Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (44th Parliament, 1st Session)

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 16, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 7:01 p.m. [ET], to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Subdivisions A, B and C of Division 21 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of a draft report.

Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the pleasure of chairing this evening’s meeting. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me or to the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.

Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.

Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, representing Newfoundland and Labrador. Welcome.

Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.

Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.

Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.

Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.

Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.

Senator Francis: Brian Francis, P.E.I.

The Chair: On April 27, 2023, an order of reference to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Subdivisions A, B and C of Division 21 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, was referred to this committee.

Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following witness from the Shipping Federation of Canada, Mr. Chris Hall, President and Chief Executive Officer.

On behalf of the members of our committee, Mr. Hall, I thank you for being here with us today. I understand that you have some opening remarks. Following your presentation, I’m sure that we will have some questions from our senators. The floor is yours.

Chris Hall, President and Chief Executive Officer, Shipping Federation of Canada: Thank you very much, senators, for the warm welcome. It’s a pleasure to be here.

The Shipping Federation of Canada is the national association that represents the interests of international ship owners, operators and the agents here in Canada that carries all of Canada’s imports and exports to and from world markets.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide an ocean carrier perspective on Division 21 of Bill C-47 as it relates to the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.

I understand five minutes is often the normal time allotted for opening remarks. I may be a few minutes over, if I may beg the committee’s indulgence for that. Thank you.

Our comments on the amendments can be grouped under two general themes. The first relates to the proposed imposition of certain new obligations on ship masters and the consequences this may have. The second relates to the nature of some of the powers being granted to the minister, which we view as evidence of an ongoing erosion of the regulatory process in the marine sector.

To elaborate on our first theme, the imposition of new obligations on shipboard personnel, clause 373 of Bill C-47 provides that the minister may direct a ship’s master to take measures that are necessary to avoid an undue risk because of unsafe conditions.

Our specific concern is not with this requirement in principle but with one of the measures that the minister may impose on the master, which is to provide any information that is appropriate to assess or deal with risks to marine safety.

We are flagging this measure because it falls outside the scope of the other control measures set out in this section of the act, such as the master being directed to proceed by a specified route or manner, or to a specified place to unload. This is much more broadly construed than the existing measures. Indeed, the requirement for the master to provide the minister with any information that is appropriate to not only address but also assess risks to marine safety casts a very wide net as to the nature and extent of information that the master may be required to disclose.

The fact that the master may be exposed to potential criminal liability for failure to comply with the requirement would likely only serve to make this net even wider, as it would increase pressure to share as much information as possible, especially in a context where the nature of the information to be shared, is very loosely defined to begin with. In other words, this could lead to a fishing expedition by the minister.

This measure could also potentially interfere with established safety protocols and reporting procedures on board the ship and break the chain of custody with respect to documenting and preserving information that is needed to not only deal with an evolving incident in real time but also to address all the resulting impacts.

We have similar concerns with respect to clause 374 of the proposed amendments, which extend the requirement to share “any” information to members of the ship’s crew, which would have the added impact of undermining the normal flow of communications between the ship’s master and the crew during a safety incident, and of even further degrading the all-important chain of custody as it relates to critical information.

Another issue we wish to raise relates to clause 400 of the bill, which introduces a new requirement on the master in paragraph 186.3(1) to “take all reasonable measures to ensure the protection of the marine environment” as a general obligation, along with a similar but more targeted obligation in subclause 188(1) to take “reasonable measures” in relation to discharges or risk of discharges of a pollutant. Moreover, under proposed subclause 245(2), failure to comply with these new obligations can lead to a fine of up to $1 million, along with the possibility of imprisonment for up to 18 months.

I’d like to say from the outset that we fully recognize the need for Canada to have a strong legislative framework to protect its marine environment from shipping activities and for shipping activities to be conducted in accordance with that framework. However, we are concerned that the proposed amendments are not sufficiently aligned with Canada’s obligations under a number of international laws to which it has acceded, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, known as UNCLOS, and the International Maritime Organization’s, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as MARPOL.

In order to address these concerns, we recommend that the scope of what constitutes reasonable measures to protect the marine environment under clause 400 of the bill be clarified to encompass any measures taken in accordance with applicable international law, which would help frame and circumscribe the master’s responsibilities in a more appropriate manner.

