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
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, we're on to government amendment G-6 now. Is that correct?
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That's withdrawn. Well, it's not withdrawn; it has just failed.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Clerk, does another amendment apply to G-6?
No, so this is a brand-new amendment.
Mr. Woodworth.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
Liberal
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—
Liberal
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?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
It is an amendment that determines an evidentiary procedure, yes.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Right.
So can I ask the officials, is this consistent with the Canada Evidence Act?
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
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.
Liberal
Manager, Legislative Advice Section, Department of the Environment
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.
Liberal
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])
Liberal
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)
Liberal
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?
Conservative
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.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
For the moment at least, that's the way I'll move it.
Liberal