Environment Committee on April 30th, 2009

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Then the next question—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, Mr. Woodworth. Are we going on to another point?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there any rebuttals to Mr. Woodworth on that particular point before we move on to maybe—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Chair, with all respect, this is Mr. Woodworth's time—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So I will give him the time.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

—so I don't think that for you to decide whether or not he should be using his time to hear rebuttals to his question is appropriate. It's his time. He should be able to use his time to stay on the topic he wants and question the people he wants.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have no problem with that. I just feel there might be a bit of confusion here, and before we move on—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I don't think there is any confusion, Chair.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I thought the witness answered my questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

So the witnesses have nothing to add to that?

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

I should apologize. I thought he wanted some sort of response to the strict liability/absolute liability charter point.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

No, my questions were not about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, go on, Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

But I do have a question for Ms. Arsoniadis, and that relates to proposed section 20(2) that she referred to. I've forgotten the page number, but it's the section regarding the administrative procedures and administrative monetary penalties that allow for balance of probabilities rather than for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually, could you refer me to the page number, if you have it? If you don't, that's okay.

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

Are you referencing the three letters that were sent, in the brief?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

No, I'm referencing your comments this morning about proposed section 20(2).

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

Just this morning? Yes, I didn't reference any sections.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Then let me just ask you this. Are you aware that the onus of proof as a balance of probabilities does not apply across the board in Bill C-16, but only applies to the administrative monetary penalties?

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

Yes, I'm aware, and I think the way we'd like to put this forward is that with Bill C-16 raising the penalties now to $6 million, with aggravated to $12 million on a strict liability basis, we're not arguing about this increase in penalties.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

No, I'm talking about the balance of probabilities issue you raised.

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

And I'll get to that.

Our concern is that, given that we're increasing enforcement in that capacity and that we're allowing for very heavy fines, which—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Not under the administrative penalties.

[Kaity Arsoniadis Stein]

No, under the Bill C-16 enforcement provisions.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

But you've said you're aware that the balance of probabilities does not apply across the board to Bill C-16.