TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 31, 1998

• 0906

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Thank you for joining us this morning to deal with Bill C-15.

We have with us Mr. Ivan Lantz and Ms. S. Simard from the Shipping Federation of Canada.

I invite you to make your presentation.

Ms. Sonia Simard (Executive Assistant to the President, Shipping Federation of Canada): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Sonia Simard and I am the manager of policy and government affairs for the Shipping Federation of Canada. With me is Captain Ivan Lantz, our manager of marine operations.

We would like to quickly summarize our submission to the committee and then after that we would welcome questions.

A few words about the federation. Our members, acting either as owner-operators or agents, represent about 90% of the ocean vessels trading to ports in Atlantic Canada, the St. Lawrence River, and the Great Lakes. Basically we're talking about ocean vessels carrying cargoes for the Atlantic Canada, St. Lawrence, and Great Lakes ports.

We're here today to express our concern about one section of Bill C-15, and that's clause 18. Clause 18 provides that the governor in council may make regulations for preventing pollution by the discharge of ballast water from ships, including pollution by aquatic organisms or pathogens. So we have two notions—ballast waters and discharge of aquatic organisms or pathogens.

Over the last two weeks the federation has been discussing the impact of the clause with the Department of Transport. We believe our discussions have led the department to reconsider clause 18.

Although we don't have an official text in front of us, we are under the impression that the department is considering redrafting clause 18 to provide that the governor in council may make regulations respecting control and management of ballast water. We have cited the clause in our brief. However, despite this redrafting of clause 18, we remain concerned about its potential impact.

To summarize our concern, I should state that the federation supports the department's intent to introduce regulatory powers to regulate the exchange of ballast water. We are fully supportive of that aspect. It is needed, but we contend that part XV of the Canada Shipping Act is not an appropriate vehicle in which to introduce the regulatory power.

Before going into that argument I will explain a bit more about ballast water and why it is so important for marine transportation. When we talk about ballast water, we are talking about water that is stored in specialized tanks. That water is essential for the stability of vessels and for increasing the ability to manoeuvre the vessel. At one point the water is pumped out of the vessels, and this is where there is a risk of transfer of unwanted aquatic organisms into our national waters.

• 0910

Over the last few years Canada and the international community—countries such as the United States, Australia, and others—have attempted to address the issue of ballast water. They have done that by going through the issue of providing operational requirements for the exchange of ballast water. The federation has been very cooperative on this issue. In fact, we've been a key player in developing the current guidelines we have in the Great Lakes. Those guidelines are called the Great Lakes water ballast control guidelines, and they were adopted by Canada in 1988.

Ten years after those guidelines were adopted, the government wants to move them from a non-binding to a mandatory requirement. We have no problem with this. We fully support it, but the other step is that the department intends to introduce this regulatory power in part XV of the Canada Shipping Act. If you look at part XV of the Canada Shipping Act you will see that the title is Pollution prevention and response.

The title is one thing, but the sections have a very strict approach. We're talking about the prohibition of introduction of pollutant substances into the environment. Because of that very strict approach, the federation submits that is not the appropriate environment in which to regulate ballast water. Why is this? Because in the marine community we move in line with the international level. In Canada we have to be aligned with what is done at the international level.

At this stage the international level is looking at management of ballast water from a precautionary approach, to protect the marine environment. A lot is said about the precautionary approach, but it mainly means that when countries are not sure about the extent of danger to the environment, they agree to adopt precautionary measures to minimize the risk linked to the activity. To come back to ballast water, we see that the international community at this level is working on ballast water from a precautionary approach measure.

To try to be a bit more concrete, if we look at the discussion within the International Maritime Organization, the IMO, we can see that the countries are at the stage of developing a common approach to the most efficient way of addressing ballast water exchange. So they're not discussing ballast water in the context of pollutants or pollution penalties, they're looking at it from a precautionary approach to develop operational measures that would prevent the transfer of aquatic organisms.

To summarize, we are supportive of the intent to regulate ballast water. It is needed to prevent the transfer of unwanted aquatic organisms. We're supportive of that approach, but we contend that part XV is not the appropriate vehicle in which to do it because that section takes a very strict approach. It prohibits introduction of pollutants into the marine environment, and if we look at what is done at the international level, we're not yet at that level. We are taking the measure of a precautionary approach.

When governments are looking at protection of the environment, they're looking at it from two levels. They're looking at regulations from a precautionary approach, and then there is the second stage, this notion of qualifying pollutants and linking pollution penalties. If we look at ballast water here, we are at the first stage, the precautionary approach.

That being said, we're not here to say that nothing should be done on ballast water. That is not the case. We submit that the aim of the department, which is to regulate the exchange of ballast water, can be done by part V of the Canada Shipping Act.

Part V is entitled Safety. By introducing exactly the same wording as the government wants to suggest, which is “the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting control and management of ballast water”—you can introduce that in part V and you will achieve the aim of the department, which is to introduce regulatory power for the management of ballast water, but you will not introduce the uncertainties leading to the use of part XV, which would create uncertainty about the status of ballast water as a pollutant.

• 0915

I should probably pause a moment here. When we talk about ballast water, the committee members might have in mind the zebra mussel. It is an issue, that's true, but it must also be understood that with ballast water comes not only the zebra mussel, but a range of aquatic organisms. We can be talking of the goldfish, we can be talking of any other range of aquatic organism. Because the international community does not yet have a handle on the extent of the danger of the ballast water, the way they're looking at it now is to say: we will place operational requirements for the exchange of ballast water, and we will not yet look at it in the context of pollutant and pollution penalty.

In consideration of that, in conclusion, to make it short, what we submit is that clause 18 of Bill C-15 should be amended to incorporate a new section. That section would be 338.1, instead of 657(1) as suggested by the department. The section would read exactly the same:

The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting control and management of ballast water.

By introducing that in part V, we respectfully submit that it will fulfil the aim of the department and the marine community, which is to regulate ship water ballast management, but will not introduce uncertainties on the status of ballast water as pollutant.

I would also like to mention that we're not here to delay the passage of the bill. We are here to submit one concern, and we are suggesting to this committee an amendment to address that concern. We respectfully submit that once the amendment is adopted, the bill should be adopted as soon as possible.

We would welcome any questions from the committee members.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think everything is made very clear, of the position that you have.

To the members, I certainly will not deny your right to ask questions, but I will suggest that the department will be with us for the clause-by-clause, and you may wish to ask some of the questions to them in response to the presentation.

If you have questions to clear up the presentation or for our guests, you may proceed now, starting with Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): I'll pass this time.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, presenters.

As someone who doesn't really know shipping that well, if a ship comes into Canadian waters from anywhere in the world, it will possibly have ballast water. That ballast water could or could not have some potentially polluting elements in it, or elements that would be of danger to aquatic life in Canada. How do we know that? I mean, once it's discharged, it's discharged. Are there control mechanisms? If a captain wants to discharge some ballast, does he phone someone and say, “Come and have a look and make sure it's not polluting”? Could you just clarify how this works in operation? I don't understand.

