Evidence of meeting #43 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I think Angela was going to respond to this first. Perhaps I'll have a comment after that.
12:30 p.m.
Acting Director, Global Fisheries & Marine Governance Bureau, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert either, but I can provide you with what our legal counsel has...what my understanding is of the issue.
I can only, of course, provide you with information based on a similar provision in the Fisheries Act. I can provide you with information on—
12:30 p.m.
NDP
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I understand what you're saying, Mr. Godin, but let her finish.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I understand what your question is, but I do understand that any piece of legislation is vetted by justice officials and they do have a basis for their decisions, or the decision to proceed forward and—
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Maybe they never heard this question. Mr. Chair, maybe they never heard this question yet.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I understand mistakes have been made, but what I'm trying to say more than anything else is, let her finish, please.
12:30 p.m.
Acting Director, Global Fisheries & Marine Governance Bureau, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you.
I can speak to the experience that we've had in relation to the Fisheries Act because there is a similar provision in the Fisheries Act. As we've described, the intent is to allow the court to impose an additional penalty where the maximum is deemed as being not a sufficient deterrent. In the approach in the Fisheries Act, which is similar, has been recognized in court decisions and the courts can interpret, and have interpreted, that an over-ride or an additional penalty can be imposed.
April 28th, 2015 / 12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
That's exactly what I was going to say. I don't know that I see the problem.
I have two comments.
First of all, that's not the point of this particular amendment to Bill S-3. The amendment that's before us is basically because we've now added 5.6(3). Now we need a penalty section that refers to 5.6(3). That's what this amendment is about. Clause 16 does take into account all of 18.
At the very least, we should pass this amendment and deal with the amended clause. I don't see a problem with it. This works just as other legislation, like—as Angela said—the Fisheries Act, where the courts will use the legislation to decide what constraints it's under in terms of what penalties it can enforce.
This gives the courts the ability to impose a fine that's beyond the maximum if they think that the individual has perhaps sold the goods and made $200 million, $2 million, or $100,000 that is already in his pocket.
This is intended to be a deterrent so that people don't just....Some of these IUU fishing fleets know how it works. They're willing to pay the cost of doing business sometimes by paying the fine. This makes it more difficult for them.
It does work that way. While I understand the concern about whether it would stand up, I don't see why it wouldn't. We have some experience with the Fisheries Act and other pieces of legislation in that regard.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to try one last time to seek reassurance about the part of the bill that worries me.
If I understand the law correctly, if someone steals everything I own, which could have a value of $30,000, he will not be charged according to his success or lack of success in selling what he stole from my home. The offence is serious because the person has stolen goods of a value of $30,000 from an individual.
Can you assure me that with this new bill, a judge will have the leeway needed to decide that the offender has committed a major offence, if the theft is one of $8 million?
There was a robbery. The resources of honest fishermen have been stolen. Even if no profit was made and the individuals did not have time to develop a market to liquidate all of the merchandise, will a judge have the necessary leeway to say that the intention was serious enough and the value so high that he will impose a fine of more than $500,000, which is the current ceiling, because of the gravity of the offence? We are talking about millions of dollars that could potentially be liquidated and the intention of doing so on an illegal market. Will the judge have the necessary leeway not only to impose a $500,000 fine, but also to impose a higher fine, higher by some hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if there has not been any profit in the short term, because of the seriousness of the crime? Will the judge have the necessary room to manoeuver to do that?
If you tell me that according to the current wording of the bill, the judge could impose a sentence proportional to the seriousness of the crime, regardless of the fact that the individual has or has not had time to make a profit on the market, I will stop asking the question. I will trust you.
Can you really confirm that the court will have the necessary leeway to conclude that, given the seriousness of the offence, the fine need not be limited to $500,000 even if no profit was made with the stock that is worth millions of dollars and which was caught illegally?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Director, Global Fisheries & Marine Governance Bureau, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
My understanding is that that is exactly what proposed section 18.04 allows. It is effectively an override of the maximum penalty, and that would be dependent on, of course, the situation. Every situation is different, but my understanding is that that section does allow that additional fine, that additional penalty.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
If I were a lawyer, I would do what Mr. Godin said and I would jump on the sentence that says: “on condition that there were no profits”. After all, they did not make a penny with the $8 million stolen from the fishermen because they did not have time to sell the merchandise. Personally, I would take you to court for three years on the strength of those words. If you tell me that that is not going to happen, well, we will see.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I think we're in a situation, Mr. Chair, where we want a legal opinion, but we do not have it. I think it would be very safe for the government to make sure that this amendment does not put something in place that would allow something illegal.
Without a doubt we need to know that this is not something that can be used.... We see court cases every day. We see the crown going to court. We see the crown losing.
If I were a lawyer, the first thing I'd head for is that cap. This is the problem I'd see. I just don't understand why it would be there. Again, it could be shoved through, but I think it's awfully inappropriate for the amount of time it would take to have somebody tell us exactly what this means.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.
Your request, and I believe the opposition's request, is to stand this clause. That would require a motion from the committee, and that motion would have to pass in order to do that once we start into these proceedings.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I move that the committee go to the next sitting meeting and bring in the official who will not just come in and say“ I think”, but will say, “Here it is.”
I think it is very important.