Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 17 of 17
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-04-28 11:38
Mr. Chair, much of this has been pie in the sky.
I'm wondering if we've started to get to the point where we're now engaging in a continuation of the study for our own personal interest outside the material or germane issues to this piece of legislation that we're trying to cover.
I do know the questions we asked, and clearly, I am trying to be respectful and not engaging in a point of order on this very piece.
I think the officials who are here are trying to advise us on the implications of any amendment or the specific aspects of this clause by clause. I don't know if we're starting to move toward asking these questions because we're interested in things other than those that actually have a material impact on the bill.
I was going to talk for another seven or eight minutes, but I won't. I'll just quickly turn it over to Mr. Weston to introduce the group he has, if I'm allowed to divert my time quickly.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-04-28 11:49
I won't belabour it, Mr. Chair, but I don't disagree with things. Mr. Kamp, I think, summarized my intention quite clearly. Just to speak for myself, it wasn't Mr. Cleary saying that. Of course, by no means are those comments a personal attack on Mr. MacAulay's opinions or questions. It was very much what Mr. Kamp had indicated. In that respect, I think we're able to focus on what we need to do. And you ultimately, Mr. Chair, have the ability to accept any of the comments or invitations by any of our members to do that, and that's the process, and that's democracy working.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-24 12:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both of our witnesses today.
My question is directed to you, Mr. Henley. It's great that you're in support of the bill, by and large, and I know that Mr. Kamp touched briefly on the one amendment you proposed. Since that is the one piece of concern you have, I figure it's worth exploring that a little bit more.
I've listened to a fair bit of your testimony on the who, the how, and the when IUU fishing comes into Canada and who is involved. I fully appreciate your perspective on the natural justice application of that and the decision of the court over the minister in respect of that section 13 piece.
I gather though that seizures, by and large, are done for two reasons, either to prevent the continuation of the offence, or in respect to securing and preserving any evidence that might be there.
In that regard, we say that in theory the minister could create a cost-prohibitive sanction or not release at all if he doesn't deem the monetary value to be of significance. But of course in theory that begs the question, what are we observing in actual practice?
That will form the basis of my question around how many occurrences do we know exist where the minister has deployed that. As well, by and large, who is it applied to? Are these Canadian vessels or are they international vessels?
In that respect, if we're dealing with international vessels, and again, respecting your point on this, it would seem to me that if we have international vessels—and in the best case scenario, or in the worst case scenario, depending on what side of the seizure you happen to be on—as you indicated, you're going to get the cost of the vessel in terms of cash, if that's the price the minister or a court were to set.
But it would appear to me that if we have an international vessel coming in with IUU fisheries, subject to seizure—so we can prevent the continuation of that offence and secure and preserve any evidence—Canada, as a nation, would be better off having the vessel than the cash, and having that vessel slip out of our waters again and then continue the harmful practice. I assume the point of having the minister retain that discretionary ability is perhaps prescribed by regulation and monitored by their own precedence, which could and would reasonably be set simply by the principles of natural justice. But it would seem to me that Canada would be far better off having that vessel, to prevent the continuation, than having the value of the vessel in cash and watching that vessel leave Canadian waters to continue the damage for which it's been seized in the first place.
Your comments on that are welcome.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-24 12:17
Fair enough. Of course this isn't the only piece of legislation that exists in the Canadian context, both federally and provincially, that allows for the seizure of any personal property in order to prevent the continuation of the offence, or if the crown or the investigation believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it would afford evidence to the matter before the courts.
It's not subverting the “innocent until proven guilty” angle to seize and retain any level of property to either present it as evidence, or, in the first place, to prevent the continuation of the offence. But an element still remains that allows an application before the courts to have property returned, correct?
In such a case, if that element does exist as a mechanism of protection, the minister would effectively be operating in bad faith on a court decision if he then established a cost-prohibitive structure, or simply refused to find a satisfactory monetary amount. Wouldn't you agree with that?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-24 12:19
That dovetails back to my original question. Because we're laying out the theoretical challenges that could occur, what is our practical experience with that application to date? Do we know that?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-24 12:19
Okay, fair enough. Thank you for that.
Do I have a little time left or am I done?
I have three minutes. Okay, so we'll move on.
Thank you, I appreciate your input on that piece. Like you said, it's not a deal breaker but certainly a valid point of consideration.