Mr. Ivan Lantz (Manager, Marine Operations, Shipping Federation of Canada): I'll try that.

There was a time when the ballast tanks were also used as fuel tanks at some times, especially in passenger ships and ships requiring the additional weight in the lower part of the ship to increase their stability and performance. As the fuel was used up, they would replace that and put water in that same tank. Subsequently, when the ship arrived in port and wanted to load cargo or wanted to refuel, it would have to get rid of that particular ballast water.

That ballast water, evidently because it was in a tank that had oil in it previously, would have been full of oil or had oil content. Discharging it would have created an oil sheen, and that kind of thing. MARPOL, and the Canadian pollution prevention regulations, in addressing oil pollution, stopped that kind of practice.

Therefore any time a ballast tank or ballast water would contain defined and known pollutants such as oil or any other hazardous substance that is defined already in many regulations under hazardous substances, or with respect to chemicals or something like that known to be and stated to be pollutants in the IMDG code or the hazardous codes or regulations, those could not be discharged. But in this particular sense of what we're talking about, the precision or the detail and the definition of the contents of the ballast water, the ambient water that has been taken up and is subsequently transported and then discharged, has not been clarified and the definition is not clear. What we have defined and declared as pollutants to this time are absolutely known substances.

• 0920

Mr. Roy Cullen: You mentioned that this change you're proposing would bring Canada more in line with international shipping. What are the regulations in the United States? My understanding is that in the United States they have the kind of regulation or law that we're proposing here.

Ms. Sonia Simard: If I may address this question, the United States has a mandatory requirement for operational procedure for the exchange of ballast water, and this is in an act called the introduction of non-indigenous species, or something like that.

So again, we're not pretending that none of the countries have mandatory requirements for the exchange of ballast water, but it's regulated from a point of view of mandatory operational procedures to prevent the introduction of those aquatic organisms. It does not bring into line the notion of pollutant substance and pollution penalty.

If I could maybe address one of your prior concerns about what it does in terms of operational requirements for ballast water, the way it is right now at the international level—and the captain could probably complete this—is that the countries are looking at ways to make the exchange of ballast water less harmful. Those are operational requirements, and one of the ways to address this is by two means: either you go on the high seas and make a flow-through exchange of ballast water—you take a cup of coffee and you let the liquid flow through your cup three times—or you take your cup of coffee and you just empty it one time into the high seas. By doing that, by exchanging your ballast water in the high seas, the aquatic organisms that couldn't find their way in the ballast water are less likely to survive international water because they come from deep ocean waters.

That leads me to the last thing, what we are doing right now to prevent aquatic organisms in Canada. What we're doing is working through the guidelines in the Great Lakes, and those guidelines provide that the department and the authorities take samples to see if there are harmful aquatic organisms.

What we're moving towards too are mandatory operational requirements to manage the exchange of ballast water, and that is needed for the marine community, for the countries at large. But we're not yet at the definition of ballast water as a pollutant substance and looking at it in the context of pollution penalty.

So we are fully supportive of measures to prevent the risk, but we said it's not yet at the other stage.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): In listening to you, I'm getting the impression that you're suggesting that you don't want it in that one section, because it's more stringent; it's going to be adhered to more than if it's in the other section.

I was just in Vancouver and had the opportunity to get the explanation of ballast water and listen to the people from that area, who are very proud of the fact that the ballast water was not coming into Burrard Inlet, with a very fragile marine ecosystem. So they were very happy with this type of wording.

As I'm listening to you, I'm thinking, if it looks like a duck and it clucks like a duck, it's a duck. If it's pollution, it's pollution. I'm having a hard time accepting your argument, and I would suggest that if we're looking at speedy passage of the bill, bringing an environmental concern into it won't pass it in any quick fashion.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

• 0925

In my younger days I used to do good dives on wrecks in the Great Lakes. One of the things I'm curious about with the ballast system on ships is what kind of a screening mechanism you have there currently. What type of a screening mechanism do you think we should be recommending for the exchange of ballast water?

If you have a ship that is coming into port unloaded, obviously, the tanks are full so the vessel is stable. When you're loading it in port do the tanks remain full, or when do you discharge these tanks?

Mr. Ivan Lantz: Generally speaking, ballast water is discharged during the loading process. For example, a vessel that would come to load iron ore at the port of Seven Islands would be discharging ballast water while iron ore is coming in from the top.

Mr. Murray Calder: In other words, the statement that Sonia made about discharging ballast water at the high seas to destroy organisms...you're actually discharging ballast water right at port as you're loading, aren't you?

Mr. Ivan Lantz: The present guidelines we have—in the United States as regulations and in Canada as the earlier version of guidelines—require mid-ocean exchange. A vessel coming across the Atlantic, for example, some place in very deep ocean water where it is safe and practical to do so, will discharge about a tank and then refill it with ocean water.

It has been determined, and we accept this from the statements of scientists, that the presence of aquatic life in mid-ocean is much less than it is in more coastal or port regions. Therefore, the new ballast water it brings in and discharges is effectively clean salt water with a much lower population of organisms, whatever they might be, with much less potential for those kinds of organisms to establish in shallow, murky coastal waters as one might find in a port.

Mr. Murray Calder: The idea being that whatever survives in brine can't survive in fresh water.

Mr. Ivan Lantz: That's right.

Mr. Murray Calder: Are there any exceptions to the rule?

Mr. Ivan Lantz: There probably are indeed, and this is part of the science that has not yet been completed. It creates the unknown aspects. The reason we adopted guidelines and the reason I am always working on them...and even the stated issues with respect to the United States act are to prevent the risks of introducing an organism that can be established and can make a population.

Nobody has guaranteed that the idea or the concept of ballast water exchange is an absolute solution. It is a risk reduction proposal, and there are a lot of safety concerns and considerations. New concepts in thinking are going to have to take place throughout this control and management development process, and they actually are going on in various fora. They will involve the structure of the ship, where it's safe to discharge the ballast water, the kind of weather and sea conditions the vessel may encounter, structural stability, manoeuvring, and a number of issues with respect to safety, structure, and architecture that are being dealt with. They will continue to be dealt with until they can find an absolute solution to all of the issues surrounding ballast water.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a little late this morning.

I have a general question on this particular topic. I have been following a news story of recent days where an oil slick in spots was picked up.... They identified it, yet they had no way of identifying the source of those particular spots.

• 0930

Is it not true that despite the regulations, despite the act—and as you have already said, you can't make it perfect at any one time—we're going to have to rely not just nationally but also internationally on the goodwill and the cognizance of the operator of the ability to potentially pollute? Is that not going to be the general theme? You never will be able to make a hard and fast law that will totally eliminate the possibility of pollution. Are we not more concerned with the cooperation of the operators than with anything else?

Ms. Sonia Simard: I think you have a very good point there.

