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.