Evidence of meeting #23 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
But to my understanding--I might have missed something here, since we are having lunch right now--this fund is to be used for remediation purposes for the environment, is it not?
12:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
It can be used in a proactive or remedial way. In other words, it can be used for conservation purposes, for example, as well as for mediation. But it's strictly for environmental purposes, and it's for non-governmental use.
So to address your first question, what's in the fund would not go into our coffers to hire, for example, more enforcement personnel. It would be strictly limited to environmental uses.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As I recall, the birds at sea portion that happened in the last Parliament was amended at report stage to include a minimum fine. Did that pass through the Senate as well? Does the bill that exists right now have a minimum mandatory fine for intentional bilge dumping, oil dumping?
12:25 p.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment
I can't answer that just from memory, I'm afraid.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. We'll do some research on this. It's important to know just how it's been used.
Secondly, have any fines been applied through this? And if the fines have been applied, do we know how much? How much has been disbursed? Have we used it, up to this point? I know we have the mechanism.
12:25 p.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment
I'm afraid I can't tell you whether there have been any new prosecutions under that new law.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
From memory, Mr. Cullen, it was the Conservative Party--in fact, this particular member--that doubled the fines in that particular act during the environment committee's last sittings. I'm not sure what's taken place, but I do remember specifically that we proposed an amendment, passed unanimously, to double the fines. That was a Conservative motion, but again, I'm not sure exactly what took place.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I remember moving it at report stage with the Speaker, and it went through.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My understanding is it was adopted at the Senate.
12:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, fines have been levied under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and paid into this fund, and we will confirm the amount for this afternoon's meeting.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay, thank you.
Can we move on with this clause, then? I suggest that this is not necessarily relevant. It's an existing mechanism.
(Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to)
(On clause 30)
I see no amendments to clause 30.
Mr. Godfrey.
March 28th, 2007 / 12:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me the only reason this amendment was there was to include sections that would have been created in the government's original version of clause 18 in Bill C-30. The government's version didn't pass, because of our amendment L-21.1, so the references no longer make sense, as they refer to the government's version of the story; therefore, because of the changes to clause 18, we would vote against this.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I'll ask Mr. Moffet for some comments on that with respect to the relevancy of this clause, as it's in there now, in relation to Mr. Godfrey's comments.
12:30 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, I think essentially Mr. Godfrey is suggesting that the clause now references clauses that no longer exist, and he's right.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to be clear from what we've heard from Mr. Moffet, if this clause is referring back to a piece of the bill that is no longer there, why would we simply not vote against and remove it, just for clarity's sake? Maybe the parliamentary secretary can clarify, but why not delete a clause if it refers to something that no longer exists?
His suggestion was to go on division. I'm just trying to understand tactics. We're going to face this a number of times as we go through, so--
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Just vote against or for it, or abstain—three options. If a vote has been called, I think those are the only options we have, Mr. Cullen, with respect to it. I don't think it's just a situation where we take it....
If it's not appropriate, then deal with it accordingly.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Yes. Mr. Cullen's point is I think valid. You can vote for or against it, unless there's some debate.
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
You've called the question, have you not?