We have included wording for the proposed amendment in a handout that I believe you have already received.

We also have concerns regarding the nature of penalties that can be imposed on the master because of clauses 404 and their proposed amendments, penalties which can include up to 18 months in prison.

This represents a significant divergence from international law and the UNCLOS convention in particular, under which penal sanctions for violations of national laws relating to pollution by a foreign flag vessel are limited to monetary fines, except in cases of willful and serious acts of pollution in the territorial sea. In other words, the international legal framework to which Canada has committed does not impose criminal liability — in other words imprisonment — on seafarers in cases of accidental pollution.

In order to ensure that Bill C-47’s new obligations are enforced in accordance with that framework, we recommend that clause 404 of the bill be amended to ensure that imprisonment of a master for failing to take all reasonable measures to protect the marine environment should only occur in cases of willful and serious acts of pollution, as per international law and Part XII of UNCLOS, in particular.

Again, on your handout, we have a proposed amendment. I would note there is a slight clerical error in the numbering. It should read number 4, as opposed to number 5.

As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, our second major theme regarding the proposed changes to the Canada Shipping Act, or CSA 2001, relates to the ongoing erosion of the normal regulatory process we are seeing in the marine mode.

More specifically, we believe that the Canada Shipping Act has increasingly opened the door to the use of extra-regulatory instruments such as interim orders and ministerial orders to regulate certain aspects of shipping activity, many of which were first introduced in 2018, also by means of an omnibus budget implementation bill, I might add.

Bill C-47 further extends the reach of these extra-regulatory instruments in two important ways. First, clause 353 extends the scope of interim orders by providing that the minister may enter into agreements with third parties respecting their administration and enforcement.

To provide some context, interim orders may be imposed in cases where immediate action is required to deal with a direct or indirect risk to marine safety or the marine environment. These orders are not subject to the basic safeguards provided in the regulatory process, including prepublication, consultation with stakeholders and impact assessments, and they could remain in effect for a period of up to three years. Clause 353 goes further by essentially providing that the administration and enforcement of an interim order could be outsourced to a third party, meaning that entities such as local authorities and representatives of external groups could have the authority to ensure a vessel’s compliance with any of the broad range of activities that an interim order might cover, such as vessel design, equipment, compulsory routes, navigational procedures, et cetera.

A related concern can be found in clause 381 which gives the minister power to suspend or modify the operation of some GIC regulations, including those related to navigation, anchorage, mooring or berthing of vessels, by means of a ministerial order.

Like interim orders, ministerial orders also exist outside the normal regulatory process and, despite their potentially significant impacts on shipowners and their vessels, are subject to minimal publication requirements — within 23 days after they are made — and can remain in effect for a period of up to two years.

Given their scope and potential duration, we believe that these kinds of orders should be implemented with a great deal of caution and that their use should be circumscribed by the appropriate safeguards, including consultation with relevant entities, before being made.

It is worth noting that we first raised these issues with Parliament in 2018 and continue to remain concerned with the relatively uncircumscribed powers given to the minister with respect to the use of extra-regulatory powers in the marine sector. I might add that we are seeing similar language introduced in Bill C-33 on port modernization.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on some of the key concerns that we have with C-47 from an ocean shipping perspective. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hall.

Senator Busson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here. It is certainly informative to hear your take on this act and the changes that are being proposed.

You made specific reference to clauses 373, 374, and 400 of the bill, and your concerns with regard to the wording of those. The crux of what you were concerned about was the supplying of “any information” at one point and “all reasonable measures” in another case. You felt that that was an overreach on the part of the bill.

Is there comparative wording in the old act if these measures?

Mr. Hall: Not that I’m aware of, no.

Senator Busson: This is new context, completely?

Mr. Hall: New as it relates to pollution, that’s for certain.

Senator Busson: In your expert opinion, what factors do you feel these sections would remediate? What do you think — what are they addressing that they would deal with this kind of strong wording with regard to — had there been a problem? I guess that’s the question I’m asking. Had there been such a problem that they had to put these clauses in to address something that was going horribly wrong?

Mr. Hall: The increased attention to the environment and particularly hazardous and noxious substances which was also introduced into the legislation — which are very positive and necessary to bring the act up to current standards with respect to these new substances.

