Fisheries Committee on March 10th, 2015

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Rosser, you spoke about the rules for fishing vessels entering our ports. What about other foreign pleasure vessels or whatever? They can certainly bring in a lot of things we don't want in this country. What is the difference between regulations for a pleasure boat or a yacht, let's say, coming in from some other country that could deal with invasive species? What are the differences between the regulations in place for these vessels coming in and those in place for fishing vessels entering our ports?

[Tom Rosser]

The amendments proposed in this bill broaden enforcement capabilities to cover not just fishing vessels but also other vessels that may be trans-shipping unlanded fish products. They broaden the definition of where those enforcement powers exist to include all ports of entry into Canada. I think when the international accord was negotiated, the scenario they had in mind was illegally caught harvest being moved from a fishing vessel to some other vessel on the high seas, and you wouldn't want that to circumvent—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It's just pleasure vessels coming in with some.

[Tom Rosser]

It seems improbable that a pleasure craft would serve as the entry into Canada for illegal—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

—container vessels.

[Tom Rosser]

—container vessels. The kinds of situations in which harvest is transferred from a fishing vessel to some other vessel would fall within the scope of the act if the amendments in this bill were adopted. That is the intent.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

The bill provides for a warrant issued by a judge for a peace officer to enter a dwelling place without consent. This is an entry warrant, not seizure. Is that right? Can you explain this a bit more? There are concerns, because in places around the country a justice of the peace is not qualified as a provincial court judge, but the judge would be the one to issue the seizure warrant. Am I correct? I'd like you to explain that.

[Tom Rosser]

I'll certainly try. Again, my colleague Allan MacLean may be better placed to offer details. The way the Department of Justice officials have explained it to us is that the language in the amendment is fairly standard legal language in terms of how one goes about obtaining a warrant. That process, that aspect of the administration of justice, is the jurisdiction of provinces. In terms of how it works, it will vary somewhat across provinces. As I understand it, the amendments proposed here, as other federal legislation referencing a warrant process, which we have used, contain fairly standard legal language.

Allan, do you have anything to add?

[Allan MacLean]

That's correct. It's standard legal language.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you.

The Canadian Maritime Law Association takes issue with allowing the minister and not a court or a judge to determine the amount and form of security to be given for the release of seized vessels or goods. How would you address that issue?

[Tom Rosser]

I will again turn to my colleagues, but the high-level answer as I understand it is that we have an obligation under the international law of the sea to provide a mechanism for the prompt release of foreign-flagged crew and ships that have been seized. There is a bonding process that allows that to happen, which typically involves a negotiation between the department and the vessel owner. What's proposed in the amendments is intended to conform with our obligations under the international law of the sea. That's my understanding.

Tim, perhaps....

[Tim Angus]

That's correct, Tom. That's in compliance with our obligations internationally.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay. You have reached the end of your time.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks, gentlemen, for being with us today.

I just want to go back to the port state measures agreement. I think you indicated that it needed 25 countries to ratify it and that so far 11 have ratified it. I'm just wondering what further steps, if any, Canada has to take beyond the amendments through Bill S-3 in order to be able to ratify it. That's my first question.

Second, in Bill S-3 there's a new prohibition against importing illegally acquired fish or marine plants. That's in clause 4. We added new section 5.6 to that act. Is this prohibition required to implement the port state measures agreement? Also, could you talk a bit about the current extent of the problem of illegally acquired fish and marine plants being imported into Canada?

Third, do any of the amendments in Bill S-3 address the problems of shark finning?

[Tom Rosser]

Thank you for the questions. I'll try to answer them in order.

In terms of bringing Canada into compliance with the treaty and Canada's contribution to entering into force of the global treaty, beyond passage of this bill in order to bring ourselves into conformity with the requirements of the international agreement, there will be subsequent regulations that will be required. We have already begun to contemplate that process should this bill receive royal assent. Legislatively, this bill is sufficient to bring Canada into compliance with the port state measures agreement.

We are part of a global community of countries engaged in fishing. We like to think of ourselves as playing a leadership role in advancing sustainability standards in that regard. Certainly, in our discussions with international partners, when we're in dialogue with those that have not yet ratified the treaty, we will encourage them to move forward. We are often asked by our partners where we are in advancing efforts to ratify the treaty. We encourage others to do likewise and try to play an international leadership role in that regard.

