Environment Committee on March 26th, 2009

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much. That's a good clarification.

I have a question for the Department of Justice. When I was a chief of enforcement and for a certain period of time after that, the funds for the actual prosecution of cases, including bringing in expert witnesses and so forth, actually came from Environment Canada. It was from the green municipal fund and not from the Department of Justice. Could Environment Canada or the Department of Justice outline for us who actually has to pay for the prosecutions, as opposed to the public prosecutors themselves?

[Cynthia Wright]

Perhaps I could handle that.

It's a bit of a mix. Funds were transferred to the Department of Justice for prosecution, but it depends on the case, the workload, and other factors. Justice has resources for prosecution as well. It's not solely up to Environment Canada to pay for it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is there a contingency fund set aside, with this $33 million over five years, where you have funds or a certain portion set aside to actually move forward on a prosecution?

[Cynthia Wright]

There wasn't any decision to specifically fund prosecutions. Justice has received other resources. I think the situation has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years in terms of how prosecutors are funded.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a question for Ms. Tingley. Is the Department of Justice moving forward on appointing more special prosecutors? I know that for a long time you've had a fantastic prosecutor in Vancouver who has a wonderful record of proceeding with Environment Canada's cases. I think there's one in Alberta.

Given the greater attention to enforcement and more money being given to the department, is the Department of Justice also going to be moving forward on appointing full-time environmental prosecutors, as some provincial jurisdictions have done?

[Linda Tingley]

This may seem like a technical response to your answer, but there is actually a separate office of public prosecutions, which is no longer part of the Department of Justice. We report to the same minister, but they're at arm's length.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can anybody on the panel answer this question, or do I need to hear from the office of public prosecutions?

[Linda Tingley]

I'm sure you'll get a more satisfactory response from the office of public prosecutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

They are appearing as witnesses on Tuesday.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Excellent. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

I have one final quick question, if I have time. Could I have clarification on this? I've been trying to go through this rather complicated bill, and I'm looking forward to eventually getting a consolidated version of all these statutes. Do the sentencing powers of the courts remain intact?

I'm trying to sort out whether or not the courts will still have the power to direct, as is the case under CEPA right now. They have a broad array of fantastic powers, which are similar to the provinces' powers, where they can direct that remedial action be taken. They can direct that all kinds of measures be taken. I'm somewhat confused by this new fund that the court cannot direct and the powers that are in CEPA, where the court can in fact give direction that those very measures be done. Perhaps you could explain how the two work together.

[Cynthia Wright]

I might have left the member a little unclear, Mr. Chair.

If you look on page 24 of that general overview of Bill C-16, you'll see a whole list of court orders that the courts may do. The court may also order the offender to pay for damages or impacts on an individual--for instance, a property owner adjacent to a spill. That would be in addition to an environmental defence fund.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So that broad array of innovative sanctioning powers remains.

[Cynthia Wright]

Correct--and it's being applied to additional statutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Great.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Oh, okay.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have one question that I want to raise before we move on to other business.

In here, in a number of different places, we're giving immunity to enforcement officers, similar to what's already available, as you say, in the Shipping Act. Each clause pretty much says so with regard to the applicable acts--for instance, “Enforcement officers and analysts are not personally liable for anything they do or omit to do in good faith under this Act.”

Who determines good faith? I'm always concerned about unintended consequences.

[Cynthia Wright]

I'll let Sarah answer that one.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

This clause would be relied on in the event that civil action were taken against enforcement staff. It would be the courts that would determine that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So it's still the judicial system that would make that determination. Okay.

Do these types of clauses for enforcement officers also exist in...? I know you mentioned the Shipping Act, but does it also exist for peace officers, such as police officers and so on?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

We're not aware of....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's fine. I just thought you might be able to answer that.

We are out of time. We do want to move on to other business.

To the witnesses, I do appreciate your coming in. Just so that Environment Canada and Parks Canada know, the committee feels it's important--we also discussed this at subcommittee on Tuesday--that we have some front line enforcement officers appear before us. As you can hear from the committee members, there is a concern about safety, about the enforcement side of this business. We will have some of the regional and line staff appear on Tuesday, or that's our hope.

There were some questions that you'd said you'd get back to us on, and I do ask, Madam Wright, that you get back to committee on some of the questions raised by Mr. Trudeau and other members this morning.

Again, thank you very much. I appreciate your coming in.

If committee members could stay at the table, we will deal with our oil sands and water study and our travel out to Alberta.

We costed it out, and we looked at a number of options. My personal recommendation is that we travel out to Alberta on our travel points to save the committee system, under the liaison committee, some dollars. It would also improve the chances of endorsement by the whips. As well, I am recommending that we travel with all 12 committee members and the applicable staff.

The motion has been circulated. It reads as follows:

That the Committee approve the travel budget for the amount of $92,038 for twelve members and the necessary staff to travel to Fort McMurray, Fort Chipewyan, Edmonton and Calgary (Alberta) from May 10th to May 13th, 2009 to hold hearings and conduct site visits on the Committee’s study of Oil Sands and Canada’s Water Resources; and That the members use their travel points to go to Edmonton and return from Calgary.

Just as a point of information, twelve members versus eight is a matter of only $5,000 to $6,000 in extra costs.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Obviously I'm new to this, but does the motion engage every individual on the committee to go? If we end up with only eleven, if one of us doesn't want to go or doesn't find it necessary to go, are we contravening this?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have the option to substitute members in as well; parties do.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have just a question of clarification on the motion.

We have the dates in here to “hold hearings and conduct site visits”. To my understanding, the intent is that the hearings would be held in Calgary, and Edmonton possibly, that there would not be hearings held at sites like Fort McMurray--