It's true it's based on cooperation, and I think what's going on at the international level shows that those countries that have a stake in marine transportation are moving toward having a managerial operational requirement to minimize the risk. They're moving away from the non-binding aspect to the mandatory requirement, and that is the goodwill. I think the members of the federation and the marine community all have an interest in making sure that the ballast water activity is well managed. That is for sure, and I agree with you.

To link your questions to the comments of the lady here, it's true that if it looks like a duck, it is a duck. We're not trying to make it less stringent; we're trying to take the same approach that is taken at the international level. At the international level, if it doesn't look like a pollutant, it's not a pollutant.

There is a precautionary approach to developing the goodwill to minimize the risk of introduction of aquatic organism.

When I say it is not a pollutant, I don't mean it's not a danger to the environment. I mean it's not strictly defined as all ballast water, as a pollutant and pollution penalty. It's identified as a risk for the environment, depending on the type of introduction and the type of measure taken. It's a risk for the environment, and we have to develop the goodwill to address that risk.

I think the steps taken right now are humungus. Canada was a leader in developing the guidelines in 1988. Ten 10 years later we're moving from non-binding to mandatory. The steps are humungus, and it is not our intention to slow down. We just want the same approach as that at the international level. That's the goodwill.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Your points were made very clearly. I'm sure the members will consider them and may have questions for the department, to see their reaction to your position. Thank you very much.

As we move into clause-by-clause, I will invite the department heads to be at the table, should members require their assistance or interpretation.

• 0935

The order of the day is bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The way I usually try to proceed—and in the past I have been successful—if members agree is to identify the clauses of concern and pass everything that is not of concern to members. For example, it's been indicated to me that there is a need for discussion on clause 3, clause 18, and clause 20. I'm asking members if there any concerns with any other clauses.

Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Clause 8.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, clause 7.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Clause 7 and clause 20. You mentioned clause 20?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Clauses 7 and 20. I'll repeat them before we go to a vote.

First of all, members, do you agree to do it this way?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Therefore, I will ask for a vote on all clauses except 3, 7, 8, 18—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Clause 5, proposed section 317.

The Chairman: Do you have a problem with clause 5? We'll add clause 5.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: You had clause 8 and clause 3 in there before. Right?

The Chairman: Clause 3 is in there.

I will repeat them again, clauses 3, 5, 7—

Mr. Bud Streeter (Director General, Marine Safety, Department of Transport): Mr. Chairman, sorry to interrupt. Proposed section 317.1 is clause 6. That was the section that was referred to.

The Chairman: Shall we start again? Clauses 3, 5, 7, 8, 18, and 20.

Colleagues, if after we do this you find a clause that you have concerns with, share it with your colleagues and on a majority vote we'll go back to it.

It is moved by Mr. Keyes. Those in favour? Against?

Some hon. members: Agreed. ([See Minutes of Proceedings]

(On clause 3)

The Chairman: The title, of course, will be at the end, and all that stuff we have to do at the end.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With clause 3, is the preamble on page 4 included in the stuff we have to move down to the bottom?

The Chairman: If you wish to deal with the preamble, we can deal with it now or after.

• 0940

Mr. Stan Keyes: All right, Mr. Chairman. We want to make an amendment to the preamble on page 4. I don't know how many of these you want to address at once. Do you want to do each as we go or do you want to do it as an entire clause, all at once?

The Chairman: Are you dealing with clause 3 now?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes.

The Chairman: We will do it from top to bottom.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, that's a great idea, but do you want me to do them all at once? Do you want me to do the preamble and all of the clauses we have amendments for? Or do you want to do them one a time?

The Chairman: I'd like you to introduce the amendments you have and I'd like other members to cut in any time they have concerns that would prevent us from reaching agreement. Is that acceptable, Mr. Keyes?

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's fine with me. You're the chair.

The Chairman: Run through it.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Since we are talking about navigation, I would like to have a little background. Where is the preamble?

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: On page 4 of the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I see clauses 3, 4 and 5.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Maybe the honourable member wants to go to his bill package—

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Oh, in the amendments.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: —to government amendment 1, where clause 3, amended, is replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 4.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We gave you a copy of the proposed amendments. You have a list.

[English]

Everyone has their copy of the proposed amendments. There are no surprises here. Everything's on your desk.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I think the problem he's raised—and it's a good one—is the problem of trying to find our way into the bill itself. It's a very confusing numeration system here.

The Chairman: That's a good signal for me to slow down, and I will.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Either that or give us a flag and tell us what we're looking at here.

Mr. John Christopher (Committee Researcher): If you use the page numbers on the sheet of amendments, it will be a little easier to find where the amendments are being made—

Mr. Lee Morrison: I've been looking at page 4.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, it's page 4. It's a bad photocopy. Are you at page 4 of the bill?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, and there's nothing there that seems—

Mr. Stan Keyes: At clause 3, in dark print, on page 4, it reads “Part I of the Act is replaced by the following”—

Mr. Lee Morrison: Oh, okay.

Mr. Stan Keyes: —and that will be amended so that it reads “are replaced by the following”.

Mr. Chairman, this is to change the headings before proposed section 4 and proposed sections 4 to 106 of the act. It's a change in the heading.

The Chairman: I understand the question you were asking me now. So we'll go page by page and get approval as we go.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I think we'll go with G-1 first.

The Chairman: Okay. Are we ready for the vote on this?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: G-2.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, government amendment 2, Mr. Chairman, amending—

The Chairman: Are there any questions on government amendment 2? Is everybody satisfied with that? Opposition members, are you with us? I don't want to go too fast.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I mentioned clause 7, but I think I have a problem with clause 4.

The Chairman: We will talk about it later. We are on clause 3.

[English]

We are now on government amendment 2, which is amending proposed subsection 6(1) on page 5.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 0945

The Chairman: Government amendment 3, page 6.

Any questions on that amendment? It's still clause 3.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: If you could just say the specific number in the bill, I'd appreciate it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Sure. It's proposed paragraph 9(4)(b), to be exact.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: What is the point of changing the word “officer” to “director”? It's not too likely that everybody would have directors resident in the country, but everybody would have an officer.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Exactly.

Mr. Chairman, just to preface the honourable member's question, I'm prepared to answer any question along the way, as we go, but I won't try to intervene on every one of these.

In this particular case, it's to correct a mere editing problem. It's an editing error. We got it right in French. We didn't get it right in English. It's requested by the Department of Justice that there be consistency to the English text throughout the bill.

So we refer to these people as directors, not as officers.

Mr. Lee Morrison: But they're two different things in English.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Exactly. That's why we need to put director there, not officer.

[Translation]

An hon. member: A manager.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: So it brings consistency in the bill with English and French, and throughout the bill.

The Chairman: Did that come from Justice?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Justice wants it.

Are we ready for the question on amendment G3?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Let's look at G4 to G10. It seems there's a similarity among them.

Mr. Keyes, would you explain the relationship between the amendments?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Sure, Mr. Chairman.

What we're attempting to do here is to make it clear to industry how the process of incorporation, by reference, operates. We're adding the words, “for greater certainty”, and we're doing that, as Ms. Desjarlais would probably want to know, in proposed subsections 10(1) through (6) and proposed section 11 in clause 3.