In terms of fish and marine plants and the definitional amendments proposed in the bill, my understanding is that—and again, I'll turn to colleagues to validate this—the international agreement contains a very broad definition of marine life and that the definitional amendments proposed here are intended to reflect that in our domestic legislation.

The bill will, for the first time, give Canadian law enforcement officials the ability to scrutinize, and where appropriate, ensure the legality of fish imported into Canada. That's one of the consequences of the amendments proposed here.

I'm just trying to make sense of my notes on your final question.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It was about shark finning.

[Tom Rosser]

In some respects, depending on developments in regional fish management organizations to which we are party, this bill could conceivably make a helpful contribution to bringing some scrutiny to the import of shark fins, but it won't do so in the near term, the reason being that if regional fish management organizations to which we are currently party chose to develop a catch certification system for shark fins or for any other fish, or marine products for that matter, this bill would enable us to adopt regulations that would mean that the certification regime would have to be respected for products being imported into Canada.

Only in that circumstance, which hasn't happened in any of the RFMOs to which we are party, this bill might be helpful. But no, the bill isn't designed, in and of itself, as drafted to provide systematic scrutiny to the import of shark fins into Canada.

Canada has had for a long time, 20 years or thereabouts, a robust domestic regime to ensure that shark finning does not take place in Canadian waters. But the bill wouldn't address the issue of bringing systematic scrutiny to the import of shark fins into Canada.

[Tim Angus]

I would just build on Mr. Rosser's point by adding that the import prohibition is critical as well to address the issue of containers, which is currently not dealt with in the existing Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

Mr. Rosser covered the waterfront, but I would just add the point about the importance of the import prohibition, which is created by this legislation.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Following along on that, the bill does amend the definition of fishing vessel. Why is it being amended and how will that definition change from what it is today?

It also amends the definition of fish, so why is the new definition important and how is that consistent with the Fisheries Act?

[Tom Rosser]

Again, in both cases the intent of the definitional changes is to bring Canada into conformity with the international agreement in question.

The agreement has a fairly broad definition of fish and marine life, so we've tried to capture that in the amendments that are included in this bill. Likewise, the negotiators of the treaty were trying to ensure that there weren't loopholes, if you will, whereby somebody might be able to circumvent the provisions by having illegally caught fish arrive in a port in a vessel that didn't meet a definition of fishing vessel.

That's my understanding of the motivation behind the definitional changes there. They are broadened to include other kinds of vessels, and also to ensure that in any port of entry where illegally caught fish may be entering, the relevant authorities have the powers necessary to address the situation. As I understand it, the current legislation applies to fishing vessels and wharves, so that in situations where illegal, or suspected to be illegal, product is found in some other place such as a warehouse or what have you, enforcement officials have the necessary authorities to take the appropriate actions.

That's my understanding. Again, I will turn to Allan.

[Allan MacLean]

Yes—

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Just further along those lines, all the way through this today we've been talking about collaboration and sharing of information, and you've alluded to the importance of that and how this is going to improve things.

How will Canadian authorities collaborate to enforce these new rules? You have different agencies and departments, so how is that going to happen?

[Tom Rosser]

Again, Allan may be best placed to answer this question, but my understanding is that.... I mean, clearly they do collaborate. Conservation and protection officers and Canada Border Services Agency officers work collaboratively as it is when foreign-flagged vessels enter Canadian ports. As Allan mentioned earlier, we do work collaboratively with law enforcement agencies abroad.

What this bill will do is to provide clear authorities for collaboration and information sharing between domestic law enforcement agencies, conservation and protection, CBSA, and potentially the RCMP, as well as between Canadian agencies and their relevant counterparts abroad.

It isn't a question of there being no collaboration now, but there will be clear legal authority to allow for certain types of collaboration that we believe will enable our law enforcement authorities to more effectively and efficiently do their jobs.

[Allan MacLean]

Individual departments and agencies have their own rules around what they can share. They collect information for certain purposes, and they only collect and share that information for those purposes. This will give clarity to exactly what Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Border Services Agency, as an example, can share. It will certainly increase the collaboration and the ability to look at departmental databases to see what product is moving where and when so that we can take more effective and efficient action.