Evidence of meeting #11 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:20 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
I just want to point out as well that the per day nature, or the possibility to charge per day, exists in many of our statutes already. It's quite a common factor in environmental legislation now.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That gives the courts a lot of latitude, but the maximum will be far above the $1 million. If it's $1 million per day, and if it's a second offence, it could be $2 million a day. Am I reading that correctly?
10:20 a.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
That's correct.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
Slide 10 deals with restoration, and Mr. Watson also asked about that. Could you elaborate on eliminating the profit that could be made from the offence?
In your opening comments, Ms. Wright, I think you mentioned that some would see the present fines as just the cost of doing business, and we want to eliminate that. If a profit has been made through this offence and there's a fine, but they're still ahead of the game after paying the fine, can the cost of the offence be increased by eliminating any profit that's been made?
10:20 a.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
That's correct. The bill proposes that there be an additional fine equal to any benefit or advantage or property gained from the offence.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay, then I'm reading that correctly. Thank you.
I'll move to slide 13. Ms. Wright, regarding the administrative monetary penalty, you used the example of somebody filing late. That tweaked my ears. I was hoping the example would be of somebody who was creating an environmental offence, not filing late. We then heard from Sarah that there were other examples.
Just for clarification, what is the main focus of this? Is it administrative, such as people filing late, or is it focused on actual environmental harm?
10:25 a.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
The administrative monetary penalties would not be used if there was actual harm. They are for what are considered administrative issues. I gave the example of a minor bag limit exceedance. One could argue there's a degree of harm there, but there's probably not an impact on the overall population of that species, so that would be considered a minor infraction.
They're not meant for cases of actual harm. My colleague gave the example of a spill; you would not use an administrative monetary penalty for that kind of infraction.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Could you touch on shipping? How is this going to be enforced, if there is a fine or an offence? We have more than 100 new environmental enforcement officers. How are they going to enforce the shipping aspect of it, and what are some of the concerns we may hear from witnesses from shipping, regarding this legislation?
10:25 a.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Maybe we could start with Albin, but Sarah could give examples of the kinds of concerns we might hear.
10:25 a.m.
Chief Enforcement Officer, Department of the Environment
For our enforcement officers, these are still the same laws and regulations that have applied up to now. One part of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency handles ship oil spills. Environmental emergency cases are determined very precisely, and our officers are invited to investigate. It's in these situations in particular.
For the rest, I can ask my colleague to give you more details.
10:25 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
We have heard from the Canadian Shipowners Association that they are somewhat concerned with the marine officer liability provisions being proposed, so we are addressing that.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Thank you very much, Chair.
I would like to follow up first on a point Mr. Woodworth brought up on the idea of publication of warnings, and obviously I won't get into the political side of things with you.
Mr. Tremblay, you said that the process culminating in a warning was just as rigorous as the process that culminated in the imposition of a summary fine. Is that so?
10:25 a.m.
Chief Enforcement Officer, Department of the Environment
The only difference is that the decision is not made by a court judge. Our enforcement officers are in fact the ones who, in specific cases, decide on the most appropriate means of correcting the situation and who issue a warning. This decision is based on a series of criteria taken into consideration. The warning is issued to the person who has committed the offence.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Once the warning is issued, a copy is obviously kept in the record of this individual or this organization, so that, if...
10:25 a.m.
Chief Enforcement Officer, Department of the Environment
It's entered in our information system, which contains all the cases we're working on.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
So, theoretically, it would be possible to make this information available if there were a political decision.
10:25 a.m.
Chief Enforcement Officer, Department of the Environment
Theoretically, yes.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Thank you.
To come back perhaps to Mrs. Pearson and the point Mr. Calkins brought out, which I think was a very important one, when we have enforcement officers out in the field, armed perhaps with a sidearm, imposing fines of potentially $1 million, have there been issues of security addressed? Are we concerned? Have there been incidents in the past when our park wardens have been in dangerous situations, and are we concerned that the increase of fines will have an impact on the safety of our officers?
10:25 a.m.
Director, Legislation and Policy, Parks Canada Agency
First of all, I should say that the arming of our officers is quite a new process for Parks Canada, and we are in the process of training people, hiring people who will be armed enforcement officers, and purchase of sidearms. There is a screening process involved. We do not yet have enforcement officers with sidearms in the field. We will be ready for this coming operating season.
I should point out that the question of a $1-million fine remains theoretical until there is actually something brought before the courts and a court judgment. What is of more concern is just having an officer in the field and making sure that person is properly protected and in a position to operate safely.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Park wardens, I know from stories and personal contact with friends, are often armed with rifles and .30-06s and guns to deal with bear issues and such. So there are many people out there with guns who are on our side, perhaps not specifically enforcement officers, but certainly a warden often carries a gun in back-country situations.
Are we not a little bit worried about potential conflicts there?
10:30 a.m.
Director, Legislation and Policy, Parks Canada Agency
No. I think the agency has taken measures to make sure that its wardens operating in the field are protected. And we're very carefully delimiting their duties and responsibilities that are enforcement-officer-related responsibilities, and those will be carried out by our armed wardens. Vis-à-vis the kinds of responsibilities that are more aligned with resource conservation, it's sometimes difficult to draw the line, but we're working on policies and we're training up to be ready to implement these new policies.
