Bill S-3 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act
An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 22, 2013
- Debated in principleNov. 19, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 8, 2013
- Passed the second chamberMay 28, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 2015
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Fabian ManningSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Randy KampExplicitly stands in support and frames the bill as fulfilling Canada's moral and legal obligation.
- Lawrence MacAulaystates the legislation is important for fisheries protection
- Jack HarrisStates it is extremely important to value this legislation and approach.
- Wayne EasterStates the Liberal Party of Canada supports this bill.
- Jinny SimsOpens by stating pleasure to speak in support of the bill and its international port-state measures.
- Jasbir SandhuCalls the bill extremely important and a good step toward international cooperation on IUU fishing.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 23 October 2013, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act) in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-3 amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to implement the Port State Measures Agreement, to prohibit the importation of fish caught and marine plants harvested in the course of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to clarify certain powers in respect of the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
79% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,176 words introduced, 6,271 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core prohibitions and definitions but added mandatory documentation for imports and a new regulation-making power. These changes expand enforcement tools beyond the introduced version.
- Added a new prohibition requiring documentation for all imports of fish and marine plants.
After: “(3) No person shall import any fish or marine plant that is not accompanied by the documen- tation required by regulation.”
- Added explicit authority to make regulations on required import documentation.
After: “(d.1) respecting documentation required for the importation of fish and marine plants;”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on many defined terms and requires warrants based on sworn information and judicial satisfaction, which keeps most powers concrete. However, repeated use of 'reasonable grounds to believe' and 'likely to be carried on' plus officer discretion on searches and seizures leaves room for argument.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to believe that there is in a place any fish, marine plant or other thing”
Subjective belief standard invites disputes over what facts meet the threshold.“is likely to be carried on any activity in respect of which this Act applies”
Forward-looking prediction is inherently uncertain and open to differing interpretations.
Clear-cut
“(a) any part or derivative of a fish, (b) shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any part or derivative of any of them, and (c) the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat or juvenile stages”
Exhaustive list removes ambiguity about scope.“on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $500,000; or (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000”
Fixed maximum penalties with clear procedural routes.“who on ex parte application is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe”
Requires sworn evidence and judicial gatekeeping before intrusive powers.
Discretion. Protection officers decide when reasonable grounds exist for entry, search or seizure, the Minister consents to some enforcement actions and decides whether to prosecute, and regulations prescribe which states qualify under the Fish Stocks Agreement.
Challenging the law itself. Broad warrantless search powers in exigent circumstances and vessel pursuit rules could be challenged under s. 8 Charter for overbreadth or vagueness.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused can readily dispute whether an officer's 'reasonable grounds' or belief that an activity 'is likely' actually existed on the facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.