This bill is from the 40th Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in December 2009.
Jim Prentice Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-16s:
Environmental Enforcement ActGovernment Orders
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the failure on the part of the government to do what the member said in terms of incentivizing, in coming out with a plan that will incentivize the private sector to adopt green technology.
The private sector really wants to do this. Companies from Alberta to B.C. to Newfoundland are begging the government to work with them to develop those incentives. However, the government has a tin ear. It speaks to a lack of thoughts and ideas that the Conservative government is unable to produce. That is sad, because the ideas are out there. They are in the House of Commons right now. They are out there in the private sector. They are in the universities. The scientists have them. They have offered all manner of innovations, whether it is wind power, solar, geothermal or tidal. We have overcome many of the difficulties in tidal and wave power in which Canadians have taken leadership. These are the kinds of innovations we should be rolling out, if even only in pilot projects.
On the biofuel issue, the IPCC, the International Panel for Climate Change, has said that biofuels are becoming more and more a pariah. There may be some areas where it is useful, but in areas like corn, it is having a deleterious and devastating effect on our economy in so many ways.
I am sorry our time is up because there is much more to talk about.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, although I rise in support of this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to expand on some key points and concerns. We feel that Bill C-16, an act that relates to the environment and enacts provisions respecting the enforcement of certain acts that relate to the environment, is a step in the right direction. For this reason, we are supportive.
However, it should be noted that this act is still lacking in several areas. Hopefully we will see many more improvements to this act in the near future. I think it is ironic that the government has tabled the bill claiming that it is committed to enforcing environmental laws, given the fact that it has failed to live up to its Kyoto commitments. Furthermore, let us not forget that this is the very government that is busy gutting federal environmental laws in order to expedite its so-called stimulus package.
It has relaxed the very requirements and laws pertaining to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which could very well result in ecological impacts on some of our waterways. The Navigable Waters Act was gutted by the Conservatives during the 2009 budget and we think that is an exceptional shame. This underlines the fact that they have no long-term vision or real understanding of environmental issues. Improvements to be made include the need for enforceable regulations pertaining to greenhouse gases or for countless toxins and pollutants that are awaiting regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Fisheries Act.
Bill C-16 redefines penalties. However, the penalties are not increased for corporations. Under the bill, there is no jail time for corporations that break laws, yet it increases the financial toll and jail times for individuals. This is another example of how the government favours the big corporations. We saw that today with respect to the $90 million, based on the Auditor General's report, where the businesses are basically using Canada Revenue as an investment purpose as opposed to a way to pay their taxes. We think that is a shame.
The increases in individual punishments are, at times, five times those originally prescribed prior to Bill C-16. Yet the same adjustments are not made in relation to corporations. Basically, Bill C-16 amends eight different acts to create a uniform system of punishment. However, it is noted that these particular punishments are flawed. The impact on individuals has been increased dramatically, yet the punishments for corporations are basically inconsequential.
Most of us remember, in April 2008, the incident pertaining Syncrude Canada Ltd. and the impact on environmental issues that it created. Improvements—
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member across certainly has a lot to say, but let us see. They are the ones who have failed to act on the environmental impact.
We saw what it did to the wildlife when 1,600 migrating ducks flew into a toxic pond owned by Syncrude. The total amount fined to this company was approximately $800,000, which was a very small amount for such a large company, given the negative impact their actions had on our wildlife and environment. There is very little incentive to encourage and ensure that corporations commit to environmental laws. For these companies, the few thousand dollars they have to pay out are a small price to pay when they choose to turn a blind eye to environmental laws.
What is required is a suitable method of policing corporate environmental offenders. Consideration should be given to increasing fines to approximately four times the current amount. This would mean that, for first offences, these companies would be hit with a much more forceful punishment. Imagine if those dollars were to be reinvested in protecting our environment.
As previously mentioned, we support this bill; however, it is with some reservation. No matter how many laws and policies the government puts in place, the impact will be minimal unless there is the political will to actually abide by and enforce those laws and policies.
I understand the member for Kenora has a lot of rhetoric to offer, across the board. Obviously this just goes to prove how much the Conservatives are not in tune with the environmental laws that need to be put in place.
