That is okay; I will wait. I think it's important.
If similar cases are covered in legislation, has it ever been challenged before the courts? If it has been but was found to be solid and without issues, that is good, but perhaps it never has been. For the time being we do not have an answer.
If the department states that it has been challenged that means that there is case law which would solve certain problems. If it has not been, I do not remember foreign fishers getting caught in Canada. Perhaps if we took a closer look this might not be the case.
Has the law been challenged and did it prove solid? I think that simply to solve the problem we could link this provision to clause 18.04 to ensure that the government has been given the power to go beyond the $500,000 limit.
Mr. Kamp, you say that this exists elsewhere, but if the law was never challenged before the courts, we cannot know if it is adequate and sufficiently robust. Our study of the bill is almost over. Today is Tuesday and everything could be said and done on Wednesday if experts appear, or if you, as a government, say that you have studied the matter, concluded that this is a good point and that this provision should be amended since that would be highly sensible.
There is nothing clearer than something spelled out in black and white. As my colleague Mr. Lapointe said, we are not lawyers but legislators. Our responsibility is to legislate. Lawyers like nothing better than provisions that are not specifically spelled out, in black and white. The two parties can then put forward their own interpretation and in those cases the lawyers make a lot of money.
I think that sometimes some people want the law not to be clear. We have the opportunity of making sure that these issues are clearly explained, in black and white. I'm happy I'm not a lawyer because in my opinion we have to consider the logical aspect of a situation and the profits that may be made. There is nothing worse than ambiguous cases. We asked questions, but these people cannot answer them. We devoted at least 15 minutes to this. We would like a reply, a clear reply as to wether this law exists, and whether it was challenged before the courts, and that it is solid and there is no problem at this time. However we heard nothing about this until now.
Imagine the situation when a similar case is submitted to a judge and the two lawyers have their own interpretation, and millions or hundreds of millions of dollars are at issue. The proceedings will last two, three, four or five years. The ship has time to rust and start to rot. Today, however, we have the opportunity to do something about this.
Since this is the last clause that is left, I would respectfully ask that we wait till Thursday to meet our experts. They will be able to enlighten us on the matter. I think that is also the wish of the government. I hope we don't have to remind you in four years that we warned you.