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.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Oh, I'm sorry. I would like the government to present and explain the amendment first, and then you can respond.
Mr. Woodworth.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
The issue in this case goes back to the question of the full suite of orders that we're attempting to give the court. We've already dealt with one of them, I believe.
In this particular case, what we're doing is allowing the court to order an offender to pay money to an educational institution for scholarships for students in studies related to the environment. Secondly, we are allowing the court to direct an offender to pay an amount to environmental or other groups to assist in their work in the community where an offence was committed.
This provision is similar to one that already exists under CEPA. It was intended to be added to all of the acts that we're dealing with here today, but it was inadvertently missed. The purpose is to ensure that the court has authority to direct the offender to contribute to environmental and other related work in the community affected by the offence.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes. I would like to suggest a subamendment to that amendment. I think it will allow for better delivery of the purpose and intent of your amendment. The way it reads right now, the court could direct payment to any group for any work and all they need to do is live in the community near the marine conservation area. I'm proposing an amendment to replace the words “work in a community” with “work related to the marine conservation area”. I'm making that proposal for two reasons. The way it reads right now, the money could be awarded to anybody who's doing anything whatever in the community. It also is extremely nonsensical in the case where, if you have marine conservative areas, in many cases there's absolutely no community anywhere near the site. So it would be appropriate to allow for the allocation to any group that is doing work related to the marine conservation area and its protection, which is probably far more likely the case.
It's suggested as a friendly amendment to allow for what I think is the purpose and intent of what you're proposing here.
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'll just repeat. This would replace the words “work in the community near the marine conservation area” with “work related to the marine conservation area”.
Conservative
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Perhaps Mr. Woodworth can clarify. Can you tell us how this relates to amendment G-1, which has been delayed?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Amendment G-1 was not quite as extensive in that I think it really only dealt with changing the phrase “environmental studies” to “studies related to the environment” to give it a broader scope, whereas this amendment adds an item that was entirely inadvertently overlooked.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So what does that mean, Mr. Chairman? Does that mean that amendment G-1 is now withdrawn?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
No. Amendment G-1 is still required to broaden the phrase “environmental studies” to “studies related to the environment”, but in addition to that, we do require amendment G-2 to fill the gap of leaving out the ability of a court to order an amendment to a group to assist in the community where the offence was committed.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
May I ask, Mr. Chair, through you to the officials.... I do share some of Ms. Duncan's concern about the broadness of this. The officials gave us a single page on which the specific orders that are permissible under all acts amended by this bill are laid out. I have the page in front of me. Do you have the page?
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
Yes, I do.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I've gone through these, because we'd started this discussion at the last meeting and we were going to come back to this just to get a sense. They're very specific, and I'm just wondering, is there latitude here? Not to be facetious, but if under (q), for example, the person is directed to pay an amount to the community association near the marine conservation area for a hockey rink, would that be permissible as currently written?
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
I could probably assist again in pointing out the chapeau, the introductory paragraph in each provision where these court order powers exist. I'll read the provision out of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but similar language exists in all the other statutes:
Where an offender has been convicted of an offence under this Act, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed under this Act, the court may, having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, make an order having any or all of the following effects:
Then there's the list of creative sentencing tools. Mr. Chair, a principle of sentencing is that the judiciary is attempting to fulfill the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and environmental restoration related to that particular offence, so there is latitude within the language of those creative sentencing tools. However, there is a required connection between the specifics of that offence.
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
It was deterrence, denunciation--
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
--and environmental restoration.
Liberal
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, which particular provision are you asking me about?