Fisheries Committee on March 12th, 2015

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

On another point, the Canadian Maritime Law Association has issues with allowing the minister and not the court or judge to determine the amount and form of security to be given for the release of seized vessels or goods. Is that the way it should be? Should the minister have this power, or should the courts have this power? What's your view on that? There are differing views on this part of the bill.

[Tom Rosser]

My understanding is that the bill was drafted the way it was in order to respect our obligations under the convention on the international law of the sea. I don't know if other colleagues can elaborate beyond that.

[Angela Bexten]

First, I would mention that the securities issue is part of proposed section 13 of the act. It's not an issue that's being addressed by this bill.

To answer the question that has come forward, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as you know, applies to foreign fishing vessels. We have to look at the international context. Generally the rule is that once a foreign fishing vessel leaves Canadian waters, our jurisdiction ceases. This is not the case within NAFO, but as a general rule that's how it works.

The minister is advised by the department on any risks associated with that vessel. It is important for the minister to be able to establish the level for the security, given the potential for such a vessel to flee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'll get into the weeds a little bit on the bill. As a former ex officio fisheries officer, I'd like to drill down on some of the enforcement components of this bill. I see a lot of provisions outlined in this now that I suppose to some degree I'm surprised didn't exist in some other context previously.

First, though, I was in Washington this week talking about Arctic issues. We know that the Arctic waters are becoming a little bit more accessible. To Mr. Cleary's point, he's reflecting back on past enforcement history and stats around what Canada has experienced before, but we do need to look into the future as well when we're presenting this kind of legislation.

Looking at it from an enforcement perspective, could you talk about what we know about changing fisheries patterns and Arctic waters opening up, and where this bill could provide opportunities when we move into the future, regardless of what our enforcement statistics might have looked like in the past? Is that or is that not a serious consideration? Could this bill be of benefit to a changing Arctic fisheries environment?

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the member for the question. I'll offer my thoughts and then perhaps turn to my colleagues.

When it comes to fishing in the high Arctic beyond the exclusive economic zones of the five Arctic coastal states, there is no regime in place to govern fishing in that region, the principal reason being that there is no fishing activity taking place there currently. However, if that region were to become more accessible, one could imagine fishing vessels attempting to access it. There have been some informal discussions between the Arctic coastal states and other interested parties about how we could prepare to avoid such an eventuality and discourage unregulated fishing from taking place in that region.

It is conceivable that some of the provisions in this bill might be helpful in terms of putting in place an international agreement in that regard—

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

We have a framework here that's adaptable.

[Tom Rosser]

—but I'm perhaps getting into more hypotheticals than I should.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

No, no, fair enough; we don't need to go there. But the framework exists, and the moulding of this looks pretty solid in terms of the authorities and the punishment sections.

Proposed section 18.03 refers to offences and punishments of $500,000 maximum on indictment, $100,000 on summary, and second offences double. Then an interesting section right after that talks about fines and consideration of the benefits that may be realized.

How do those fine structures compare from an enforcement point of view with other legislation? Do you think those fine amounts are adequate?

[Tom Rosser]

Let me turn to my colleagues, Ms. Bexten and perhaps Mr. MacLean, to try and answer that one.

[Angela Bexten]

Thank you.

We undertook some research to determine the fine levels there. We looked at a number of pieces of federal legislation with regard to the fine levels, particularly those that related to wildlife and the harvesting of wildlife. The levels of the fines that you see there are very much in line with, for example, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, and WAPPRIITA, the acronym for—

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

—the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

[Angela Bexten]

Yes. It's a long one.

That is administered by Environment Canada. The fines there are in line with existing federal legislation for wildlife harvesting.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Excellent.

With respect to a combined program, where you're running education, compliance, and ultimately an enforcement program when you do this line of work, how do you think Canada has stood in terms of its...? I mean, you reflect on Canada not being a big contributor in terms of illegal international trade. I think that's a good thing. That exemplifies that Canada has a strong presence, and has had in the past solid laws in place and a decent penalty structure. Only adding to that, I think, we'll continue to see that trend of Canada being a fairly secure region.

Would you agree with that, and could you maybe expand on Canada's presence in the coastal waters?

[Tom Rosser]

At a high level, I would say that we believe we have a very robust enforcement and compliance regime in Canada, and that by global standards it compares very favourably with those in place in other jurisdictions.

I would concede that my colleague Mr. MacLean may not be altogether neutral on the matter, but he nonetheless may be able to give greater precision in terms of how our efforts compare with those of our international partners.

[Allan MacLean]

Thank you.

From a global perspective, Canada has a very, very strong reputation as having a solid compliance and enforcement regime in place. We are viewed as leaders. We are viewed as a country that can help developing nations in enhancing their capacity. Yes, I can put my own personal flavour on this, but from a global perspective we are recognized as having a very strong and robust compliance and enforcement regime.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Excellent. Thank you. That obviously is highlighted in enforcement statistics. If we're seeing low rates of violation or low estimation rates, then clearly it's signalling to the players in any international or illegal pursuit that it's not a jurisdiction in which you want to be pursuing those activities for fear of being caught and appropriately dealt with.

I'll again go into the weeds a little bit with a technical question. Proposed section 7.4 talks about the “dwelling place”. This is purely an enforcement line of questioning. When you board a vessel, that's a place that can be inspected or searched either on warrant or without warrant, and in some cases under exigent circumstances. Are there places on vessels that are considered to be dwelling places, by definition?

[Tom Rosser]

I think the answer to that question is, yes, in some circumstances.

[Allan MacLean]

Yes, there are places that are considered areas that you would not normally enter into.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Does the exigent circumstances provision allow you to apply that to a dwelling place?

[Allan MacLean]

Yes, exactly, and that would be very common. It's in the Fisheries Act and in other legislation.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Okay. Perfect.

Can you expand a little bit on the prohibited import piece under proposed section 5.6? Sometimes there obviously will be some inland reach. I see there is one section in the bill that allows protection officers to stop vessels and vehicles, so the vehicle portion would obviously have some inland reach for the authority of protection officers.

Is that an accurate assessment?

[Tom Rosser]

My understanding, and again, colleagues can confirm, is that one of the intentions of the bill is to move beyond simply enforcement on fishing vessels and fishing wharves to cover the importation of fish and seafood products at all ports of entry. One can imagine illegal product entering the country at land crossings and elsewhere, and one of the intents of the bill is to cover those eventualities.

Is that fair...?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

It's okay. That makes sense. We have inland waters that access the coast that people can come up into and that are quite deep. In Yukon we have the Yukon River, 2,300 kilometres from the Bering Sea right up inland. That expands some of that search authority, which I think is excellent.

In terms of prohibited import and products, is there a main fisheries product that Canada has centred on with that specific section, or is there such a broad range of potential contraventions of the act that you couldn't narrow it down? I know in some wildlife and fisheries enforcement in particular regions, you have really identifiable things that are high in trade and are subject to abuse. Is that the case with this act, or is it just too broad to narrow it down?

[Tom Rosser]

My understanding is, particularly as states adopt the port state measures agreement, that it is becoming more common for regional fish management organizations and others to adopt certification data to enable border officers to identify whether a product has been legally harvested or not.

One of the things that this bill will do is it will give us the authority to recognize those certification systems. For Chilean sea bass or Patagonian toothfish, I understand there is such a certification system in place. One of the things the bill will allow border officers to do is to ensure that the appropriate certification data accompanies fish imports into the country.

Again, I'll turn to colleagues to make sure I got that right.