With the increased focus on the environment, certainly more scrutiny from the public and government agencies and how that flows down to the shipboard personnel is very important.

The master’s understanding of what his or her obligations are at the moment is very important. We feel that the wording, as it’s currently presented, is rather vague, and it could lead to situations where more information than is required could be turned over to the authorities, and make no mistake, these would end up in some sort of legal proceedings to some degree or another. This isn’t simply providing information out of goodwill. These will become legal documents. It’s very important that the vessel master, the vessel owners and operators and the legal representation that is normally retained in an incident are aware of what the protocols are and what type of information can be deemed acceptable to be turned over.

Senator Busson: I’m wondering, then, so I can understand where we are with this, can I assume that before these sections were placed in the bill, that the responsibility and the directives that governed masters and their obligations and responsibilities were contained in international shipping law?

Mr. Hall: That is correct, yes. If I may add, the existing provisions are a little more specific. The minister may direct the master to take a specific route, move the vessel to a particular location or do certain things with the cargo, for instance. So very specific, prescribed and understandable to anyone having to follow the legislation. But this is a little broader, when it’s “any information.”

Senator Busson: Thank you so much.

Senator Francis: Mr. Hall, you might have answered this question. I’ll ask it again for further clarification. Bill C-47 proposes modifications to the Marine Liability Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Practically speaking, if adopted without amendments, how would subdivisions A, B and C of Division 21, Part 4 of Bill C-47 affect members of the Shipping Federation of Canada?

Mr. Hall: I will have to refer to what subdivisions A, B and C might be. Okay, so subdivision A — the Marine Liability Act, we didn’t have many comments on that, actually, senator. In fact, we were pleased to see references to the Hamburg Rules removed. That was a housekeeping item, no longer an applicable reference to be in there. So that’s gone. That’s all positive. From the Marine Liability Act perspective, no comments from ourselves.

On the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, no significant commentary from ourselves on that. There is nothing in there that caused us any concern. It was purely the Canada Shipping Act amendments vis-à-vis the criminalization aspect and the overreach of the minister’s powers that will directly implicate or directly affect members of the international shipping community here in Canada.

Senator Francis: Thank you for that.

Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here this evening, Mr. Hall. Just a few questions. In listening to your precise resumé of what is happening with the proposed changes, Canada has always been a leader in the development of international regulations. We have been very active at the International Maritime Organization, or IMO. Delegations on every aspect of the international laws that do come out.

These powers that we’re giving to the minister could be problematic with respect to the actual operation of a vessel in the situation that the vessel is in. Is that something that we should be worried about?

Mr. Hall: I believe so, yes. You have hit it right on the head. This will directly affect operations on board ships, and it will cause potentially different behaviour, and not necessarily positive behaviour, because of the powers that are created by this.

The lack of alignment with the international conventions that I mentioned, particularly the UNCLOS, to me would be the most important positive change that could be made. It has been a grey area in Canadian legislation for many years. It goes back into the early 2000s, I believe, with the Migratory Birds Convention Act and where notions of criminalization of a seafarer came out.

There are some understandings and some verbal commitments from officials that criminal prosecution will not be undertaken in cases of accidental pollution, but these are verbal commitments. It’s anecdotal now. Those commitments were made decades ago, so we have one set of international regulations or conventions that we are a party to that say, no, we’re not going to proceed with a jail term if it’s accidental. Yet, in the new proposed amendments, that is still very much a possibility.

Senator Quinn: I’ll go out on a limb here. There are different aspects of marine transportation, whether it’s the running of a port, the running of a ship or the ship owner — all kinds of different subject matter. My comment would be that the skill sets and competencies that reside in government are harder and harder to come by. They’re being more diluted, as they are in all professions. Those powers are given to a minister, and the minister turns to the officials, and I worry about the ability of the officials to provide advice to a minister to make decisions.

Is that a fair comment?

Mr. Hall: I’m not sure I’m totally qualified to provide a lot of comment on that.

Senator Quinn: Let me ask it in a different way. In making these changes, was your organization consulted? Are you aware of any organization that was consulted on some of the commentary this past time?

