ENFORCEMENT 211 



ment. The remaining fishery officers should be assigned 

 to resource management positions. However, they should 

 retain legal status as fishery officers to enable them to 

 deal with infractions they observe incidentally in the 

 field, and they should be encouraged to do so. During 

 particularly hectic fishing seasons, management officers 

 should play an active role in enforcement activities to 

 supplement fishery enforcement officers. 



The transition from the existing organizational frame- 

 work for fishery officers to the creation of a specialized 

 enforcement unit in the region should be undertaken 

 gradually, district by district, to minimize disruption of 

 staff and to dovetail with the redefined management 

 responsibilities of fishery officers. 



In order to ensure that high-calibre personnel are 

 recruited and trained and that uniform policy procedures 

 and techniques are applied in the field, the enforcement 

 unit should have a reporting line that is independent of 

 resource management in the field: 



5. At Pacific region headquarters In Vancouver, a senior 

 enforcement officer and support start" should be 

 appointed and placed direc1l> In charge of all fisherj 

 enforcement officers. The enforcement officers slmuld 

 be responsible directly to headquarters, rather tfian 

 tlirough area managers as they are now. 



When the enforcement unit is working smoothly, con- 

 sideration should be given to shifting the reporting line of 

 enforcement officers through area managers, in line with 

 the trend toward greater decentralization in the Pacific 

 region. 



6. If ttie need arises, a special task group operating from 

 headquarters should be created, along tfie lines of the 

 disbanded General Investigation Unit, to supplenK>nt 

 district enforcement officers during hectic periods and 

 to investigate complex crimes when necessary. 



If in future the field enforcement officers report to area 

 managers under a decentralized organizational frame- 

 work, the special task group should work in close cooper- 

 ation with area managers. 



Legislative reform should be undertaken to clarify the 

 status of enforcement officers and to facilitate convic- 

 tions. Currently, fishery officers are included in the 

 definition of peace officer under the Criminal Code of 

 Canada and have their powers. But the Fisheries Act 

 does not refer directly to this designation and in fact 

 mentions only that fishery guardians have the powers of a 

 "police constable," a meaningless designation. Further, 

 the Act provides a separate ofl^ence for obstructing a 

 fishery officer, even though the Criminal Code includes a 

 parallel provision. I therefore make the following recom- 

 mendations: 



7. The Fisheries Act should clearly confer peace officer 

 status on enforcement officers, other fisherj officers 

 and fishery guardians. 



8. The provisions of the Fisheries Act that deal with 

 obstructing fishery officers should be eliminated or 

 redrawn to conform with the powers and rights they 

 have under the Criminal Code as peace officers. 



Under current policy, fishery officers must identify the 

 person in charge of a vessel fishing illegally and this 

 requires boarding. Frequently, it is impossible for officers 

 to follow these procedures, when, for example, many ves- 

 sels are fishing illegally, when seas are rough, or when 

 such vessels are spotted from the air. The following rec- 

 ommendation should meet these shortcomings. 



9. The owner or registered charterer of a vessel sliould 

 be made liable to prosecution for any illegal fishing 

 activities carried out by the vessel regardless of 

 wlietlier or not he is actually on board when the 

 offence is committed, unless he is able to prove that 

 the skipper of the vessel was in control without his 

 consent. 



This expanded concept of owner liability for an illegal 

 activity has worked satisfactorily with regard to certain 

 provincial motor vehicle offences such as hit and run;" 

 and there are three advantages to such a scheme for 

 fisheries. First, it would permit a larger number of oflTend- 

 ers to be detected by removing the need to board and 

 identify the crew of each one. Second, it would eliminate 

 the need to prove the identity of the individuals in court 

 months after the event. Third, it should encourage own- 

 ers to participate in the enforcement effort to a greater 

 extent by providing them with an incentive to police their 

 skippers and crews. 



PROSECUTION AND THE COURTS 



While detection and apprehension are the essential first 

 steps in any enforcement program, they must be followed 

 by strong action in the courts if the deterrent effect is to 

 be maintained. Although 75 percent of the charges laid 

 under the Fisheries Act or regulations result in convic- 

 tions (see Table 16-2), this apparently high rate of success 

 is misleading: since penalties are low, many oflTenders 

 plead guilty. The high success rate could also indicate 

 that charges are laid only when prospects of success are 

 high. As I show below, both the quality of prosecutorial 

 services available to the Department of Fisheries and 

 Oceans and the attitude of the judiciary toward fisheries 

 offences need to be markedly improved. 



Crown Prosecutors 



Prosecutions under the Fisheries Act and regulations 

 are the responsibility of the federal Department of Jus- 

 tice. For most prosecutions the Department of Justice 



