the rationale for that provision.

What is not in the bill? A number of critical federal environmental laws are not mentioned, for some reason. The government has decided to consolidate and improve and provide a broader array of powers to a number of acts, but not the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, not the federal Fisheries Act, not the endangered species legislation, and not the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It is a mystery to me why on earth those acts are not included. In particular, the federal Fisheries Act is known to be the strongest federal law in existence for the protection of the environment. I look forward to an explanation as to why that is not included.

Among the significant enforcement measures not included as well is a provision that is in the federal Fisheries Act, and that is the right of anyone who initiates a private prosecution or brings forward the charges to receive half of any penalty imposed.

The parliamentary committee had actually recommended that as far back as 1998. I look forward to an explanation as to why they did not carry forward that long overdue amendment.

Again, where is the compliance enforcement policy for all these acts that are included in the bill? We need to understand how these new, innovative tools will be used, in particular the proposed new Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which has never been used. There is actually no explanation of how that will work in the array of tools.

Where are the long-promised strengthened standards and regulations for air pollutants, toxins and greenhouse gases? Without having regulations in place, frankly there is nothing to enforce. While the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been on the books now for almost three decades, very little action has been taken by any of the governments in power to actually promulgate the regulations so we have binding standards that can be enforced.

Where, finally, is the tool to require an assessment of the efficacy of the array of tools? The Government of Canada has participated for the last 15 years in the coming together of the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. One of the most important discussions that the enforcement agencies across the world have discussed is the need for clear indicators of effective enforcement action.

Article 5 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation under NAFTA obligates Canada to effectively enforce its environmental laws. It has yet to come forward with the clear criteria so that Canadians can determine whether we are effectively enforcing the environmental laws.

Those are essentially the comments I wish to make. I laud the government for bringing forward these improved measures, but I have also raised a number of serious questions that I look forward to having addressed either by the minister in the House on future readings of the bill or in committee.