Environment Committee on May 7th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We now come to clause 48.

(On clause 48)

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I believe that amendment was withdrawn.

[Wayne Cole]

Yes, BQ-7 was withdrawn. We're now on G-6.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

There's government amendment G-6 for clause 48 as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, we're on to government amendment G-6 now. Is that correct?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's withdrawn. Well, it's not withdrawn; it has just failed.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Clerk, does another amendment apply to G-6?

No, so this is a brand-new amendment.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I will move before the committee the amendment set out in G-6, and I will speak in support of it by pointing out that these are additions to the Canada Wildlife Act that were inadvertently missed.

Clause 43, which I believe we've already passed, has added authority for the minister to designate analysts. Analysts are officials with technical expertise who go along with the enforcement officers and perform functions such as taking samples, for example. They're the CSIs, I guess, of the environmental world.

The additional text before us will ensure that documents signed by analysts are admissible as evidence of the statements contained in them without the analyst having to testify. For those who are familiar with the Criminal Code and breathalyzer provisions, this is similar to a breathalyzer technician or analyst's certificate being allowed to stand in court without the analyst having to testify.

The provision also ensures that the party against whom the document is produced can require the attendance of the analyst. So it will be up to the accused; if they do want the analyst there, they can require the analyst.

And no document is received in evidence unless the party producing it has given the party against whom it is produced reasonable notice. So the government will have to give notice to the accused that it's going to rely on the certificate of the analyst, which is the same as other similar provisions I'm familiar with in the Criminal Code.

Then, if the accused wants the analyst to come and testify, the accused is permitted to do so.

This is standard in legislation providing authority to designate analysts. For example, it already exists in the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there any discussion on this?

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understood about half of that. It's too bad we didn't get advance notice of the rationale that's backstopping this.

To the officials, then, or maybe to Mr. Woodworth.... Actually, I'd rather have the officials respond, because Mr. Woodworth doesn't—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I can slow it down.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No, it's more along the lines of....

This has an impact on the law of evidence. Is that correct?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It is an amendment that determines an evidentiary procedure, yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right.

So can I ask the officials, is this consistent with the Canada Evidence Act?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

Yes, it is consistent with the Canada Evidence Act. It is not contrary to the Canada Evidence Act, and it is quite a standard type of clause that exists in numerous federal statutes, Mr. Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

So there was an omission in drafting. Is that right?

[Sarah Cosgrove]

Absolutely.

A similar provision is included in Bill C-16 for some statutes, but there was an oversight regarding the Canada Wildlife Act, Mr. Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there any more comments on G-6? Should we vote on it?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Then we must go to NDP-7, I guess. No, those were all consequential.

(Clause 48 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 49)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Now we go to clause 49 and G-7 on page 22 of the amendments.

Would Mr. Woodworth like to speak to G-7?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, I will move G-7 as it appears, but with at least one friendly amendment proposed earlier by Mr. Bigras to proposed paragraph 49.1(16)(d.2), so that it would read in line 3, “an educational institution, including for scholarships for students”, etc.

If I could just have a quick moment to look at proposed paragraph 49.1(16)(d.3), I can't see the same concern as Ms. Duncan had.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

There's a small change.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

For the moment at least, that's the way I'll move it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you have a friendly amendment, Ms. Duncan?