Evidence of meeting #19 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's those where you have to show intent versus those where it's simply on strict liability, right?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to amendment G-14.
Mr. Woodworth.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
Again on page 145, we are dealing with proposed section 13.17. I don't know if I should call it a reverse image, but it reiterates in the Migratory Birds Convention Act what is currently provided for at proposed section 13.14 and explicitly provides for the defence of due diligence. It creates an exception from the due diligence offence for those offences that require proof of intent. So where mens rea is required, you don't need a due diligence defence.
However, as it's currently drafted on page 145, at proposed section 13.17, the offence of knowingly falsifying documents is not explicitly excluded, which it should be as a mens rea offence. Again, it's a drafting error in which, after the reference to paragraph 5.2(a), (c), or (d), we should have included also “knowingly contravening paragraph 5.2(b) or contravening section 5.3”. In other words, paragraph 5.2(b) was inadvertently omitted, but it is a mens rea offence and therefore it needs to be excluded from proposed section 13.17, which is intended to provide a due diligence defence where there is no mens rea requirement.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In this case, I'm not sure the additional words are necessary, but if it gives the government comfort that they're simply reiterating something that is already specified in those provisions, I'm okay with it. But I don't think it was really necessary here.
I'm fine with it.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 102 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 103)
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
This motion adds authority for the court to direct an offender to pay an amount to environmental or other groups to assist in their work in the community where the offence was committed.
First of all, I would accept the earlier friendly amendment that we discussed, in adding into this proposed paragraph 16.(1)(b.5), as we see it before us, in amendment G-15. After the words, “their work in”, add the words “or for”, so that it reads, “their work in or for a community near the place”.
This provision already existed in the form we see it, without that amendment, at least under CEPA, and it should have been added to this statute as well but it was inadvertently omitted.
With that friendly amendment, I would move G-15 as we see it before us.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have G-16.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Yes, G-16 is again similar to what we have seen previously, in that it deals with the suite of powers. We are attempting to widen the phrase “environmental studies” to read “studies related to the environment”.
Again, I would accept the friendly amendment of Mr. Bigras in proposed paragraph 16.(1)(d.2), to add the word “including” after the words “educational institution”.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 103 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 104)
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'll move that existing motion as we see it before us in G-16.1.
The motion amends subsection 17.1(3) of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, for clarity.
It's necessary, in light of the existing and proposed authority, for the court to order an offender to compensate a person. It's actually, I think, a duplication of what we have seen earlier in allowing the compensation scheme of Bill C-16 to be preempted by the compensation scheme and the Marine Liability Act or the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, in order to prevent any conflict with the international conventions that those acts seek to implement. I don't think there's anything—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Yes.
There's nothing new to it, but I will accept G-16.1 and the friendly amendment to replace the word “may” in both proposed subsection 17.1(3) and proposed subsection 17.1(4) with the words “is entitled to”.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 104 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 105 to 108 inclusive agreed to)
(Clause 109 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 110 to 113 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 114)
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
This again deals with the suite of powers for the judge. I will move G-17 as we see it before us, including Mr. Bigras' friendly amendment, which adds to proposed paragraph 21.3(1)(r), after the words “educational institution”, the word “including”, with the same consequential amendment in the French version.
I will also accept the friendly amendment by Ms. Duncan to the last line of proposed paragraph 21.3(1)(q), adding after “their work in”, the words “or for”, so that it would read, “their work in or for a community near the park”.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That is not satisfactory to me. What is important is that there be the potential for giving an award to an environmental or other group that is doing work in or for the park, and not necessarily for a community that's near the park, because there may be no community near the park.
