Environment Committee on March 26th, 2009

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

Do you think that this will have an effect on the denunciation of environmental offences? If the penalties are being increased, it is because we want cases to go to court, but often court appearances only occur two or three years after the offence.

Do you think that the increase in penalties will help reduce offences?

[Albin Tremblay]

Ms. Wright has already answered this question. Studies do indeed show that bigger fines act as a deterrent to committing such offences.

Many very important cases are resolved more easily and more quickly, thanks to directives, whether ministerial orders or other measures, which eliminate the need for court appearances. In most cases, we get the result desired, namely to end the offence or to avoid its happening again, without having to go to court. There are tools other than prosecution to enable us to achieve our objectives.

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

How will people be made aware of the high fines? I don't know any better than you how much I would be fined if I committed an offence with my credit card, or what fine or prison term I would get if I did a robbery.

What makes you think that increasing the fines will change people's attitudes?

[Cynthia Wright]

One of the things we do after any new legislation is passed and it has gone through the full process is compliance promotion. I do think that the corporations and individuals operating under our legislation, particularly those corporations and individuals who get annual permits for hunting, are well aware of the current fines.

Before the law passes we will make every effort to make sure they're aware of the augmentation of fines. There's that period of time between royal assent and proclamation, and we will do active compliance promotion in that period of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Braid, you have the floor.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing and for your excellent work on this very important piece of legislation.

Out of curiosity, have you received any feedback from the corporate sector with respect to this proposed legislation, informally, formally, or anecdotally?

[Cynthia Wright]

We haven't consulted on this piece of legislation. There have been other consultations as we've looked at how effective our legislation is, but there has been no specific consultation on this bill.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to the environmental damages fund, I believe you indicated in your presentation that it was first created in 1995. Could you start by giving us a couple of examples of how that fund has been used in the past.

[Cynthia Wright]

If I may provide a very recent example, the J.D. Irving company was found to be guilty of destroying a large nesting area for herons in the Atlantic region, where it was operating. The court did direct payment to the environmental damages fund so that Bird Studies Canada could do some specific research.

Most of the time, with the environmental damages fund, the courts are indicating where they want the resources to be spent, and they are directing it to where the harm occurred. They often aren't quite as prescriptive as they were in the Irving case, where they indicated the money should go for research, but most are indicating there be some general restoration of the damage related to the harm. That's why, across the country, we have databases that give us ready access to the groups who can do that restoration work.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Who manages the fund?

[Cynthia Wright]

Environment Canada manages the fund. There are other statutes not under Environment Canada's authority, to which fund payments can also be made. So we coordinate with other departments, notably Transport Canada, and some others.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

It would seem logical under this bill, with the increased fines and the new mechanism for administrative monetary penalties, that the fund will grow or increase. Have you given any thought to what additional resources and management structure you may need to appropriately manage the fund?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes. Budget 2008 already gives additional resources for managing the fund. The fund is managed in cooperation with other community-based funds, so we are as efficient as possible. Environment Canada has other community-based funds, such as ecoACTION, and it's the same people who do that work. So our overhead expenses, if you will, for managing the fund are minimal. But we did get additional resources to support us in 2008.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Excellent.

Changing tack, if I still have a moment, regarding the mechanism to notify shareholders of environmental infractions, or damages in this case, has any thought been given to the timeframe in which and the mechanism through which shareholders will be notified?

[Cynthia Wright]

I'll let Sarah answer that, because I'm not sure if we have that detail yet.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

That detail isn't included in the bill. That could be part of the discussion or the cases submitted by prosecution staff. And the discretion would be with the judge, if that were to be specified.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay, very good.

Lastly, perhaps this is a legal question, but could you help me understand the different scenarios where a summary conviction would be applied and where an indictment would be applied?

[Cynthia Wright]

I think it would probably be best for Linda to give some guidance on that.

[Linda Tingley, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice]

An indictable offence is a more serious offence. There is a specific procedure for that set out under the Criminal Code, which a prosecutor and the judge would follow if an information or a charge were laid; that is, if the crown elected to go by indictment. In some cases, the crown can elect to go by indictment; in other cases, an offence is an indictable offence. Our offences are mainly hybrid offences, meaning that the crown prosecutor elects whether or not they want to proceed either by way of indictment or summary conviction.

I think the determination is generally made on the basis of the penalty, because the penalties for indictable offences, as you can see in the act, are much higher than they are for summary conviction offences.

The other difference would be the limitation period. For summary conviction offences, there's currently, in most of our legislation, a two-year limitation period in which an information or charge can be laid and the prosecution proceed. Under the Criminal Code, it's six months; in our legislation, it's generally two years. And under the bill, we're proposing to increase it to a five-year period from the time the subject matter of the offence comes to the attention of departmental officials.

I hope that's an adequate response to your question.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

It's very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to our witnesses for appearing.

I have a question about the environmental damages fund. You're directing that all fines be paid to the EDF. The question is, who gets those funds? And by that I'm sort of asking whether these funds will be applied to the remediation of the specific offence, or is that left up to courts to decide to impose restitution? I want to get to the nature of what the EDF will be used for.

[Cynthia Wright]

It is an account that Environment Canada has access to, and the bill still allows the court to make a recommendation. Currently, where they have full discretion, sometimes the court doesn't indicate at all, so Environment Canada officials will look at the nature of the harm that was done and decide if it's something that's of a general nature. We do have proposals submitted to us for the environmental damages fund, and we might select a proposal that's relevant to the nature of the harm.

Sometimes where there's actual damage done, we will look for someone to do a very specific work, restoration of nests or cleanup work. So it's a bit variable, but it is a fund essentially managed by Environment Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. So do I understand correctly that the fund can actually be applied to the specific remediation of the offence that was committed?

[Cynthia Wright]

Correct.