Environment Committee on April 30th, 2009

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

On the other hand, I think I heard you say that you support the increased fines that are present in this legislation.

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

We do not take issue with that at all.

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

Okay.

I want to understand further the concern with respect to the civil test of balance of probability being applied, as opposed to the higher, criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” test. Given that this particular aspect of Bill C-16—and this is where Mr. Woodworth was going—is restricted only to the administrative monetary penalty component of the act, I want to ask you to clarify, if you would, why you think this would affect the burden of proof in the prosecution of offences, given that this test only applies to the AMP component.

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

I'm sorry; I'm a little confused. That has to do with the fine. We don't take issue with the fine; we have no problem with it. We support the penalty provisions and we think the polluter should pay. We have no problem with that.

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

Perhaps it was Mr. Boucher who touched on this.

[Mark Boucher]

Mr. Woodworth asked earlier what page it was on; it's on page 186. And the point that Kaity raised earlier is found on page 186. She raised the point that the minister “has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the person, ship or vessel committed” the offence. As was stated earlier, if one thing is expressed, the rest is excluded. I'd leave the comment on that to my legal friends.

You're right that it's solely in the administrative monetary penalties portion of the bill. That's the new statute; the rest is amendments to nine other statutes. That is the sole place in which it appears.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Watson, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for appearing.

As a lead-off question, I would ask you this. How many other statutes are you aware of that have an explicit section articulating presumption of innocence? You're asking for something to be explicitly put in here with respect to a presumption of innocence. I'm not aware that such a provision exists in any other statute. Am I missing something?

I'll take that as a no and move on to the next question. But it's because it exists in the common law, I believe.

Our international conventions, to which you referred earlier—I believe it was the Maritime Law Association who raised the issue in their brief—are with respect to oil pollution damage. Are there any other kinds of pollution that can be caused by ships? You also mentioned the bunkers convention, which would be for the leak of bunker oil, but are there any other types of pollution that can be caused by ships?

[Christopher Giaschi]

Pretty much all we see is oil. Of course, theoretically you certainly could have--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

What else could there be?

[Christopher Giaschi]

I suppose there could be anything else that a ship carries and dumps. We had canola oil in Vancouver, which was considered a pollutant.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In 2005 I raised a question to the then Liberal government with respect to the reports of the practices of Canada Steamship Lines with respect to cargo sweeping. That is the discharge of remaining iron ore pellets into the Great Lakes. Is that another potential source of pollution?

[Christopher Giaschi]

I don't know about iron ore pellets, but it could certainly be any other type of cargo like that. But that's not supposed to happen.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Fair enough, but any other type of cargo discharged, if you will, that could pollute is not caught up under our international conventions. Is that correct?

[Christopher Giaschi]

No, it doesn't affect the fact that most of the pollution is oil, and that's what those conventions deal with. There's also the hazardous and noxious substances convention, which is being worked on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you have more questions? Do you want to go on?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much. I'll split my time with Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

First of all, I will make a quick apology. I was so interested in asking my questions quickly and so interested in some of what I thought were questionable points that I think I may have been a little too vigorous earlier. I do apologize for that; I didn't mean to be.

Getting back to the AMPs, Mr. Boucher, are you familiar with the Canada Shipping Act?

[Mark Boucher]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Are you familiar with the fact that the Canada Shipping Act contains an AMPs procedure?

[Mark Boucher]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Are you familiar with the fact that the AMPs procedure in the Canada Shipping Act is also based on a balance of probabilities onus of proof?

[Mark Boucher]

Absolutely.

[Mark Boucher]

This is recent legislation, recent regulations on administrate monetary penalties for violations of the Canada Shipping Act. We're not aware of any so far. We're watching it closely and are very concerned about it.

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

I don't think those involved in the operations of ships should not have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I think strict liability for imprisonment should not be there.