Environment Committee on March 26th, 2009

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. That's what I wanted to be clear about. I'm not sure I see an advantage to paying into a fund that may plant trees somewhere else. Although there may be advantage to that, it may not actually remediate. I wanted to get at who was actually going to pay for the remediation. So it is the particular offender, through the fine through this particular fund, who will remediate. So the polluter is paying, in other words, is what I'm....

[Cynthia Wright]

In the case where there is actual harm. Sometimes it might be an exceedance of a bag limit or something like that, in which case there's....

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

I want to probe maximum penalties, because I'm not sure I understand this very clearly, and you can forgive me if my knowledge is not very good on this. So let's say, for example, a maximum penalty for an individual is at $1 million. Does that maximum include the aggravating factors, penalties for subsequent offences? I'm trying to find out whether the maximum $1 million is actually the maximum that will be paid out by a particular individual. Or do they determine that the offence is worth $750,000, with aggravating factors it's $1 million, but because it's a subsequent offence, now it's $2 million? Is $1 million truly the maximum, including all those factors?

[Cynthia Wright]

I think the member is demonstrating an understanding of it. When there is a subsequent offence it could be doubled. So the $1 million is a first-time offence, but the bill would allow a doubling of the offence, so you could exceed the $1 million.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Does that maximum include the aggravating factors, or could the aggravating factors exceed the $1 million?

[Cynthia Wright]

If it was a first-time offence, then the aggravating factors would be included within the $1 million.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

They would be included in the $1 million. Okay, that's what I wanted to address.

On the administrative monetary penalties, you gave only one example of what that may include, a late filing of a report. Are there other examples where AMPs may apply?

[Cynthia Wright]

Another example under the wildlife legislation would be minor exceedance of a bag limit for a migratory bird hunting permit, that sort of thing.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. But this will have nothing to do with actual environmental offences on the ground? Those are simply requirements to keep up with certain statutes on a purely administrative basis.

[Cynthia Wright]

Correct. The bill is indicating that where there's serious harm, then the administrative penalties would not be appropriate.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are there any other federal statutes where AMPs have been used?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, we have a number of those. Under other departments, there is the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which covers the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Farm Debt Mediation Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizer Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act, and the Seeds Act.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Can you give an example of an offence that would attract a minimum fine, sort of going back to the stream on fines?

[Cynthia Wright]

Do you mean a fine, but not the administrative penalty?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's correct.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

A specific list has been developed, and it's in the statute. They are offences that cause direct harm to the environment, offences that could cause direct harm to the environment, or offences involving an obstruction of authority, such as an obstruction of enforcement officers. An example would be a spill directly into the environment or the harming of a species.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Watson.

We're not too bad on time, so we're going to do a third round. We'll wrap up the second round and then we'll go for a third. We're going to really stick to the five minutes on the third one.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Before the clock starts ticking, I have a point of order.

I had talked to Ms. Duncan and I was going to give her my time so that we would be ending at this point. You're suggesting that--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I suggest we do one more round, because I think we can do the business of the steering committee in about 10 or 15 minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Then she'll have a second chance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have one motion. I think we can do stuff fairly quickly.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

A lot of the questions I had have already been asked and answered, but I'd like to move to slide 5. This is where you just left off with Mr. Watson.

I want to ask about the per day aspect. The doubling of the fines, of course, occurs with subsequent offences. If you're convicted of an offence and then there's another similar offence, that's when the doubling comes in. If it's $1 million, when does the per day aspect come in if it's a very serious offence involving something like $1 million? Is that $1 million per day, or a maximum of $1 million?

[Cynthia Wright]

That would be $1 million per day.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It could add up very quickly.

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes. Maybe Sarah wants to add a point.