Mr. Hall: There was a discussion paper issued by Transport Canada in August of last year. It was very high level in nature, very general and, frankly, rather vague. We submitted comments to that as per the timelines. Our comments were due in September, I believe. Again, the discussion paper was very notional in tone. There were no specific indications of what the resulting language may be.

A What We Heard Report was produced just a couple of weeks ago. It was promulgated, and that has been the extent of consultation with industry. There really was no consultation because what was produced in the initial discussion paper was not detailed enough to really provide any comment at all. So when we noticed these amendments in Bill C-47, we sat up and called you good folks.

Senator Quinn: This is my last question. This is a technical area that affects the operation of a vessel at the end of the day, and those are highly specialized operations at sea. Decisions count when you have to make them as a master. Yet, here we are dealing with this kind of operational issue in a budget implementation bill. It’s happening across our committees where we’re being asked to review things that are somewhat complex. This area is certainly complex. Is this the type of area where you would expect to have seen this type of work being presented?

Mr. Hall: No, it isn’t, actually. The amendments are significant. There may not be that many, but they are significant from ours and an international shipping perspective. There are certainly more points than the ones I outlined. Other marine stakeholders — industry stakeholders — will certainly have more. I think they would echo ours. But to have them contained within a bill of this nature, in our opinion, doesn’t provide for adequate consultation, discussion and debate on the issues at hand.

I guess I would be so bold as to suggest that if these amendments were broken out into its own stand-alone bill outside of the budget implementation act, that would be positively received by industry — that’s for sure. It would just provide for a more fulsome avenue for debate and discussion on the important issues.

Senator Quinn: Thank you.

Senator McPhedran: I’m very interested in the second proposed amendment that you have tabled with us tonight. I have been trying to sort out its significance. I’m hoping you can help with that.

First of all, it’s interesting to note that it took Canada 20 years to ratify this particular convention, so it’s relatively recent for us as a country. It’s short, so I’m just going to make sure that I have got this correct. At the end of clause 191, which is “Offences and Punishment,” your organization is asking that there be an additional clause added?

Mr. Hall: Correct. I believe it’s 191.

Senator McPhedran: It just says:

Offences under this Act will be administrated —

— which is an interesting, quite old-fashioned word —

— in accordance with applicable international law, including Section 7 of Part XII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

I have a couple of aspects to my questioning here. As I’m sure you know, Canada is not one of the countries that typically takes international law into its national law, and generally speaking, for our courts, it’s a question of how judges want to recognize what is considered to be our obligations under various treaties and conventions.

So it’s very interesting that what you’re really saying is that you would like to have this incorporated into our domestic law. I’m just hoping you can help us understand what difference this will make for your industry when you’re taking a rather unusual position here.

Mr. Hall: Thank you for the question. I will preface my comments by saying that I’m not a legal expert. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a professional mariner by trade, so forgive me for not having all the legal arguments.

The reason for us inserting this or suggesting this amendment is to clearly indicate the international law with respect to UNCLOS and how seafarers are treated when an incident occurs, whether in an exclusive economic zone, or territorial waters. Whatever Canada does should be done in accordance with what we signed on to in UNCLOS. That should also be made clear in the Canada Shipping Act. It is not clear now. It has been vague for decades. We think it would be a significant win for industry and the country, to have that clarified.

Senator McPhedran: I haven’t had a lot of time to go through it, but as a supplementary, there are 10 different clauses within this section 7 of Part 12. A quick reading of it would say to me that they aren’t necessarily at the same level of procedure as what exists within our domestic law. When you say it would be of great benefit, I’m wondering if you could give us one or two examples. It’s not unprecedented, but this is a rather unusual request.

Mr. Hall: I think the benefit would be creating certainty that criminal prosecution against the ship’s master or crew would not be undertaken in cases where the discharge of a pollutant was not wilful or serious. If it were an accident, it would be treated as such in accordance with UNCLOS. I have a couple of sections from Article 230 of UNCLOS:

Monetary penalties only may be imposed with respect to violations of national laws and regulations or applicable international rules and standards for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment, committed by foreign vessels beyond the territorial sea.

So it would only be between 12 miles and 200 nautical miles, and only monetary penalties in those cases.

