Environment committee  Well, I think it's hard to look at examples and pull them out of the air. I look at a murderer, for example, who may have the smoking gun in hand, and he's still afforded the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Environment committee  He will, and--

Environment committee  I don't think those involved in the operations of ships should not have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I think strict liability for imprisonment should not be there.

Environment committee  I think they can be made available, yes, so long as the presumption of innocence is in place. That's our concern.

Environment committee  I do, and I really think that all the crown has to show is that the substance entered the water. That's it.

Environment committee  And that's not enough in our free and democratic society, where our charter, at section 11, strongly puts into our Canadian country that we have the right to be presumed innocent.

Environment committee  Now we're talking about the actus reus and the mens rea. I'd like to see the crown prove the mens rea before we have the imprisonment attached.

Environment committee  We do not take issue with that at all.

Environment committee  I'm sorry; I'm a little confused. That has to do with the fine. We don't take issue with the fine; we have no problem with it. We support the penalty provisions and we think the polluter should pay. We have no problem with that.

Environment committee  I can assure you that this issue is very high on the agenda globally. At the IMO, we agreed on a convention in October, with enforcement very shortly. We have working groups on this, not only at the IMO level but through every seafaring nation. It is at the top on the agenda, it

Environment committee  Further on that, we're not denying, we agree. The polluter has to pay. We do not take issue with that. If there is a pollution, it should be paid for. If it's a $6 million fine or a $12 million fine, we do support that. We are not here to challenge that proposition. The polluter

Environment committee  We don't deny that. The fact that there is strict liability with massive penalties attached to it is one thing, but strict liability for imprisonment is another. So we're hoping it satisfies our parliamentarians that strict liability with massive fines will satisfy the concern, a

Environment committee  Yes, I do.

Environment committee  I don't think our courts would throw that principle out the window. In fact, I think they hold it as probably the most fundamental principle, as do we as Canadians. That's why we're here today. We have one case, the Wholesale Travel case, which is post-charter, that was decided

Environment committee  If I may, there are instances in shipping operations where there could be a leak for some technical reason, and it doesn't necessarily mean that somebody has been guilty of doing something. It could have been a malfunction of equipment. In that case, it's not recognized in the le