Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Gander-Grand Falls and the member for Gaspé who are now having an extremely interesting debate that demonstrates their knowledge of fishery resources. This is a refreshing change from constitutional issues.
One thing concerns me when I read Motion No. 65. This is not in the original bill, it is an addition to it, an addition comprising some twenty paragraphs. In the three years I have been here, I have rarely seen such a technical and precise motion. I would like to draw the House's attention to it.
For example, when the motion says: a ) completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information portion;
this is quite precise language on the subject of tickets and the manner in which they must be completed. The motion goes on: b ) delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at the accused's latest known address; and c ) filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable afterward.
I believe this is obvious. I have rarely seen such wording in a bill.
Subclause (2) then reads:
(2) The summons and information portions of the ticket must
(a) set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged commission; b ) include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence.
To me, that seems obvious. When an officer decides to complete a ticket it is because he believes that someone committed an offence. I do not see why that should be included in the bill. That reminds me of the time when someone in the municipal council where I was a councillor proposed a bylaw saying that it was forbidden to steal books from the library. We had to argue for five minutes to have him understand that it was not necessary because everybody already knew it was forbidden to steal.
The motion continues: c ) set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid; d ) include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused.
That too seems obvious to me.
I continue: e )include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.
Since when is an accused not required to appear before the court?
Then subclause (3) states:
(3) Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.
Namely, the Queen. I do not think this will go as far as England, but it does not matter.
(4) Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket, a ) the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken against the accused in respect of that offence; and b ) notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are forfeited to (i) Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada, or
and this is what concerns the member for Gaspé when he says that when it is time to collect fines, the provinces have a role to play
(ii) Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.
Why would the federal government want to give so many details in a piece of legislation? It is really unusual in an act, as opposed to a regulation, to be so specific, unless the federal government wants to have fines collected by provincial civil servants.
This is the new role the federal government wants to hand over to provincial governments. The federal government is doing its planning from Ottawa and it is having trouble. I listen to the member for Gander-Grand Falls. People think that Ottawa can predict all the migrations the member described just now, and I saw him get the member for Gaspé going all over again. I was saying to myself they even know the exact time, the very week. He even says that today the bluefin tuna are going after mackerel. Obviously they have this level of knowledge because they are close to the resource.
This is the concrete proof that this resource should be administered as close as possible not just to the people, but to the fish, the bluefin tuna and the mackerel. I am amazed at such knowledge. In Ottawa, they want to plan things from their turf, and when it comes to writing up tickets, they tell us exactly how. I do not see in the bill a level of detail as astonishing as what we have just heard from the member for Gander-Grand Falls.
I say to myself that it makes no sense to look at the administration of fish resources like this, to talk about regulations, and I could go on. This is the point I am trying to make. I ask the question. I wonder if this is why the federal government wants to deal with the provinces and does not include them in policy planning and development consultations. However, it wants them to have the role of collecting fines. But where is the concern with saving fish and fish resources, when the sort of thing the members are telling us about goes on while the resource is disappearing? While the bluefin tuna is devouring the mackerel, we are sitting here worrying about the form used for fines.