Environment Committee on May 7th, 2009

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand, but did we not make a series of earlier friendly amendments to paragraph (o) dealing with this question of working in communities, in places...?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. That is correct.

The amendment that was proposed by Ms. Duncan to replace what we see before us in paragraph (o) with the words.... I'm sorry, let me stop for a moment.

Perhaps the clerk can assist us with that. Was there an amendment “to assist in their work in a community”? My memory fails me.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Yes. I think we said that instead of “work in a community near”, it was “work related to the place”.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. If the clerk confirms that's what we did in the previous amendment, we should do the same in paragraph (o) and I'll accept it as a friendly amendment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

G-7 has to be amended differently because it's written differently from all the others. It could be simplified by simply saying, “to assist in their work in or with the community”. That covers the same thing.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I think the previous wording was “in or for a community”. That captures what we did previously.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. The last part is slightly different, but I'm satisfied with adding “or for”.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would accept that as a friendly amendment to paragraph (o).

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Could we read it out?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Woodworth, please read it out.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

New proposed paragraph 45.1(o) would then read:

directing the person to pay, in a manner prescribed by the court, an amount to environmental or other groups to assist in their work in or for a community near the place where the offence was committed;

New proposed paragraph 45.1(q) would read:

directing the person to pay, in a manner prescribed by the court, an amount to an educational institution including for scholarships for students enrolled in studies related to the environment;

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will go to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 93 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 94 to 96 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 97 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 98 to 101 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 102)

That brings us to clause 102 and amendment G-12.

Mr. Woodworth, please enlighten us about G-12.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I shall do so. This is on page 43. There was a minor drafting error in clause 102. It adds proposed subsection 13.13(2), which makes directors and officers of corporations who own vessels liable for the offences of the vessel if they “directed or influenced the corporation's policies or activities” .

The intention of this is to make directors and officers of corporations who own vessels liable for the offences of the vessels if they direct or influence the corporation's policy in respect of the conduct that is the subject matter of the offence. In other words, any director or officer will influence the policies of the corporation, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be liable for the conduct that makes up the offence.

The section really needs to be tightened up to make it clear that the directors and officers are only liable in relation to the offence. This adds the words “in respect of conduct that is the subject matter of the offence” after “the corporation's policies or activities”. So directors will only be liable if they have influenced the policies or activities of the corporation in relation to the conduct that makes up the offence. If the directors have influenced the conduct or policies of the corporation in relation to tax law or other things unrelated to the offence—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's still reprehensible, but not relevant.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, reprehensible, but not relevant to environmental enforcement. Thank you.

In effect, this is simply correcting a drafting error to make it crystal clear that it's their liability for the offence that we're trying to capture.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there discussion?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's only the offence. That's the purport of this, right?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's the conduct that is the subject matter of the offence.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're at G-13, Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In this case it is again a drafting error that relates to proposed section 13.15, which is added at page 145 of Bill C-16. I'm afraid I need to have that in front of me to really explain this one.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

What page?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On page 145 you'll see proposed section 13.15. What we are attempting to do is just take into account new section numbers by indicating that in prosecuting a master or a chief for the offence of contravening a certain section, or knowingly contravening another section, or contravening another two, it's sufficient to establish that the offence was committed by a person on board the vessel.

But what we were really trying to say is that for an offence under this act, other than those offences, because--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Well, those offences in effect already import the requirement of knowledge, so we're not trying to affect those, actually. We're trying to affect all other offences where knowledge is perhaps not imported, and in those cases we are trying to say it's sufficient that the offence was committed by a person on board, whether or not identified.

So again, it's simply a drafting error in that the words “other than an offence of” were omitted. I know that's a bit difficult to follow, but that is the explanation.