Fisheries committee  The problems with the current act have been sort of discussed. There is some uncertainty around some wording. Two big parts of the story today are that these problems are not all new. A lot of these difficulties are going way back, at least 15 years, and that's really important.

Fisheries committee  I don't have the specifics of that case, but certainly going back to the question earlier, actus reus, mens rea, there is no mens rea requirement. But once the actus reus is proven, then the defence has the right to establish due diligence. That happens all the time.

Fisheries committee  If you read some of the policy statements that came out at the time, I think that, with the addition of section 6, the idea was that this would create some kind of certainty and would guide proponents and everyone to understanding what's going on. Unfortunately, again, because th

Fisheries committee  With regard to that comment, as a former DFOer, I think it's also really hard being a DFO employee. It has been very hard being a DFO employee for the past 15 years. That's one of the things, I think, that the committee has to think about, as well, in its report. I certainly don'

Fisheries committee  Again, if the facts are such that there was due diligence, usually that's the work that fishery inspectors or officers will look at on the ground. I think when they make a recommendation on whether or not to charge, certainly if they think a defence of due diligence exists, then

Fisheries committee  I would suggest a public registry where every authorization that DFO issues comes with a monitoring requirement, maybe not all of them, but many of them, and have that data coming. In addition to that, DFO should partner with agencies that are actually doing some of this work, w

Fisheries committee  Again, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's not possible to show in the span of three years, population level impacts on any fishery resource in Canada. Again, I defer to my scientific colleagues to correct me on that. This is the point that I think the Wild

Fisheries committee  I would just echo that I think that's exactly right. This is part of my brief, with class authorizations and regulated standards for those projects that have been pre-assessed and identified as posing a low risk. You know, the “carry on” type of thing. Notify DFO so that DFO know

Fisheries committee  I'll jump in with one quick one, and I'm proud to bring this example back from Alberta. If you go to the Alberta Energy Regulator website right now, it is a very high-tech website where you can access information on applications, you can access information decisions from the Alb

Fisheries committee  In a letter I sent to the committee on September 22 of this year, I encouraged the committee, before it starts its review, to task DFO with an audit of all current section 35 authorizations or a random selection of them, and to also go out into the watershed and do the exact asse

Fisheries committee  No, only actus reus.

Fisheries committee  I don't see how.

Fisheries committee  I agree that as a general principle, clarifying the law usually means it's easier to prove actus reus, all things being equal, but I guess there are a couple of points that I think need to be made on that point. The first, of course, referring back to Mr. Sopuck's invocation of S

Fisheries committee  I used to practice, for six years.

Fisheries committee  Yes. Before 2013, I did work alongside other legal services members in prosecuting a metal mining effluent regulation charge.