Environment Committee on May 5th, 2009

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madame Caron, not to ping-pong back and forth, but I want to go back to the economic viability and recruitment theme that you raised at the beginning. Serious comments were made about the impact of this proposed regime on the ability to attract investment, expand fleets, and recruit folks to work in this industry. The government recently called for full costing of another bill, Bill C-311, which we will get to here at some point--in June, we hope. Did you cost the implications of this new regime and what impact it might have in economic terms on investment in the country, or its affect on difficulty of recruiting new staff?

[Renée Caron]

This bill doesn't change any of the requirements that are established at law for the shipping industry or, for that matter, other industries. All it does is change the maximum fines that can be imposed. It creates a tiered regime for fines and tries to bring penalties up to date, some of which were very badly out of date. In practice, all the legal requirements and the prohibitions that apply are the same; those haven't changed, so the industry is subject to the same regime as it was subject to before.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I take it that no economic analysis was performed.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

We did consult internally with economists in relation to the setting of fines as part of our research. Again, primarily we did that, but we also looked at other jurisdictions as models for fine ranges. It was not necessary to do any economic analysis in terms of actual technical requirements or obligations being placed on the industry, because again, those aren't changing. Pollution control requirements remain the same, and practical obligations in the nine statutes being amended are not changing.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Did you read the testimony of two of the four witnesses from last session?

[Renée Caron]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I read all the testimony from Thursday.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How do you respond, then, to the repeated concerns raised by the representative from Toronto and the other fellow who was here, whose name escapes me? It will come back to me. Who was the fellow who came last week from...?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you mean Mr. Giaschi?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No, not the lawyer, but the other one. The other gentleman came here representing the labour movement or the union workers, I believe, and I'm just wondering whether or not--

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Was it Mr. Lahay?

[A voice]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Were their concerns unfounded? When they speak about the difficulty of attracting business, about ramifications of these changes internationally, our competitive positioning, and our ability to attract--all of those things that were repeated I don't know how many times--are they unfounded?

[Renée Caron]

Mr. Chairman, I would say that perhaps there was a little too much emphasis on the $6 million and the $12 million. Certainly from my reading of the testimony, that seems to be the point that was retained.

In relation to the human resource challenges that are faced by the industry, it's important for the members to know that the maximums for serious offences for individuals don't change under the bill. Moreover, for less serious offences, the maximums actually come down for individuals under the regime. This tier or gradation system now tries to match appropriately the degree of the penalty with the seriousness of the offence.

The human resource challenges may be caused by a number of factors, which I wouldn't necessarily be able to comment on, but I would point out that the regime doesn't change the maximums to which individuals could be subject.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We'll move now to the Conservatives.

Mr. Woodworth, do you want to continue?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, if that would be all right. Thank you.

If I can pick up the thread I was trying to reach before, the Canada Shipping Act does not require notification to the Attorney General for prosecutions of foreign vessels, am I correct? Maybe you don't know.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

I would want to verify that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Let me phrase it in the opposite manner, then. Bill C-16 does require notification to the Attorney General in relation to prosecution of foreign vessels where UNCLOS might be involved. Am I right about that?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

Under two statutes, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Attorney General's consent is required.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

That's the intention behind that. That's in the existing statutes. The intention is to ensure that appropriate notice is taken prior to proceeding and that international laws are considered.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Translating what you just said into the words I'm dealing with, am I to understand that the reason for notification of the Attorney General is to ensure that this prosecutorial policy of not seeking a prison sentence or violating UNCLOS is adhered to?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

That is the policy intention behind that provision being in those statutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to the questions around the economic analysis, to be honest with you, my reaction to hearing shippers come before us telling us our penalties are too high and therefore they're not going to come into our waters is, fine, I have no problem with that. If our penalties are there to encourage people not to pollute and they say they're worried about polluting and therefore they're going to take our business elsewhere, I don't have a problem with that personally.

But I do want to understand one point on the issue of head offices and economic issues. These penalties are fixed on people who ship through Canadian waters, regardless of where their head offices are, aren't they?

[Renée Caron]

Yes. That's correct, Mr. Chair.