So we're just adding the words “for greater certainty”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé, you have a question?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes. I am replacing someone and I have not gotten... I mentioned it before the meeting. Does Mr. Keyes have an amendment to the definition of "pleasure craft"?

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, that will be coming in proposed section 49, one of the last bits of business in clause 3.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Will you be tabling it later?

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'll let you know.

The Chairman: When we get to that situation, we'll identify that this is what we're doing.

Are we ready to proceed on amendment G4?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Government amendment G5, on page 7.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Just for some levity, Mr. Chairman, this is to clear up a.... Under proposed subsection 23(1), it says:

For the purposes of registration, a ship is divided

Since we can't divide a ship, we're adding, “the property in” a ship.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I give the bow to you and the stern to—

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right. I'd offer you the stern, Mr. Bailey, but....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Have you been to see Titanic recently?

There seems to be some confusion here.

Can you tell the meeting, please?

• 0950

[Translation]

The Committee Clerk: If I understand correctly, you passed amendments G4 to G10, which are similar in nature, and your are now moving the adoption of amendment G11.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: That was part of what we just passed. Proposed subsections 10(1) to (6) and proposed section 11 were all voted on together. Maybe the gentleman missed it.

The Chairman: Okay. I asked the question on government amendment 4 to proposed section 10, so I will ask—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

The Chairman: Was proposed section 11 part of the package?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, because it's the same thing.

The Chairman: Those in favour of—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: No, proposed section 11 is—

The Chairman: Somebody is saying no.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We're adding the words “For greater certainty” to proposed section 11 as well. It's the same intention as proposed subsections 10(1) through (6).

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: G-11.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We're not at G-11.

The Chairman: We're at G-11 now. Do we all understand the same thing? We're at G-11 on page 11 on clause 3, proposed subsection 23(1).

Mr. Roy Bailey: Could I just go back to one proposed subsection 22(4)?

The Chairman: Okay. Are you on clause 4?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Sorry, we're still on clause 3.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Okay, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it we're on this bunch of paperwork, G-11.

The Chairman: That's what the chair is going with.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Right on. It asks for the words, “the property in” to be added to clause 3, page 11, proposed subsection 23(1). We can't divide a ship, so we're going to divide the property.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: For my own information, could you tell me what “64 shares” means? No doubt that is a shipping term.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Normally, when we sing a contract with a bank, there are only 64 shares of a ship available to various shipowners. It is an old provision you find in most of the world for registering ships.

[English]

The Chairman: Government amendment 11. Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): I was going to ask why 64, but I understand it goes back to Noah's time, so I'll take that as divine intervention.

The Chairman: I don't wish to go back that far and amend that bill.

Is that it?

Mr. Joe Fontana: That's it.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm not trying to split hairs—I'm not a lawyer—but could the property in a ship be construed as being the ship itself? Why not word it, “the ownership of a ship is divided”—

Mr. Lee Morrison: That would be in English, and we don't work in English here.

The Chairman: There's a good reason for it. I don't know it, but there is.

Mr. Mark Gauthier (Legal Counsel, Department of Transport): Mr. Chairman, there isn't a very deep reason. It's simply a drafting style. That expression was found in the original Canada Shipping Act. It's been there since time immemorial, and the concept of property in something in effect means ownership, but you can't use “ownership” here for a whole host of other reasons.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions on government amendment 11?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: On government amendment 12, clause 3, page 19. Are there any questions?

A voice: You've missed one here, I think, government amendment 12(a).

• 0955

The Chairman: That would come after G-12, wouldn't it? That will be after we deal with G-12.

Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Just a technical term, “absolute power”, as opposed to...what was it before? Does this confer on mortgage companies the same powers that they have with regard to homes or commercial property, where there are certain powers given to mortgagees? Do I take it that this gives them exactly the same as what they had before? Or more?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Actually it gives them slightly less power because it gives the buyer the power to negotiate certain clauses that would protect him. The difficulty here is that because you're able to move ships—compared to commercial property—the banks and mortgaging agents need the ability to react quickly if there's a problem, subject to whatever provisions the buyer has put into his contract. So it's less power than in the original one, the existing Canada Shipping Act.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Do you mean the bankers are giving up some power?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Joe Fontana: That's incredible!

Mr. Bud Streeter: They actually are giving up the right for the owner to negotiate some rights in terms of this waiver, yes, sir.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Then if that's the case, that's not a problem, but where does it say that? Because it says the “mortgagee of a ship or a share in a ship has the absolute power”, and that's why I asked what “absolute” means...subject to any limitations set out in the registered mortgage. When you say “absolute”, in English that means “the most”. But you just said it's less, so maybe you can—

Mr. Bud Streeter: It's subject to those provisions which, if you look at the original wording, were “to the extent set out in the mortgage”. We strengthened the wording for the owner as well as the wording for the bank. During the negotiations with the Canadian Maritime Law Association and the bankers and the Canadian Shipowners Association, this wording was felt to be a compromise that permitted everyone to deal effectively.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Just simply, again, is “absolute” a legal term that is understood in the legal community? Is this a term that's used in marine law as opposed to other types of law just so they have the—

Mr. Mark Gauthier: That's exactly right, Mr. Fontana. That expression “absolute” was already in the existing Canada Shipping Act, and again, had been there for rather a long time. What it means, really, is that if there are no separate agreements entered into between the lender and the buyer, then the mortgagee can act quickly to sell a vessel, generally in order to protect the investment, and if the mortgagee breaches other rules of law, of course there's always recourse to the courts. But at least the mortgagee can move fast to protect his security.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Now, government amendment 12(a), which recommends deleting lines 37 to 41 on page 21 and lines 1 to 20 on page 22.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, this is the notice that Mr. Dubé wanted us to highlight for him. This is where we are withdrawing any reference to the business of registering small craft, recreational boating...licensing them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Even if we take out "pleasure craft", is it described anywhere under "ships"? The old Act mentioned 10 horsepower. To my knowledge, there is no indicator like that to show at what point you are talking about a ship.

The Chairman: You want to determine whether it is a small boat? Is that it?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Well, if you are talking about a ship and there is no indication of where that starts and where it finishes, you could interpret that as meaning everything. Our objective is to eliminate the mention of "pleasure craft". The smallest pleasure craft is a pedal-boat. We discussed that at length and I don't want to get into it again. The objective is to take out that part, but there has to be some clear definition in the Act.

The Chairman: Can departmental officials tell us whether there is a way to describe the difference between a pleasure craft and...

[English]

Mr. Keyes, do you have the answer?

• 1000

Mr. Stan Keyes: If Mr. Dubé wants to have a look at his existing bill, in particular clause 3 on page 21, he will see a listing there on lines 37 to 41 of what we're amending by deleting.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: There is clause 48 on page 21. You are obviously not on the right page.

The Chairman: Lines 38 to 43, on page 21 .