On that note, although this bill provides additional tools to officers who will enforce this act, providing that the government ensures there is enough funding to have the appropriate number of enforcement officers employed, there is still a dire need for amendments to eight different acts to harmonize the penalties. This is long overdue.
The bill will require publication to shareholders and the general public of convictions under environmental law. It will not require publication of all violations, warnings, orders and tickets issued, all agreements and all charges. That is exactly what we need to put out there.
On that note, I think it is important to really recognize whether the government is actually committed to ensuring we have the proper environmental laws in place, given the fact that it basically gutted anything that had to do with Kyoto.
I can tell you that Domtar in Espanola had ensured they would be up to date with regard to the Kyoto targets. They invested all their money to make sure it was going to get done. They wanted to make sure that their company was going to be at the forefront on this. Basically, all the other companies are being told, “No, it is okay. You don't have to abide by it”. I think it is a shame.
On that note, I am going to close. I would be glad to take any questions.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, for presenting the New Democrat position on this bill.
This is obviously a bill that we feel has many positive aspects. However, we are quite concerned about the implementation, and very specifically, about the regulations.
I would ask that the member tell me a bit of her thoughts with respect to what kind of work Canada has done and what kind of reputation it holds on an international scale as a result of its complete disregard for the Kyoto protocol, as a result of pulling away from commitments it made internationally, and what that means for the work we need to be doing here.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill, Manitoba, for her question. When the government decided not to follow through with the Kyoto targets, it had a great impact across the world as to whether Canada was actually committed.
No longer are we leaders with regard to environmental laws. We are seen as being quite weak. I think that is extremely important as to why the NDP chose to put forward its climate change bill once again, which actually would bring back those Kyoto targets.
So I would again like to thank my colleague for her question.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for an excellent presentation regarding Bill C-16. We are looking at a bill that is 193 pages long and is quite involved.
One area that I would like to question her about is the whole area of the enforcement officers and the training methods for these officers. We are concerned that the officers be highly trained in their jobs and therefore able to correctly implement the environmental practices.
Again we are concerned about the government's capacity and desire to enforce this act, once we go through the final processes and pass it into law. Would the member comment on that particular issue of the enforcement officers?
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
During my speech I did talk about the enforcement part. Certainly the enforcement officers that we have out there right now are actually extremely well trained and can do the job. The problem is that there are not enough of them to do the job. Plus, we need to make sure that the laws that are put in place will actually do the job that needs to be done and give them the proper tools to enforce that.
Certainly there is a major problem with regard to ensuring that there are enough people there to take this on. As we have seen with regard to the tainted meat issue in the past, the government is not committed to enforcement.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a further question.
This bill would eliminate the power of the courts by establishing, under legislation, minimum and maximum penalties. For example, by making a maximum penalty of $6 million, that is not a high enough penalty if a situation develops, such as an oil spill, where there could be a loss of $100 million or more. The penalty in that case would only be $6 million. That brings us into the whole issue of whether corporations should be let off the hook for what are essentially very small fines in relation to their overall revenues, as opposed to the heavier penalties that would be placed on individuals.
I wonder if the member would like to comment on that whole area and those two points.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us review some of the fine requirements under this bill.
The maximum fine for an individual under these new punishments would be $1 million. This amount is a real sacrifice for an individual, not to mention the threat of jail time. Corporations can see offences of no more than $10 million, even on continual offences. The financial sum is beyond harsh for an individual, but very weak for corporations.
For example, ExxonMobil made an estimated $477 million in 2008. A punishment of $10 million is not much more than the cost of doing business for such a corporation. ExxonMobil was forced to settle for approximately 75% of the $507.5 million in damages it faced for the Exxon Valdez tanker spill, off the coast of Alaska. This amount of fine is something suitable for a massive corporation.
We have to look at the impact as well. Let us not forget about the impact on our wildlife and the length of time it takes to clean up a spill. It is going to be very important when these fines are levied that the money be reinvested in exactly what the fine was levied for. Basically, it needs to be reinvested into the environment.
Environmental Enforcement ActGovernment Orders
Environmental Enforcement ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Question.
Environmental Enforcement ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
