Evidence of meeting #147 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was s-238.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay, that's fine.
We've established that there's no conflict if Bill C-68 and Bill S-238 both pass. There's no statutory conflict. Is that correct?
Just to reaffirm, there's a bit of a differentiation, and this would allow, in theory, law enforcement officials to then choose whichever legislative body they deemed would be most effective. Is that true?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
When Senator Harder introduced amendments during the Senate committee process, he introduced a coordinating amendment as well, so that if Bill S-238 receives royal assent before Bill C-68, when Bill C-68 does receive royal assent, it would supersede Bill S-238.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay. I just want to know if it's feasible in theory. If both pieces of legislation pass, a charge could be actually laid under two pieces of legislation for the same act, in theory, and then the Crown would have the ability to determine which piece of legislation is statutory. I think res judicata would say that they can only be charged for the one offence one time through one vehicle.
Is there any scenario whereby somebody would get charged under both pieces of legislation if they both come to pass? How would we handle that in a criminal matter?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The amendments that were introduced by Senator Harder basically provided Bill C-68 with precedence, so if Bill S-238 does pass and Bill C-68 passes, that coordinating amendment would strike down Bill S-238.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
That's how the coordinating amendment is working. Bill C-68 would take precedence.
Okay, thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
We'll now go back to the government side with Mr. Morrissey, for five minutes or less, please.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, and I may share the remainder of my time with Mr. Rogers.
I just need a clarification, Mr. Gillis. If this legislation is passed, it would have no negative impact on Bill C-68 and it would not take away from the provisions under Bill C-68, correct?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
If Bill S-238 passes...?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's right.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
They would not conflict, so they would not take away from the protection provisions that are anticipated under Bill C-68.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's correct. If Bill S-238 receives royal assent and Bill C-68 does not, Bill S-238 stands. If Bill S-238 does not receive royal assent and Bill C-68 does, those provisions prevail. If they both receive royal assent, Bill C-68 prevails.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Okay, so it becomes a moot point.
Just as a further clarification on a question my colleague Mr. Fraser asked, is the enforcement on the importation and exportation the responsibility of the Canada Border Services Agency? Who has the enforcement role?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
CBSA would administer these—
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Would they have the ability to audit where a product, a shark fin, was being used in a food establishment? Would they have the ability to audit to trace where it came from?
This is for whomever.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It could be the CFIA.
Manager, International Biodiversity, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
Are you asking who would do inspections of that?
Under WAPPRIITA and the products and the species that are regulated under this act, the wildlife enforcement officers and Environment Canada have the authority to do inspections and to ensure that the conditions of WAPPRIITA have been met. In a case like you're suggesting, when there might be a question as to whether something was imported in contravention of the act, it would be the wildlife officers in ECCC.
Manager, International Biodiversity, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
They do have that ability, yes, for products that are under WAPPRIITA's regulation.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
I've just one question, really.
This is so unethical and so wrong, and we're trying to do something about it here in Canada, yet you can see online imports of shark-fin soup used for special occasions or as a luxury item in Chinese cuisine and so on.
Is what we're doing here going to be impacting what's going on in this industry? If we're going to continue to import these kinds of products into our country from other sources and if we ban that, what kind of impact would that have on the international stage?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
As I referenced in my opening remarks, Canada is a small portion of the shark-fin global market, but that said, I think that this is one step towards deterring shark finning.
I think I'll let my comments rest there.
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I'm just going to add that it wouldn't have an impact on the soup itself that we were importing. It would have, as Paul said, an impact on the shark fins, but the soup could still be imported, if I understood your question correctly.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I'm going to ask one question.
Mr. Forsyth, did you say that shark-fin soup could still be imported?