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: I guess what I'm trying to explain for the honourable member, Mr. Chairman, is that if he looks at what we are deleting, he will see it's the licensing of the vessels, the forms for applications for licences, the paying of licences, etc. That is all being deleted, which was promised by the minister during consultations with us and in speeches made in the House of Commons at second reading.

Also, I wonder if the department can clarify something for me. I understand that while we are deleting proposed section 49 and all its implications, I think what Mr. Dubé is concerned about, which is the definition of small craft, etc., will still be found in its original form.

Mr. Streeter.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Dubé is referring to the definition in clause 2.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You find that in several places, such as clause 7.

[English]

Mr. Bud Streeter: In proposed subsection 1(4), on page 3, there is a definition of pleasure craft that simplifies the existing definition. It does not have any limiting provisions that would be used for registration or licensing purposes.

All of those matters would be the subject of regulation and would, of course, have to pass through the process under the Statutory Instruments Act. So there is nothing in this act that amends or changes the existing licensing agreement, nor gives it any new authorities; it's a simplification of the definition. I think that's what Mr. Dubé was referring to.

The Chairman: Okay? Is it acceptable?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I understand the purpose of deleting proposed section 49, because one wants to, I guess, make it less onerous for pleasure craft as opposed to the others. But proposed section 49 deals with primarily licensing requirements, whereas proposed section 48, which I believe remains intact, speaks primarily of the registration, listing, and recording of ships, and that stays in place.

Now, in the absence of a licensing regime as proposed originally under proposed section 49, which we are now deleting, what is in the existing act that in fact gives some regulatory powers to the minister?

I don't want to impose fees or anything else on a licence, but if you look at some of the reasons under proposed section 49, there were some darn good reasons as to why to do it. Forget about the costs and the licensing regime, which can be cumbersome and onerous, and so on and so forth, but what is in its place that protects the people of Canada, so to speak?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Section 108, which has the existing provisions of licensing, remains. That was the reason for amending the first preamble. Section 108 remains, permitting the governor in council to make regulations relating to the safety and to the licensing under the existing rules.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Section 108. Do we have it some place in our book so I can refer to it, or can he read what section 108 presently says?

Mr. Bud Streeter: You do. If you have the bill with you, you would find it there.

Mr. Joe Fontana: The old act or the new bill?

Mr. Bud Streeter: It's in the new bill, Bill C-15. You would find section 108 on page 29a.

These are the existing provisions that give the authority to protect the public and to do the safety issues that Mr. Fontana has brought to our attention.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Just so I understand it, section 108 stays in place and has not been replaced by proposed section 49.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Can I just ask then what's so different about proposed section 49 from section 108? What is anticipated in proposed section 49 that's in 108? As I read it quickly, there don't seem to be a heck of a lot of changes.

• 1005

Mr. Bud Streeter: On the major differences between proposed section 49 and section 108, in proposed paragraph 49(a) there is an overt ability for the governor in council to regulate the period of validity. Under the existing provisions, a licence is for the life of the vessel. Proposed paragraphs 49(h) and 49(i) include mandatory production of the licence and the prohibition of operation with vessels that are not licensed. Those are really the only new provisions.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay, and that's my point. Under the existing regime, once a boat is purchased and licensed, it's licensed forever until such time as it changes ownership, as opposed to imposing a one-year licence, a two-year licence or a three-year licence, like vehicles and so on. We agree that's probably not appropriate at this time.

But as it relates to proposed paragraphs 49(h) and 49(i), which require certain responsible conduct of the owner of a boat to stop the vessel and produce its licence to a designated person and prohibit the operation of vessels that are not licensed, where is that protection for the government to ensure there is safety on the waters? Where is that in the existing legislation now, or is it anticipated we will do it in some other way, shape or form and not through this bill?

Mr. Bud Streeter: I'm going to turn this over to the representative from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This is, after all, its provision and I am from Transport Canada. I will ask Ms. Murray to perhaps address that.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Are you telling me that when we go in to enforce our act, you're going to have a Transport Canada person and a Department of Fisheries and Oceans person on one of our boats to make sure we get it right in terms of who's enforcing what?

Mr. Bud Streeter: No, sir.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I'm trying to be logical.

The Chairman: Ms. Murray, please.

Ms. J. Murray (Director General, Rescue, Safety and Environmental Response, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): The only provision I think we're talking about here in proposed paragraphs 49(h) and 49(i) is simply to make enforcement of the requirement for licensing of vessels easier. That's the only change. What's now being proposed is not to make that change, so the existing provisions would remain. In other words, they would be a little more difficult to enforce, but there would be no basic change in the provisions.

Mr. Joe Fontana: That's my point. I just want to make sure the enforcement provisions are there to ensure a pleasure craft for this purpose is licensed and is being operated within certain laws of either the Government of Canada or a province as they relate to underage operators and so on. I just want to make sure that while we don't agree you might need a licensing regime, the government is not giving up its authority to enforce safety on the waterways.

Ms. J. Murray: That's absolutely correct.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay. Then will you tell me where, in the existing section 108 or in another section, we have that enforcement power?

The Chairman: Who can answer that? Mr. Streeter.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Under paragraph 108(a), the regulations right now are, with the exception of vessels over 10 horsepower, for voluntary registration, but it is possible that under the Statutory Instruments Act the governor in council could approve regulations that would mandate compulsory carriage of licensing. If he wished, he could mandate compulsory licensing. Those authorities are there.

We also have the authority, within the same areas, to mandate enforcement through either the Contraventions Act with provincial law enforcement officers or through our own Office of Boating Safety and Transport Canada's Marine Safety.

The Chairman: This bill does not do that.

Mr. Bud Streeter: This bill does not. The existing authorities under section 108 do, sir.

The Chairman: Is it clear to all members that this bill does not introduce those new procedures?

Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: But the existing section 108 stays in place, which allows certain enforcement procedures. That's all I'm concerned about.

• 1010

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: My problem is that we're being told clause 49 will be taken out, but when you look into it, you realize that what we didn't like about clause 49 is possible under current legislation, and the minister could pass regulations.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, no.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: That is what I understood. Perhaps there is a problem there. If I'm not mistaken, paragraph 108(a) has something very similar:

(a) providing for the licensing of vessels that are exempted from registry under this Act;

That can be very broad. The minister could—

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Streeter, do you have something for us?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I understand Mr. Dubé's concern that under the existing law the minister could make some regulations that resemble very much what's under proposed section 49. Under the existing law, the governor in council can approve regulations that would mandate licensing, and, as you can see with all of the various paragraphs, he can mandate many of the matters that are identified.

Presently, the requirements are for pleasure craft that have a motor installed with more than 10 horsepower to be licensed. There are about 1.8 million vessels at present on that licensing scheme. There are no regulations to permit fees. There are no regulations at this point in time for the period of licensing and there are no regulations to mandate the carriage of licences.

There is no intent at this point to make those regulations until we finish, with the Canadian Coast Guard, the total evaluation of the safety of this sector.