Here is the second part:

That is what our amendment is seeking to align with. If it’s within 12 miles, and it’s a wilful act, the government should proceed with whatever measures it deems necessary. But if it’s not wilful or serious as defined in UNCLOS, then fines are the only measure that can be pursued.

That’s the clarity that we’re trying to bring to the situation because now it is very ambiguous as to what the government may do in the event of a serious incident.

Senator McPhedran: Has there been a particular incident or incidents that prompted this proposal from your association?

Mr. Hall: No particular incident. It’s something that industry, not just ours, but industry in general, other associations and professional groups have been following for years and not particularly pleased with. But the amendments that were made a number of years ago within the act were implemented. They were not softened at all, other than these verbal assurances that were provided by Transport Canada: “It’s okay; don’t worry. We’ll honour our obligations under UNCLOS, and we won’t proceed with the prosecution of the master.” Well, that’s nice. Those are nice words; I would like to trust that, but we would love to have that a little more codified, if you will.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, for being with us. Your insights are very instructive.

I want to change from some of the technical issues to some of the wider components that you addressed. And thank you for this written submission. It was excellent and I enjoyed it.

I want to focus on green shipping. We’re taking you from the international Law of the Sea to green shipping. I’m not an expert at all in this area, but I’m aware that there’s a Green Marine certification program. Canada has the shipping corridor framework. This country declared a zero emissions criteria by 2050, and it signed on to the Clydebank Declaration. There is a whole slew of ways of green shipping: Ultra-low sulphur diesel, LNG fuels, slower speed ballast-free systems, speed nozzles, anti-fouling hull paint — a whole whack of different things.

I was intrigued by your idea of a green ship incentive program at ports. I thought what you provided us — and it may have been that you were just touching the top of the iceberg here — didn’t help me understand what criteria you think would be consistent. Are there specific criteria that you would say are the criteria that Canada should use? There is a whack of them; I only touched on a couple.

Second, what is the percentage of the ships that are likely to be in compliance with the Green Marine certification program that currently enter Canadian ports?

Third, if there were an incentive program at Canadian ports, do you think it would have any impact, plus or minus, on regular shipping routes and volume of trade?

Mr. Hall: Those are all very good questions, and thank you.

The notion of green corridors and the greening or decarbonization of shipping is very important to the Shipping Federation and our members. The comments you’re referring to were in a separate submission, but we were trying to underscore that some ports in Canada do offer incentives for vessels compliant with certain environmental initiatives. We were suggesting that alignment of those incentives would be a positive thing so that the standards were the same across all ports. In fact, perhaps all ports should consider incentives like these.

It wasn’t meant to be critical in any way. The fact that ports are now offering incentives is hugely beneficial, but I think it would be even better if there were some alignment, which there isn’t right now.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that.

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Mr. Hall, for being here. You’ve been very clear in what you think should be changed and why. It’s been very helpful to us.

How do clauses 400 and 404 of the bill differ from international law? Are they more lax, or are they stricter in those parts of the bill?

Mr. Hall: In our opinion, they’re more prescriptive yet they’re vague, if that makes sense. These new requirements have language such as “any information” to be provided; that’s a very broad term. I’m not a legal expert, but I’m sure there would be quite a range of interpretation as to what “any information” means. The master of the ship may interpret “any information” to be that which is directly related to the incident at hand, but perhaps the government views it as a much broader definition of “any information.” Maybe the master should have provided a number of other documents or evidence that the government saw fit. He or she would not know what the government is looking for, and by not providing all of that information, the master and the crew are now subject to penalties as envisioned in the new wording — a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment up to 18 months for not knowing what you’re supposed to provide.

Senator Cordy: You’re saying this section of the bill dealing with shipping would be very prescriptive in terms of telling you what you can do, but there’s vagueness around it in that shipowners or those operating the ship are not quite sure what it means.

Mr. Hall: We believe so. Correct.

Senator Cordy: I’ve been around the Senate for quite a while. There’s no government in all my years here that would ever bring in an amendment to a budget bill, because it could mean that there’s an election. For senators, that’s not so bad, but I’m not sure many in the House would want it.

Is there another way to get around it? The amendments you brought in were clear and concise, exactly what you said. They’re not ambiguous. Is there another way to deal with this? Through observations?

