That's a good question, Mr. Chisholm.
The way the court would normally work, if this were to be at the court, is this. Under the Federal Court rules, typically what will happen, if a vessel is arrested, for example, for a civil claim, is that the court will release the vessel on bail set at security for the amount of the claim up to the value of the vessel, essentially substituting the security for the vessel. In the case of a prosecution, we would think that from an equitable perspective it would be the same. But the fundamental issue here is that the court is bound by stare decisis to follow its own precedent and its governing rules, whereas the minister or a fisheries officer is not. So in theory, the minister or the fisheries officer could set an amount that is prohibitive or could simply refuse to release the vessel by not agreeing to the form of security. They're not bound by the same desire for consistency as the courts.
The concern, as was recognized in R. v. McDonald, is that setting an amount that is prohibitive essentially prevents the vessel from being released at all, and in a situation in which the alleged offender is particularly egregious, you can perhaps understand that. But were somebody to eventually be acquitted, that means that for two years or three years, perhaps, they will not have had the use of their vessel.