Environment Committee on May 7th, 2009

[Sarah Cosgrove]

This particular creative sentencing tool would be one option the judiciary could look to, to assist in determining a sentence that, as a whole, would fulfill those requirements. It wouldn't always be applicable in every case, but it's again a discretionary tool available for the judiciary.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

What really concerns me, Mr. Chair, is that this can't be read in isolation. I'm looking at this and I'm reflecting on the fact that the government has changed the regulations with respect to environmental assessment. Right? There have been massive changes to environmental assessment. Anything under $10 million now is no longer subject to a federal environmental assessment unless it's inside a national park or inside marine conservation areas. That's the import of the changes they've made, which is something Canadians aren't aware of yet.

Given the fact that there is no more environmental assessment for stimulus investment purposes, according to the government, and that EA has been done away with for projects under $10 million, I'm really concerned about the flexibility here and about what kind of order can be made. That's why I'm following up on Ms. Duncan's subamendment. I know it was a friendly amendment accepted by the government. But I want to make sure that this is locked down so that we don't see any further watering down of environmental standards and environmental assessment in and around marine conservation areas and communities. We've already seen a complete gutting of environmental assessments.

Can you help me understand how these connect?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

As a point of order, I don't see anything in this that relates to environmental assessments whatsoever, I'm sorry to say. We're not talking about environmental assessments here.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

May I respond, Mr. Chair, to the point of order?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If a judge is given the discretion to direct a $100,000 fine to a community association, the Canterbury Community Association, in my riding, which is near and abuts a marine conservation area, and if the community association uses that for the construction of an expanded community association hockey rink, and it's no longer subject to an environmental assessment, I think these two connect. Don't they?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I don't see that. But quite frankly, to get this discussion moving, I'll withdraw my point of order. I just think it's a red herring.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there further questions for the officials, Mr. McGuinty?

Mr. Bigras, Ms. Duncan, and Mr. Woodworth want to address this issue.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's not to the officials, but I did not understand the import of Ms. Duncan's subamendment. Could someone read it out for us?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Duncan, would you read out your friendly amendment that was accepted by Mr. Woodworth, I believe?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, certainly.

It would read:

directing the person to pay, in the manner prescribed by the court, an amount to environmental or other groups to assist in their work related to the marine conservation area where the offence was committed.

The intent, if I could explain, is....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think we know what your--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. McGuinty had said that he didn't understand the intent.

The intent of my amendment is to make it clear that the court may award it to an environmental group or any group--because they might call themselves a scientific group and not an environmental group, which makes sense--but only to those groups that are actually engaged in work related to the marine conservation area. I don't think the--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, that would be even if they're not in the area itself.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Exactly. In other words, it shouldn't be necessary that they live in that area. It also means that if they are not the environmental group, they must be engaged in work related to the marine conservation area.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Right.

We'll go to Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Regarding amendment G-2, I understand the spirit of the proposed paragraph 27(1)(q) and (r), but looking at paragraph (r) in particular, basically what the government wants is to allocate some funds to the education sector. This provision reads as follows:

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

I'd like to move a friendly amendment. I propose the addition of the word “including” between “institution” and “for scholarships”. The spirit of the provision would not change, that is the money would be paid to an educational institution, most likely for the purpose of establishing scholarships. However, the option would remain of using the funds for another purpose.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Woodworth, do you accept this as a friendly amendment?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If I understand correctly, the amendment would be to add, after the words “educational institution”--at least in the English version--the words “among other things”.

If that's what is proposed, then I do accept that as a friendly amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. That's great.

We can--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's not the translation, though, from what I understood. I'm not sure it was interpreted correctly.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that the gist of your proposal?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I'll repeat it. In French, the provision would read “[...] une somme d'argent notamment destinée à créer des bourses d'études [...]”. What would that be in English?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm not the interpreter.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I did not mean to say that there would not be a corresponding French language amendment as well. I only meant to speak to it in English, because that's what I understand.

I understand Mr. Bigras' motion to be that there will also be an equivalent change to the French language version.