Mr. Hall: I’m not sure. I may not be qualified to answer that, and we certainly didn’t appreciate the dynamic that you just described as to what it would do to the budget implementation act and the ramifications of that. I guess I’m not qualified to answer, but we would like to see those amendments at least entertained or an ability for industry to debate and discuss them in an appropriate forum other than through a budget bill.

Senator Cordy: Thank you.

Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. While appearing before the committee on May 9, 2023, Fabien Lefebvre, Acting Executive Director, Oceans Protection Plan Operations, Transport Canada, noted that the amendments proposed in subdivisions A, B and C of Division 21 of this bill were based on feedback received by the department through engagement activities that took place over several years and also based on experiences related to recent marine incidents.

What was the extent of the Shipping Federation of Canada’s participation in these engagements? Do you regularly meet with the transport department, with officials, with the minister’s office? Do you, in your honest opinion, believe that this statement accurately reflects the feedback that your stakeholders have given?

Mr. Hall: There is a lot to address there. Yes, we do have a very good relationship with Transport Canada and the various officials. It’s a very big department, as you well know. But we spend a lot of our time and energy cultivating those relationships and working with them almost on a day-to-day basis. So yes, great relationship with Transport Canada.

In terms of the specifics of the consultations on the Canada Shipping Act, that started last August when a discussion paper was issued. As I mentioned a while ago, it was very notional in nature, very general, rather vague, and the comments that we submitted were exactly to that point. We would love to comment more, but we need some specific language that you’re proposing in order to be a little more targeted. Our remarks did cover some of what we touched on tonight, but again, we didn’t know where the government was going with this at all. To be honest, the What We Heard Report that was released just a week or two ago, it certainly addressed a lot of what they heard, but they didn’t really talk about anything that we said. I can say that for sure. So that’s fine.

Also, the What We Heard Report did not discuss what the specific wording would be. It was general. There were some proposed legal changes that were talked about and they are not in misalignment with what is in the budget implementation bill, but they weren’t specific. There was no indication as to how far or the degree to which the amendments would be. We were caught quite a bit off guard, and that’s why we’re a little bit concerned.

Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much.

Senator McPhedran: I’m returning to one of your proposed amendments, this one for section 400 of Bill C-47. I very much appreciate Senator Cordy reminding us of the practical implications here, but, nevertheless, I want to understand better some of the motivation behind this proposed amendment.

In particular, where you’re adding (3) under the category of “Protection of marine environment.” I’m picking up on what I think was a theme that came up in some of the previous questions. This is a very specific amendment. What it appears to be doing, in my reading of it, is taking the international law as a primary means of interpreting the domestic law. As I’ve mentioned, you’re talking about 10 sections in international law, so there’s a lot there.

I’m also very interested by how specific this amendment is because it states: “Unless otherwise provided in regulations or ministerial orders adopted under this act.” So not just Canadian domestic law, but this act, and arguably only this act.

My question is related as much to the title, “Protection of marine environment.” There are a number of ways in which national laws in Canada address environmental protection. This would seem — and I think I’m exploring whether it was intended — to be kind of a vaccination, a protection, so there’s only this act that you would seek to be subject to, if you will, with the international convention modifying and limiting, arguably, this act.

Was this a decision to go after such a specific amendment related to this act as a way of perhaps not being subject to other environmental protection laws in Canada?

Mr. Hall: I’ll address that in two parts. We were proposing in subclause 186.3 because that is the clause that talks about duty to take reasonable measures. That was the wording that we had difficulty with; what is the definition of “reasonable measures”? We linked it to UNCLOS.

To your second point as to why we did it this way, frankly, we’ve probably had five to seven days to analyze this. There have not been a team of lawyers at the Shipping Federation of Canada, or a legal firm that has provided us with reams of paper on this. This was a few days of staff time trying to figure out how we were going to address a significant item in the bill. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be flippant, but our response is commensurate with the time that we had to address this. I hope you appreciate that answer.

Senator McPhedran: I appreciate the explanation. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hall, for appearing before us this evening and giving us some things to think about.

I’m going to suggest we go in camera to discuss our report. We will recess for a few moments to get ready for that.

(The committee continued in camera.)