Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

My understanding--and this is subject to the fact that I'm neither a lawyer nor an environmental lawyer--is that this particular phraseology is standard language. It, or something close to it, can be found in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and in many provincial statutes. There is nothing exceptional about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That may be well and good, but it doesn't answer my question: is the general concept in this bill to potentially penalize a person or a company and then have that penalty, whatever the sum is, go into general revenue? If so, I think the Canadian public wouldn't necessarily....

This may be standard legal text and legalese, and that's fine, but if what we're trying to do is create something different and special, then why pour money into general revenue? It doesn't encourage anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

I also am having trouble understanding this. I agree with the principle and spirit of clause 11, but I am wondering how we're actually going to implement it. Will we be able to consider a regulation tabled by the government providing for penalties where offences have been committed? In this case, we are left completely in the dark. Nor is it clear whether these penalties would apply under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. No reference is made to that legislation. I don't know whether it's by regulation that all of this will be defined later on, but it seems to me that some clarification or at least an answer is required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I agree that the money will go into general revenues, because we have not provided for a dedicated fund. However, I am open to an amendment on that. What is important, however, is that there be mechanisms that penalized persons or corporations that do not meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. That said, if people want to change something or they would prefer that the money go into a dedicated fund, as opposed to general revenues, I personally have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Keep any conversations away from the table. The interpreter is having some trouble and is picking up on conversations.

Mr. Rodriguez, are you finished?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I apologize for the noisy nature of our consultation. We were consulting with our advisers.

The offences and penalties language is not only the standard language found in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but it's also found in the Species At Risk Act. In other words, we're not trying to create a new system of incentives, funds, or anything else; we're simply trying to make the penalties consistent with other environmental legislation. It is not a creative section. It doesn't do anything new. It simply repeats the offences and penalties that are found in other established acts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I appreciate that. With the process we're in right now, it's impossible or difficult to move amendments at this point.

I simply raise the caution and concern that while it might well be that other environmental pieces of legislation have an open end as to where the penalties go, it seems to me--and other jurisdictions, other countries, do this--if you're penalized for an environmental infraction, then that money gets used. We do that in our own country--not for penalties, but for any taxes put on batteries and various things, we try to apply those.... It has been the case for far too long in this country that we collect penalties or we use revenues in a general way that allows government far too much flexibility.

It's just open for consideration for future bills that we see in front of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Is there any other discussion on clause 11?

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I asked who was going to deal with this, and I never got an answer. Mr. Cullen asked pretty well the same question that I did, as well as Mr. Bigras, but we never got an answer to the question.

Once again, it's all very well to talk about voluntary actions or measures on the part of industries. We may well say here that there will be fines, but if no one is responsible for actually implementing these provisions, one again, we're just improvising here. I don't know whether this was drafted on the back of a paper napkin last night, but I still haven't received an answer.

I am really trying to be objective in what I say and do here, but so far, we really haven't been given very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

First of all, we're not talking about voluntary measures; we're talking about offences and penalties.

Second, the same person is responsible — namely, the Crown, or Her Majesty in right of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, then Mr. Calkins.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

This bill binds the government, Mr. Chairman. This is not just an empty piece of legislation. The government, through its various institutions, is responsible for this, just as it's responsible for everything else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege and pleasure of serving my country as a park ranger, as a national park warden, and as an ex officio law enforcement officer. In every bill that I've seen, whether enforcing the National Parks Act, the Provincial Parks Act of Alberta, or the Fisheries Act and regulations and so on, there is always a provision that there is somebody designated to be the enforcement person, whether ex officio RCMP, national park wardens, Canadian Wildlife Service staff, or whatever the case might be, or at least a clause that would allow the minister to designate who can enforce the rules and regulations.

Therefore, I would propose to my colleagues opposite, if they would like to, to amend this bill in some form or another so that we can clearly identify who is going to enforce this act. Without a designation of who is going to enforce this, the act will be impotent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

In that case, is the honourable member suggesting that all of the acts that currently contain exactly the same phraseology are invalid because they don't designate an RCMP officer or somebody else? I mean, surely—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let him answer.

Mr. Calkins, do you want to answer that?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

As I said, I've had the pleasure of enforcing laws and I've been the guy wearing the uniform out on the front line. I've been the guy doing this. If you take a look at the act I have in my hand right now, the Canadian Environmental Protect Act, part 10 is enforcement.

Contrary to the way in which Mr. Godfrey has already misled this committee, clearly here is a part 10 enforcement dealing with the definitions that apply in this part, and they include designation of enforcement officers and analysts: “The Minister may designate as enforcement officers or analysts for the purposes of this Act, or any provision of this Act”.

We have nothing like that. While the wording on the enforcement section might be similar in Bill C-288 to other acts that he is comparing it with, what's missing in Bill C-288 is a designation of enforcement. It's completely missing. It's completely void from this bill, which makes this bill, Mr. Chairman, impotent and completely useless.