Evidence of meeting #46 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vessel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Good afternoon, everybody. This is meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
I extend to everybody a warm welcome back to Ottawa after a great summer.
I'd like to also extend a warm welcome to our new clerk for the environment committee, David Chandonnet, who is back—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Yes, we're very happy to have David back with us after a few years of absence. He is back to serving standing committees. We're really excited to have him and his experience.
The first hour of this meeting is public. The second hour will be in camera.
Since we are returning from a longer adjournment, I ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our wonderful interpreters. You'll notice there's a QR code on the card; it links to a short awareness video that you could always watch at your convenience later.
For the first hour, we are undertaking the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, which was put forward by MP Weiler, who is here with us this afternoon.
Present to answer questions are several government officials. From the Department of the Environment, we have Stephanie Lane, acting director general, legislative and regulatory affairs. From the Department of Transport, we have Sean Rogers, executive director of legislative, regulatory and international affairs, who is with us online. In person, we have Michelle Sanders, executive director, navigation protection and environmental programs; Colin Henein, director of marine environmental policy; Joanne Weiss Reid, director of operations and regulatory development; and Debora Sarmento, legal counsel. From the Canadian Coast Guard, we have Josée-Annie Verville, director of monitoring and compliance.
Thank you to all of our officials for being here with us today.
I'd like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. This is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and to a vote.
If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments.
I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-244.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.
(On clause 2)
Go ahead, Mr. Grant.
Liberal
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Madam Speaker—that is, Madam Chair. I'm a bit rusty, as you can see.
I'd like to present that Bill C-244, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 10 on page 1 with the following:
2 Section 125 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):
(7) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, a disposal occurs whether or not any act or omission resulting in disposal is intentional.
I can explain why I put that forward.
I agreed with the sponsor when he said that a strict liability framework was always intended by the act. Indeed, the offence and other disposal offences in the CEPA are already strict liability offences, as evidenced by the availability of the due diligence defence in section 283 of the CEPA. Clarifying this makes sense, but how it's clarified is important, as it should avoid creating inadvertent issues for interpretation of the act.
Conservative
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
If I could...yes. It's been a long time since I've been involved in legislative debate as well.
The amendment adds:
For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, a disposal occurs whether or not any act or omission resulting in the disposal is intentional.
What you're saying is that whether it's an accidental sinking or an intended disposal.... Would any of that apply to what you're proposing to add here?
Liberal
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'm sorry. Could you reread the question? I didn't quite hear all of it.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
This amendment you've proposed would add a subsection 125(7), which would read:
For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, a disposal occurs whether or not any act or omission resulting in the disposal is intentional.
Would the liability apply to an accidental sinking or any action that could cause accidental disposal?
Liberal
Stephanie Lane Acting Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Section 125 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act applies to disposal-at-sea activities that are currently regulated by the London protocol. The additional subsection proposed by the government would merely indicate that it's a strict liability offence and create that “for greater certainty” provision, so, yes, it will apply to activities regardless of whether or not they are intentional. The provisions apply to certain activities—and I can read the provision in section 125 to indicate to what it applies—but it doesn't apply to land-based activities. It applies to disposals at sea or from a platform at sea.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you. That really doesn't clarify it for me. Would an accidental sinking of an almost derelict vessel still be considered, or potentially be considered, a disposal?
Acting Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I will go and check the types of waste to which this section applies. Section 125 of the act has specific provisions and specific types of waste to which it applies. If the chair would permit me a minute, I will go and take a look at that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
We'll move on to Mr. Bonin, and then we'll get your answer when you have it.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just need some clarification. When I read the French version of the new subsection 125(7) of the legislation proposed by amendment G‑1, it says at the end, “en cause n'est pas intentionnel”. Yet the English version doesn't contain any negative form, so it's intentional. I don't know whether the French version contains a double negative that makes “n'est pas intentionnel” mean “intentionnel”. However, the English and French versions seem to differ on this point.
Acting Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
The English version refers to an act or an omission, whether intentional or not. According to the writing principles, it has the same meaning in English and French.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
If you're sure, I'm really glad to hear it. I was wondering about the negative form in French. I'll leave it up to the legal expert.
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is along the lines of what MP Mel Arnold was saying. It's around the definition of disposal at sea and whether or not it means any act resulting in disposal, intentional or not.
Does that include a sinking, like what MP Mel Arnold was talking about, whether it be accidental or even an act of vandalism or theft, and then the vessel sinks? Does this amendment actually cover that, or would that be a different clause altogether?
Acting Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I have the definition of “waste or other matter” to which this prohibition applies. It applies to “Ships, aircraft, platforms or other structures from which all material that can create floating debris or other marine pollution has been removed”, so it does apply to ships, aircraft, platforms or other structures, as MP Arnold's question indicated.
As I understand it, the intention of the private member's bill and also the government's motion is to confirm that it doesn't change the application of the disposal provisions, but it does reinforce that these are strict liability offences. They don't require someone to intentionally do the activity, and they allow for the availability of the due diligence defence. That's the intention of the “for greater certainty” addition.
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
To follow up, the due diligence is making sure that the bilge pump works, that it's secured to a dock and that the battery is actually there, in place, to make sure that the bilge pump is working. However, because of some act of vandalism, maybe it's untied or maybe the battery is disconnected—and this does happen, by the way, especially where I'm from—the vessel sinks. Is the owner, then, still liable for this unintentional disposal at sea? It's really a sinking. It's not really a disposal at sea, in the context of what I'm familiar with, at least.
Acting Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
As I indicated, the availability of the due diligence defence will be really case-specific. I'm not really in a position to speak to how an enforcement officer...or how that might be enforced. Generally speaking, for strict liability offences, it's up to the Crown to prove that the act or omission occurred. Then the burden shifts to the individual who is being accused to demonstrate that they took all due diligence to prevent that offence from occurring. Again, I'm not really in a position to speak to the specific facts that you provided, but hopefully that clarifies.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
I think your answer clarifies when this would apply, but it doesn't clarify how an individual could be exempt from this application of “intentional” or not. If the enforcement officer and the courts chose to believe that the owner of the vessel did not take due diligence to protect the vessel from vandalism, could they still be liable for an illegal or unauthorized disposal?