Environment Committee on March 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I screwed up on the rotation. I apologize.

I have Mr. Calkins first, and then Monsieur Ouellet. We'll come right back to you.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want Mr. Ouellet to know that it wasn't me who raised the point of order, but I do appreciate your patience.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

The tack I'm going to take on this is the administrative monetary penalties act.

I spent several years in conservation law enforcement. I was a national park warden. At the federal level, of course, if I found some person with an illegal fish--or whatever the case may have been--if he didn't have a licence I had no recourse but to issue a summons and start a court proceeding.

When I was a conservation officer for the Province of Alberta, I could issue a summons or a violation ticket, depending on what it was. If the person chose to pay it, court proceedings wouldn't be initiated, but if they chose to plead not guilty, that would then initiate the court proceedings. So we could deal with a lot of these things in a more administrative manner. The difference, though, is that it would start a court proceeding. It would get before a judge if the accused chose to challenge a violation ticket.

Can you outline for this committee what the difference would be in the creation of this proposed new act? What powers, for example, would this review person have? What would the judicial nature of the process be, and what options would somebody charged with an administrative monetary penalty have in making sure he was given due process of the law?

[Cynthia Wright]

I'll start, and maybe Sarah would want to add.

They are purely monetary penalties; in other words, they don't have the possibility of a jail sentence or amount to a conviction or lead to a criminal record. They are intended to address violations of the least amount of stigma, if you will, and that's why they will be used for the lowest-level types of offences. I gave the example of a late filing of a report, that kind of thing.

The bill does lay out some procedures that will apply, and it also does enable the offender to go to the chief review officer, which is already a position that exists. A person is in that job, established under the CEPA, and that person will be the administrative tribunal, if you will, for any disputes over the penalty.

Is there anything you want to add?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

Sure. I guess to start, the distinction with the ticketing regime, which also exists in federal statutes, is that these are purely administrative penalties.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Simply administrative...?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

There's no stigma; there's no conviction associated with those. So the due process that we're proposing to put in place is tailored to that level of lower stigma. The chief review officer would have the ability to determine whether the violation took place and alter the penalty according to what we would develop in regulations.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Very good.

Keeping on the tack with national parks, when I was a warden--I was a back country warden--I was by myself for 15 days, working on the north boundary of Jasper National Park. In the fall, of course, bighorn sheep hunting would start. Of course it's a very interesting and lucrative hunt for the guides and so on who are out there.

As an officer, I was equipped with fairly meagre resources insofar as defending myself, shall I say, whereas a hunter usually came fully able to do what they needed to do for their activities.

At the time, I remember thinking to myself that the maximum penalty for poaching of bighorn sheep, I believe, if you look at the schedule at the time, was $130,000. It might be $150,000 now. That's going to $1 million.

Maybe, Ms. Pearson, you would be the person I'm directing my question to. What assurances can we give to front-line enforcement officers who may be in a position where they're about to apprehend somebody who is facing a maximum penalty of $1 million? What assurances can we give to those front-line enforcement officers who are doing that, when the person they might be apprehending will be making a judgment call as to whether or not they want to pay that $1 million, or face that possibility?

[Darlene Pearson, Director, Legislation and Policy, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you for your question.

In a parallel process to this enforcement bill, which deals strictly with legislation, Parks Canada has been responding to direction from the Canada Labour Code, part II, to arm enforcement officers. We have received additional funds through Treasury Board so that—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I was armed, Ms. Pearson. I'm just—

[Darlene Pearson]

Well, this is actually now issuing sidearms. We're in the process right now of going through the acquisition of sidearms, of training up to 100 enforcement officers—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's my point.

[Darlene Pearson]

—and that will, I think, give those front-line people the safety you were talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Back to Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Wright. Awhile ago, you said that the fines had risen from $1 million to $5 or $6 million. What expertise or what example was used to establish these increases? Why was it not decided to set them at $10 million from now on?

[Cynthia Wright]

As I indicated, we were guided by other jurisdictions, and particularly in a North American context, but there is some academic literature on what are deterring factors for avoiding offences.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

A number of European countries are prescribing prison terms for environmental offences. If you looked at what was taking place elsewhere, why did this not influence you?

[Cynthia Wright]

Well, the laws do still have prison terms.

We did look at our prison terms relative to other jurisdictions as well. The reason we focused on the North American context is largely due to the perception that low fines give a business advantage. We were looking to neutralize any perception of a real business advantage with our major competitors.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Tremblay, you said awhile back that the majority of cases never end up in court. Does that imply that there is a mediation system, or do the enforcement officers simply decide not to prosecute?

[Albin Tremblay]

It depends on the policies being enforced, and these are very well defined. They enable us to include different criteria in the factors considered to reach such decisions. Our officers are trained to make such decisions. The Attorney General of Canada must also make decisions on some cases submitted to him and determine whether we should prosecute or not. These decisions by the Department of Justice are not the responsibility of our officers.

A good many of the decisions are made by enforcement officers throughout the country, according to the nature of the case and various factors, like incentives not to commit such offences, the seriousness of the offence, whether it is a first or second offence, and so on. A series of criteria helps us to select the best tool to achieve the objective, that is, to end the activity or to take steps so that the event does not happen again in the future.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

So there is no mediation system per se, as there is in other sectors?

[Albin Tremblay]

No. It is up to the enforcement officers to determine the best tool to use.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You go directly to court.

[Albin Tremblay]

We decide to go to court or else we use other tools before deciding to go to court.