The Chairman: Perhaps the question is whether or not what we are doing here today—the amendments we are presenting—is opening the door to the future registration and licensing of all kinds of vehicles. Is anything we are doing causing it, or are the causes in the original act? We're not dealing with that today.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could answer that.

The answer is no. The new Bill C-15 is not opening the door to that. Originally it did, and that's why we are amending this proposed section to withdraw the exact fear that you, that members in the government, that members of the opposition, that the stakeholders, that the tourists and everyone else who operates a small boat in this country has. We obviously have to revisit it; we have to have further discussions on the purpose of validity.

If I can put it succinctly for Mr. Dubé, the way we wanted to do it originally was to change two things. One was the validity or putting on a one-year or two-year repeat of licensing of a particular recreational vehicle. We'd have to charge these people every year or two. The other part in proposed paragraph 49(e), as you can see, would be to prescribe the fee to be paid for the licences.

We are taking that out. We are saying now is not the time. There needs to be more discussion with the stakeholders on that. What we end up with, Mr. Chairman, is what we had, and that is the original licensing system to ensure that, as Mr. Streeter has pointed out, we're looking after the 1.8 million licences that are issued originally on those vessels today.

So there is no change from what we had with this amendment being implemented—withdrawing that licensing.

The Chairman: We are not adjusting it; we are withdrawing it. Therefore, we're back to square one.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: On the one hand, yes, and the other hand, no. I know that the purpose of this new bill is not to do what you just said. It is as though we are taking a break and you are saying that we will see what happens down the road and there will be more consultation. That way everyone wins. I agree with that.

• 1015

However, unless I'm mistaken, if he wanted to, this minister or another minister ten years down the road, perhaps even another government, could, according to section 108 of the current Act, do what we mentioned when we discussed pleasure craft. You have to rely on the minister's good faith. To avoid that, under the definitions of “ship” or “craft”, it should say: since this is the current situation, we should add the provision “10 or more horsepower”.

The Chairman: There's no question of doing so at this time. We are talking about withdrawing an amendment. You can talk about all sorts of other things related to this, but today we are discussing Bill C-15 and the recommended amendments. Taking away ministerial authority has nothing to do with what we are doing today.

[English]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Fontana?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes. I think a simple explanation by the officials—

The Chairman: I don't want an explanation. I want a point of order.

Mr. Joe Fontana: It is a point of order, the point of order being that the administration be allowed to clarify what Mr. Dubé just said.

He said that the existing section 108 is permissive. In other words, that the minister can in fact do the very things we don't want to do by deleting proposed section 49. I'm not sure that's the case, so could the administration clarify whether or not section 108 allows the minister to put in place a licensing regime, with fees and so on, on pleasure craft—

The Chairman: You are seeking information.

Mr. Streeter, please clarify it.

Just a moment, please. Let's get some order.

I'll make a comment at this point. I feel very badly for the confusion going on. There's a reason for it. The department and the minister's office, or whoever, were still presenting amendments to the clerk at 7.30 last night. I would have liked to have come here very well prepared and run a meeting that is orderly and intelligent. I am very embarrassed by the turnings.

So I would urge those who caused this to help us a bit in the future, because giving amendments the night before causes a lot of problems for the clerk and for me. That is the reason why we're confused today and that's why this is not a typical meeting we're having. I wanted to say this.

Would you clarify the point, Mr. Streeter?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes. I would also apologize for the delay in my unit that resulted in getting this material to you last night.

As I understand Mr. Dubé's two points, he is concerned that the existing authorities in section 108 permit the minister to effectively do all of the things that proposed section 49 would have done. Secondly, as a result of that concern, he believes we should define a lower limit on pleasure craft within the act. Perhaps I could address the second concern first, and then I will respond directly to the first concern.

The second concern is that the act should only, in our opinion, identify ship types. The limiting factors as to what in future is registered or licensed should be a matter for regulation, because it requires amending from time to time and the regulatory process is perhaps more effective.

The response to the first one is that the authorities, as laid out in section 108, are clear. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could in fact implement a system that would have fees. He could do most of the things that are laid out in proposed section 49. They are not laid out as overtly in section 108. The point of the matter is that we require section 108. It has been in the act since 1936, with only incidental amendments.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have some problems, but I agree with what you have just said. In attempting to enact itself and in attempting to deal with this whole range of things, it is extremely difficult without a regulatory body, because it causes a lot of things that go unanswered. For instance, where I come from, the regulations—we don't deal so much with boats—but if I bought a ship from Joe, the honourable member—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Joe is better.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I couldn't buy it because it would be worth too much!

But if it were a pleasure craft, under this act it would not be licensed. If I immediately turned that into a semi-commercial craft for moving people, there are no regulations put in place that I am now in a commercial activity and that boat would have to be licensed, with a fee.

• 1020

Mr. Bud Streeter: Under the current act, if the vessel is entered in a commercial activity, registration or licensing is required.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I thought you said the licence stayed with the boat.

Mr. Bud Streeter: No. The licensing is a one-time licensing. At this point in time, if you don't have a 10-horsepower motor—for instance, if you had a sailboat—you have the option to register it or license it. If it's a fairly large yacht, it's our experience in Canada that most of them are registered, because they're usually subject to mortgages or loans, and the banks require registration as a means of protecting and identifying the property.

The same applies for small commercial vessels. If they are entering in a commercial venture, they normally require insurance, or they normally are looking for funding, and banks normally do that. But if you're in a commercial venture and you are inspected, it's a requirement that you are registered or licensed. It's only the area of, at this point in time, the vessels that do not have 10-horsepower engines or above that are voluntarily licensed, and that includes...and I think that's a major concern we hear.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I was going to clarify that as well, because my understanding was that section 108 would allow it.

Did you mention that there was another act as well that would allow that regulation? Did I miss it?

Mr. Bud Streeter: If we were to make any changes to the regulations, those changes are regulated by the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, which include consultation and prepublication approval by Privy Council.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

With regard to what Mr. Fontana was mentioning in terms of proposed paragraphs 49(h) and (i), I took it from your explanation that you felt there was a need to have those paragraphs in for the purpose of assuring the safety was there. So why would we just ditch them if the department saw there was a need to have those two?

I mean, I can see why we would get rid of the rest if there's a concern that it's going to be a change, and allow the licensing of pleasure craft, but why would we not keep proposed paragraphs 49(h) and (i)?

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, there is a question as to why we would not keep proposed paragraphs 49(h) and (i).

Mr. Stan Keyes: Do you mean on the new stuff?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: What we're saying now is that we're deleting everything, right? Or are we keeping sections?

Mr. Stan Keyes: We're deleting what we had intended to put into the bill, under proposed section 49, having anything to do with licensing, etc., and saying that we're going to stick with the old section 108.

Do you have the old section 108 in front of you?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Probably.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The stuff you're questioning is in the original section 108, Bev.

If I could bootleg the question for a moment, let's remember, everybody...and I think we're in agreement on the regulatory side of things, correct? I mean, if it's better to change things in the regs, that's where we should change them—vessel size, power of the boat, all that kind of thing. That should happen on the regulatory side.

