Evidence of meeting #18 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So I suppose if someone is saying they'll relocate their head office elsewhere, that's just so they can avoid actually having the money taken out of their bank account.
Would you have any insight into how the enforcement works on fines or the collection of fines? They're a little harder to collect if the head office is overseas than if they're in Canada. Is that the way it works?
10:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
My understanding is that if the vessel were to be charged--and a vessel could be charged--then the vessel itself could be an asset.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
There's one last thing I want to double-check. The issues around international conventions and liability of ships are generally enacted into Canadian law through the Marine Liability Act. Am I right about that?
10:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
My understanding is that the Marine Liability Act puts into law in Canada those conventions that Canada has ratified. In particular, the civil liability convention is reflected in part 6. I believe there is a bill before Parliament, Bill C-7, which would put into law in Canada a new bunker oil convention as well as a convention whose acronym is LLMC, the name of which I can't recall right now. My understanding is that it's reflected in the provisions of part 3 of the Marine Liability Act currently, although it has never been formally ratified in Canada. My understanding is that Bill C-7 will have the effect of formally ratifying it in Canada.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
One of the amendments you presented us with previously--and we see an updated version this morning--is in fact to exempt shippers from Bill C-16 if the Marine Liability Act and the international conventions it enforces apply. Is that correct?
10:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Such a provision currently exists in the MBCA, and the provision is opened up in the bill in order to make a consequential amendment. In addition, the government has four draft government motions that would bring exactly the same kind of provision into other acts where the conflict could arise.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Time is just about up, Mr. Woodworth.
I'm told the government has no other questions. We can go to the Bloc and the NDP for five minutes each.
There are no questions from the Bloc.
Ms. Duncan, do you have a question?
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I have a quick question, following up on Mr. McGuinty's question.
In drafting these laws, was there consideration given to the availability or affordability of onshore in-Canada bilge or other waste disposal facilities or alternatives to dumping at sea?
10:10 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
I apologize, but can you repeat the question?
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This is following up on an earlier question asked by Mr. McGuinty.
In the course of drafting these amendments to these statutes in relation to illegal shipping dumping, I'm asking if consideration was given to the availability or affordability of onshore in-Canada bilge or other waste disposal facilities--in other words, an alternative to dumping at sea, which is something that may well come up in a due diligence defence.
10:10 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
Consideration to that specific issue wasn't given in preparation of this bill, because we didn't change any of the substantive requirements found, for example, in division 3 of the statute. The requirements weren't changing. We only amended the sentencing and enforcement tools.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Right, but you have increased the maximum and minimum penalties. Did you not do any costing? Surely there must have been some kind of economic rationale for why you imposed the minimum or maximum as opposed to.... Is it not considered a deterrent if you didn't do any assessment? I'm trying to figure out how you came to the determination of what the new maximum and minimum would be.
10:10 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
The amounts found in the tiered fine scheme apply broadly across the entire Canadian Environmental Protection Act as well as the other nine statutes amended by the bill. We did look at a number of factors. Primarily we based those new fine ranges on an Ontario model. We looked across Canada at where the maximums and minimums were, and we based our maximums on the Ontario model.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
10:10 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
As I said, we looked at other models to determine it.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much for those informative replies.
We're now ready to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).
Is it my understanding that all of you, or some of you, will be staying for clause-by-clause?
10:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Cosgrove, Ms. Tingley, and I will be staying. I think Mr. MacCallum would take his leave of the committee unless the committee felt that the issue of due diligence needed to be explored further.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have no objection, unless someone else does.
Thank you, Mr. MacCallum, for your insight.
Please bear with me. I've never done clause-by-clause in this position, so I'm relying a great deal on Mr. Côté, our legislative clerk.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), clause 1 is reserved.
I shall call clause 2.
Mr. Warawa.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, Bill C-16 is a huge bill, but there's a suggestion of how to deal with it efficiently. Maybe the legislative clerk can give us some guidance.
If we were to begin with “Shall clauses 2 to 11 carry?”, we could deal with that in a lump, because there are no amendments proposed to any of those clauses. The first amendment deals with clause 12, and then we can deal with the amendment. I don't know if there's consensus support to move that way, quickly and efficiently.
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand how Mr. Warawa wants to proceed, but it seems to me the rules don't allow us to adopt clauses in blocks. We consider them clause by clause. It can go quickly. I insist that we proceed with a clause-by-clause consideration, not by blocks of clauses.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall clauses 2 to 11 carry?
(Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive agreed to)
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We now turn to clause 12.
(Clause 12)
The Bloc Québécois is moving an amendment.
Mr. Bigras, do you wish to read your amendment?
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill C-16, in clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 9 with the following:
perpétration de l'infranction;
There's a minor correction to be made here, because it's written “l'infranction”.