Can you talk to us about how IUU fishing is currently prevented from entering Canada? How is Canada—this is open to both of you—affected by illegal, unreported, and unregulated fisheries when it approaches other countries? How does that affect the Canadian context and our Canadians fishers and producers?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-24 12:21
Stopping IUU fishing is not only a laudable and critical objective, but it obviously also makes up a certain percentage of the marketplace. In your estimation, what does that do to the market? As that declines, does that drive our prices up, which would be advantageous to our fisheries in terms of what they can sell to the market? How does that impact the market?
In every case, some of this unregulated product does influence market prices and market share.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-24 12:22
This isn't just about a management; this is really an economy-based piece.
Were you about to add something, sir?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-24 12:23
That's a good point.
How is Canada's reputation globally in taking a lead on these particular issues in terms of Canadian fisheries' adherence to the rules and regulations that are set up?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-12 12:25
Thank you to our witnesses.
I'll get into the weeds a little bit on the bill. As a former ex officio fisheries officer, I'd like to drill down on some of the enforcement components of this bill. I see a lot of provisions outlined in this now that I suppose to some degree I'm surprised didn't exist in some other context previously.
First, though, I was in Washington this week talking about Arctic issues. We know that the Arctic waters are becoming a little bit more accessible. To Mr. Cleary's point, he's reflecting back on past enforcement history and stats around what Canada has experienced before, but we do need to look into the future as well when we're presenting this kind of legislation.
Looking at it from an enforcement perspective, could you talk about what we know about changing fisheries patterns and Arctic waters opening up, and where this bill could provide opportunities when we move into the future, regardless of what our enforcement statistics might have looked like in the past? Is that or is that not a serious consideration? Could this bill be of benefit to a changing Arctic fisheries environment?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-12 12:28
No, no, fair enough; we don't need to go there. But the framework exists, and the moulding of this looks pretty solid in terms of the authorities and the punishment sections.
Proposed section 18.03 refers to offences and punishments of $500,000 maximum on indictment, $100,000 on summary, and second offences double. Then an interesting section right after that talks about fines and consideration of the benefits that may be realized.
How do those fine structures compare from an enforcement point of view with other legislation? Do you think those fine amounts are adequate?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-12 12:29
Excellent.
With respect to a combined program, where you're running education, compliance, and ultimately an enforcement program when you do this line of work, how do you think Canada has stood in terms of its...? I mean, you reflect on Canada not being a big contributor in terms of illegal international trade. I think that's a good thing. That exemplifies that Canada has a strong presence, and has had in the past solid laws in place and a decent penalty structure. Only adding to that, I think, we'll continue to see that trend of Canada being a fairly secure region.
Would you agree with that, and could you maybe expand on Canada's presence in the coastal waters?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-12 12:31
Excellent. Thank you. That obviously is highlighted in enforcement statistics. If we're seeing low rates of violation or low estimation rates, then clearly it's signalling to the players in any international or illegal pursuit that it's not a jurisdiction in which you want to be pursuing those activities for fear of being caught and appropriately dealt with.
I'll again go into the weeds a little bit with a technical question. Proposed section 7.4 talks about the “dwelling place”. This is purely an enforcement line of questioning. When you board a vessel, that's a place that can be inspected or searched either on warrant or without warrant, and in some cases under exigent circumstances. Are there places on vessels that are considered to be dwelling places, by definition?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-12 12:33
Okay. Perfect.
Can you expand a little bit on the prohibited import piece under proposed section 5.6? Sometimes there obviously will be some inland reach. I see there is one section in the bill that allows protection officers to stop vessels and vehicles, so the vehicle portion would obviously have some inland reach for the authority of protection officers.
Is that an accurate assessment?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-12 12:34
It's okay. That makes sense. We have inland waters that access the coast that people can come up into and that are quite deep. In Yukon we have the Yukon River, 2,300 kilometres from the Bering Sea right up inland. That expands some of that search authority, which I think is excellent.
In terms of prohibited import and products, is there a main fisheries product that Canada has centred on with that specific section, or is there such a broad range of potential contraventions of the act that you couldn't narrow it down? I know in some wildlife and fisheries enforcement in particular regions, you have really identifiable things that are high in trade and are subject to abuse. Is that the case with this act, or is it just too broad to narrow it down?
Results: 1 - 17 of 17

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data