On the legislative side, we have the original section 108. Yes, it may seem as though the minister could well change this any time he wanted, so what difference does it make—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: But my question is on proposed paragraphs 49(h) and (i) now. I'm okay with the section 108 part; I just want to know why we're not keeping these proposed paragraphs.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes suggested that he bootleg the question, and I'm allowing him to do it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Okay, I'm sorry, Bev. I thought you were done. Go ahead.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I had asked about why we weren't keeping proposed paragraphs 49(h) and (i).

The Chairman: Because we're withdrawing the whole package.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Look at section 108. Do you have the bill in front of you?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, I have it here, but my question was that they're different, and it was indicated to us that they had wanted that change for safety reasons.

An hon. member:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Well, if we looked at that, why do we have any rules or laws whatsoever? I took that as a reasonable point that they would want those two in there to make the adherence to the regulations.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's quite simple. If we left in proposed paragraphs 49(h) and (i).... Proposed section 49 was a package, including garnering fees from individuals, with periods of one and two years, in order to help pay for.... So can you imagine proposed paragraphs 49(h) and (i) coming forward, with its operating licensed vessels; stopping vessels; producing licences to designated people; prohibiting operation; and not licensing required regulations?

All that stuff costs money. Where do you get the money to do that kind of thing? You get it from the licensing and the validity period that comes every one and two years, at the top of proposed section 49. We're saying the whole package has to be looked at again.

• 1025

If you're going to look at licensing of small craft, producing licences every one and two years, and collecting fees in order to pay for all that bureaucracy and licence-handling and all that kind of thing, it's all part of a package. Now we're saying this whole package has to be revisited.

The Chairman: That's a good point. It makes it clear.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I have a question for Mr. Streeter. I'm really blown away by the knowledge—which I didn't have before—that anything over 10 horsepower is supposed to be licensed. Among those 1.8 million vessels you say are out there, most of them would be outboards. What percentage of those do you think are actually licensed? I've hardly ever seen one. In fact, I don't know if I ever have seen one that was licensed.

A voice: That's out west.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

A voice: You don't see them on the prairies either—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Boats in Alberta—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Order, please. It's a question you can't answer, because you can apply for the registration and not put the numbers on the boat—

Mr. Lee Morrison: So what are the penalties if you don't register? Or are there any?

A voice: None.

The Chairman: The problem is that there's no order in the registration now. If you have a 20-horsepower boat and go to the customs office and register your boat, they give you a series of numbers, and most people end up never putting them on the boat. I have two of those boats in my boathouse.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Absolutely! And I'm not going to hide it. It's a system that doesn't work and that's why some people are looking at it.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the risk of talking this thing to death, I understand where Ms. Desjarlais is coming from and where Mr. Morrison is coming from, but that's exactly why we—or someone or whoever—should have a much fuller discussion on this whole aspect of the licensing. That is going to have to be on another day, not today obviously, because we're not going to strike an amendment or call witnesses to get the best amendment possible to this particular bill.

That's why we've set aside proposed section 49 and said, “Look, there are too many questions to be asked here so let's just set 'er aside and leave the existing stuff there.”

To give Ms. Desjarlais some comfort—because I saw her eyebrows go up as well as Mr. Dubé's—quite frankly, order in council...if they want to put a tax on dental floss they can do it, whether it's in this bill or not. So to not put anything in this bill under that particular venue...and we have 108...they are going to be very accountable. I can give you the assurance of this side of the table anyway, and of the government, that they're not going to come walking into a room and all of a sudden declare licensing on small recreational water craft and put one- and two-year licensing on without some kind of full—and I mean full—public hearings on this kind of thing, in order to get all the information necessary to do the thing right.

The Chairman: Before I go to Monsieur Dubé and Mr. Cullen, we are dealing with an amendment. The question that will be put to you is “Do we withdraw?” Do we delete those lines or do we not? That will be the question I'll be asking you.

Monsieur Dubé—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Question—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I announced them both before.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I think it should be taken out, but that does not solve all the problems. I accept much of Mr. Keyes' argument.

However, he ended in saying that clause 108 and perhaps other acts might even allow the minister to tax dental floss. It is true, but if you look at it positively, I think the best way to solve the matter in this bill would be to provide a better definition of "ship affected by this Act". That would be the solution.

I am not saying it would be easy and I do not want to give you a definition today. We know that right now, if it is not in the Act, there are regulations that refer to 10 or more horsepower. Perhaps that is not the right definition. There are problems in the case of Seadoos. There have been accidents, and perhaps there should be stricter regulations at some point because there have been some deaths. Ms. Desjarlais is also concerned about that. However, perhaps that is too much to include here.

• 1030

The Chairman: That will not be solved by Bill C-15, clause 3, pages 21 and 22. Let us get back to business.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out one last thing. We are amending an Act that dates back to 1936. That is correct. We shouldn't wait so long next time. It is important to mention that. I would say to the current government that when a bill is drafted, if you are going to do it, do it right.

I feel we are left hanging. I think a lot of people will be unclear about the situation because in 10 years, a Liberal minister, a Conservative minister or one from the Reform Party might do something people do not want.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

As the mover, you get the last comment.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to assure Mr. Dubé. He said we should do this properly. To do this properly, on Seadoos, on size of vessel, and so on, is to do it through the regulations.

The Chairman: It will not be an easy task.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: In clause 3, my objection was on proposed section 7. So we're not carrying the whole group.

The Chairman: We agreed we would deal with your issue; therefore I need a majority vote to cancel the last vote.

Is that agreed, gang? A deal is a deal.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay. Ms. Desjarlais.

An hon. member: What page are we on?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: We're on clause 3, proposed section 7, page 16 of the big, long book. It's amendment G-13 in this other one, clause 18....

No, sorry, I have the wrong one.

The Chairman: So your concern is not with clause 3.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, it is. I shouldn't have looked at this page.

The Chairman: Could you explain your point, please.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: It's clause 3, proposed section 7, on the powers of ministers, page 16 by my book. I'm going by this.

The name of the game is, if you don't want confusion, you don't give so many papers with all this stuff on them.

The Chairman: I agree with you 100%.

It's page 5 in the bill.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: It's in regard to the powers of ministers. There is a concern that the authority of the minister may be used to sort of overrule things, rather than just in emergency situations.

The Chairman: Therefore what is your amendment?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: There are no controlling provisions that would limit the power to a time of emergency, and that should be included in here. Or is there an intent that will follow in the regulations?

The Chairman: What we are seeking is an amendment from you.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Oh, okay.

The Chairman: If you have an amendment to present—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: My apologies. I thought we were just having a discussion on it. No, I won't move—

The Chairman: But if you need clarification, we'll—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I can get clarification later, and if I want to move an amendment I know I can do it at a later date.

The Chairman: That's right. Therefore there's no concern....

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé, would you like to move any amendments to clause 3?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I just wanted to draw your attention to that for later on.

