Environment Committee on May 7th, 2009

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

I understand what you're saying. However, why is it that to the right of this provision, in the margin, no mention is made of entering a building? The reference here is to the right of passage. Correct?

In fact, you've just demonstrated that the clause and the proposed change do not concern solely the right of passage. The aim here, by using the word “dans”, is to broaden the application of this provision, whereas in the English version, that is not what is written. The reference is to the right of passage.

I don't understand your explanation of the word “right” and the expression “ right of passage”, if this right extends to entering a building.

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

The expression “private property” is used in English. In my view, “private property” has a fairly broad meaning.

[Darlene Pearson]

Just for clarification, as I don't want to mislead the hon. member, it's not our intent to go into private property without the proper authorizations. That's why in the English it does say “over” or “through” or “over private property”. It's not intended to create the right to go into private property; it's a right of passage to allow them to carry out their duties.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

May I ask a question? Would adopting Mr. Bigras' motion pose a problem? Would there be consequences, from a legal standpoint, or in terms of how the act is interpreted?

Go ahead, Ms. Bourbonnière.

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

I believe this provision is found in a number of federal acts. The proposed wording is similar to what is found in other federal acts. For the sake of consistency, I think it's preferable to keep this wording.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would we be taking a risk by going along with Mr. Bigras' proposed wording?

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

While I'm not a jurilinguist, my concern is that some may argue, if we substitute “sur” for “dans”, that there is a discrepancy between the two versions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So then, you do have a concern. You've just answered my question.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

As I see it, the difference between “dans” and “sur” is that if a person must enter a dwelling or building to get to the property in question, the word “dans” allows that. However, if the word “sur” is used, then this does not automatically allow a person to pass through a building. I'm not sure if this relates in any way to the right to search a building. That may be an entirely different matter. It merely concerns the right to enter or pass through a building to reach the place where duties can be discharged.

Therefore, I would be concerned, if we opted to go with “sur”, that persons would have access only to the land, and not to buildings. Access is not restricted by the use of the expression “dans une propriété privée”.

[Darlene Pearson]

The intent of this passage is not to contravene any of the procedures that are standard procedures for requiring warrants to enter into private property. This would not give any rights that would go counter to standard procedures that would require a warrant.

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

That is precisely the point that I wanted to discuss. On page 106 of the bill, under “Inspection”, the following is noted in section 13:

(2) An enforcement officer may not enter a dwelling-place without the occupant's consent or a warrant issued under subsection (3).

I'm trying to understand. Pursuant to section 20.1 “[...] enforcement officers and any persons accompanying them may enter on and pass through or over[...]”. At the same time, however, pursuant to subsection 13(2), “an enforcement officer may not enter a dwelling-place”—in other words private property—“[...] without the occupant's consent or a warrant issued under subsection (3)”.

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

The fact is that a distinction is drawn between a private dwelling-place, for example, and another type of building, for example, a warehouse, a place that does not have the same...

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

Is a warehouse considered to be private property?

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

Yes, but in this instance, expectations as far as privacy is concerned are vastly different. Some buildings, for example, are more accessible to the public.

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

So then, as I understand it, this subsection deals with the right of passage, whereas further on in the legislation, there are provisions that grant certain powers to the enforcement officer, provided that person has a warrant.

We can check into the language used, but I maintain that the French version of this provision grants greater authority to enter on or pass through property than the English version does. That's the impression I get. We want this provision to be amended to read “sur une propriété privée”, taking into consideration the right of passage and the fact that enforcement officers must have a warrant before they can inspect a dwelling-place.

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

Yes, the provision deals with the right of passage of persons in the discharge of their duties. If, in order to discharge a certain duty, a warrant is required, then this provision does not alter any other provision in the act.

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

Is there some way, Mr. Chair, to check the scope of the wording used? I appreciate the witness saying that similar wording has been used in the past, but let me tell you that in my 12 years of experience serving on various parliamentary committees, I've seen cases where the words used in the French version did not have the same significance as the English words. We proceeded to amend these bills in committee and after checking into things, we found this to be the case.

It's not a question of bad faith or incompetence. I simply want to be sure that the French and English versions mean the same thing.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you asking that we defer this clause, as we did for...

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

We're proposing an amendment to clause 21, but clauses 30, 44, 58, 97, 109 and 118 are also affected by this...

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'd like to turn the floor over to Mr. Woodworth. All right?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I understand the point Mr. Bigras is making. With the greatest respect to the officials, I also understand the desire of lawyers to maintain consistency, but I really don't see a strong problem with Mr. Bigras' amendment and I'm going to support it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have Ms. Duncan first, and then Mr. Trudeau.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm wondering if the lawyers can explain to me if this right of passage is also provided for in other statutes, or is this something peculiar to investigating ships that you would have to go through?

You mentioned the fact that there's a requirement to have a warrant and so forth, but it is peculiar that this one specifically deals just with the right of passage. It would appear that the interpretation of the wording should be consistent with providing right of passage through a shipping facility, and so forth, which would help us. It's hard to read this outside the context of the statute. Maybe this might explain how we should be interpreting it.

[Renée Caron]

I would just like to ask Ms. Cosgrove if she has a table that covers all the statutes this affects.

[Sarah Cosgrove]

The answer to your question is that this type of provision is not unique in this bill or this statute. In terms of this bill, the concept already exists in five of the nine statutes we are amending. These are just amendments to make the text consistent across the board. There's really nothing unique in terms of ships or the maritime context. The concept applies across the board to all potential applications of these statutes.