The Chairman: I am accepting amendments to clause 3.

• 1035

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Clause 3 starts on page 4. I just wanted to express my views on the definition referred to in clause 2. It affects pleasure craft in clause 7. That is for later. I did not put it in my initial list. I had put 7, but I will add 2 as well.

The Chairman: Clause 2?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes.

The Chairman: Clause 2 is adopted.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, but when you said that, when we have a problem...

The Chairman: At the end, you can ask your colleague to support you when you ask for a review of clause 2.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you.

[English]

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Now, government amendment 13.

Oh, just a moment. There was a concern about clause 5. Who had a concern here?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I did, but

[Inaudible—Editor] the other one. You can leave it.

The Chairman: So we're prepared to vote on clause 5?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I had a problem with that and I would like to mention it to you. It was with 7(2). Paragraph 7(1) talks about the role of the Transport Minister and 7(2) talks about the role of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That poses a problem with the definition. It says that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will handle pleasure crafts and the Transport Minister will handle the other ships.

The Chairman: Just a moment. You are talking about clause 7, but in fact, that is in clause 3. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In other words, clause 7...

The Chairman: Just a moment.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You are right. Clause 7 contains the definition of boats. Two people are responsible. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans...

The Chairman: What page are you on, Mr. Dubé?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Clause 7, on page 5. We are on clause 7, are we not?

The Chairman: We've already done that. Point 7 of clause 3.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I often attend committee meetings, but this is more complicated than usual; it is like working in virtual reality.

The Chairman: I understand, and it is very difficult to chair a meeting of this type because the information came out yesterday evening.

So, with regard to clause 3, the matter is settled. You can come back to it at the end and ask your colleagues to reconsider it.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: No, no. It is 7 and 2. It is a matter of defining «pleasure craft».

The Chairman: Did you have any problems with clause 5?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: No, not me.

The Chairman: Sorry, clause 5 is adopted. We are now on clause 7.

(Clause 7)

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Just a second.

[English]

The Chairman: Who had concerns with clause 7?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé, do you have a problem with clause 7?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I don't remember. Go ahead.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we ready?

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

The Chairman: Who had concerns with clause 8?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I did.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais had concerns with clause 8, but no longer does.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 18)

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to preface my remarks by congratulating Madam Simard on her presentation to the committee. It was very informative, and while we appreciate the Shipping Federation of Canada's support of the government's intention on ballast water, I have to state that we do have a difference of opinion on which is the appropriate vehicle for regulatory power concerning ballast water.

• 1040

Mr. Chairman, just as a point of clarification, given that, for example, the U.S. Coast Guard treats ballast water management as a pollution matter and has issued regulations in that course way back as far as 1993, and given that the International Maritime Organization, IMO, also recognizes that this is a pollution matter, as it intends to publish its international ballast water management regulations as an annex to the international convention responsible for pollution, which is titled MARPOL and expected some time in 2000, and given the careful consideration by government on the representation made by the Shipping Federation of Canada, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are going to stick to our guns on this one. So we find that this particular clause 18 needs the amendment on ballast water control and management regulations.

We're looking forward to the support of everyone on this amendment.

The Chairman: Is there any debate on the amendment? Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I have two questions. Number one, what's wrong with the wording in the bill? Why are you changing it at all? It looks pretty all-inclusive.

Number two, what enforcement mechanisms are in place to make people exchange their ballast on the high seas? You can't see what they're doing out there. They could show up in a harbour with a tank full of slop from the Red Sea and say they got it in the North Atlantic and who's to know?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Well, maybe our officials can speak directly to the inspection and enforcement of such things. We know that, for example—this may be a concern of the Shipping Federation of Canada—that there are pretty hefty fines for criminal offences under the part that we want to put this section into.

To answer your first question, Lee, that's exactly what we're doing here. This is a brand-new provision. There's no existing legislation. What we're saying now is that we're getting tough with the ballast water.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Why are you amending what you've already written in the bill? What's wrong with the wording in the bill? It looks stronger than the amendment. You've taken out all reference to aquatic organisms, pathogens, etc. Why?

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's not so much the wording that we're changing around but the location of where it's going to be put in the bill. I think Mr. Streeter can fill in the blanks. We're attempting to change not so much the wording but the location of this section.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Keyes, and in response, Mr. Morrison.

The reason we're changing the wording is two-fold. There is at present no established liability regime for the environmental damage caused by the introduction of an unwanted or foreign aquatic organism.

Although Canada certainly wishes to regulate it and to be able to go aboard to take samples to address the concern you have in terms of enforcement, we do not wish at this time, without full consultation, to randomly say that this substance should be defined under the existing marine pollution prevention conventions as a pollutant.

We are working internationally on definitions. We believe it's an environmental protection issue and rightly belongs in that section of the act, but at this point in time, we do not believe we should overtly state that it is a pollutant. That's because it will then tie all of the foreign shipowners into a regime that's meant primarily for oil pollution.

Until such time as the international community develops that regime, we want it there, but we do not want the direct link to the liability aspects.

So there are enforcement provisions in that. We are basically looking for the ability to test ballast water if we have a concern.

Our ports control inspections now. When we go aboard a vessel, we will check their registry to make sure they have exchanged ballast. At present, we do not have the authority to test, and we would like that authority to confirm that these things have been done.

Mr. Lee Morrison: When they exchange ballast on the high seas, do they have to enter that in their log book?

• 1045

Mr. Bud Streeter: Under the voluntary guidelines, yes, sir, they do, and they have been, as the Shipping Federation noted this morning, very diligent in the application of the voluntary guidelines.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on government amendment G-13?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I am going to surprise you. I agree with the Liberal parliamentary secretary on this.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we ready?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 20)

The Chairman: Next is government amendment 14. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: This may be another one where the Bloc agrees with us, Mr. Chairman. But for the comfort of all members opposite, it's the corporation for pilots, the harbour of Quebec, and the Department of Finance all agreeing with these amendments, which are technical in nature and propose to update the applicable section.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Next I call government amendments 15 and 16, also on clause 20. Is there any discussion on these amendments?

(Amendments agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Will we go back to the clause we had stood?

[English]

The Chairman: We're going to backtrack.

[Translation]

M. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Chairman, let me simplify this.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll backtrack.

Is there a request to reconsider a clause? If there is, we'll respond. If there's no request to reconsider a clause, let me know.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: It has to be done quickly.

The Chairman: Are you asking us to review a clause?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Not being a critic, at the report stage, I would like to see a discussion on a new definition of “pleasure craft”. I am not ready to suggest one this morning.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report Bill C-15 as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I usually share that responsibility with my vice-chairs.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Chairman, when this is reprinted, will all the numbers be changed accordingly?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: So the clauses will not necessarily have the same number.

The Chairman: It will be ready when the bill is tabled in the House. Is that all?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, that is all.

[English]

The Chairman: This completes Bill C-15. Thank you very much.

Now, committee members, I need you for three minutes, in camera.

(Proceedings continue in camera)