TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 1124

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I apologize for the late start. We had a lot of amendments and they were being printed.

We're gathered here today for Bill C-14, to do with the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act of 1987 and other acts. I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask the officials to be at the table in case there are technical questions when the bill is being deliberated. So if the officials will take their places, I will start the proceedings shortly.

• 1125

Ladies and gentlemen, I understand there are no amendments for clauses 2 to 13. Shall they carry?

(Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 14—Authorized representative)

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis, when you make amendments will you refer to the page and clause, so that the members can find it and they know exactly where you're at?

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): If you're calling on me, Mr. Chair, yes. It's on clause 14, page 9. With virtually all the amendments, of which there are about two dozen, Mr. Chair, we've just got wording changes either to make things more grammatically correct or to correct a slight inconsistency. Here we're adding the words “under this Act”, just to make sure we're talking about the Canada Shipping Act. I would ask the committee's agreement that the amendment carry there, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 15 to 85 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 86—Liens)

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis, you have the floor.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On clause 86, page 41, Mr. Chair—am I to read the whole thing into the record?

The Chair: It's up to the opposition. Is it agreed that the reading be dispensed with?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Okay. If anybody has any questions... I'd ask that the committee support the amendment, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 86 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 87 to 95 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 96—Informing province)

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On clause 96, page 45, I ask the committee to support that amendment, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 96 as amended agreed to)

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CA): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time I've had a chance to receive these amendments, so I find it really difficult, in all honesty, to say that I can make informed decisions on them.

The Chair: You have some options, Brian. You could abstain, or you might ask some questions.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I think I'd have to, or I'm not exercising due diligence on this.

The Chair: But as you said, the time is not sufficient. I appreciate that.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I'm going to dissent.

The Chair: Madam Desjarlais of the NDP.

• 1130

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Is there some reason why these amendments couldn't have been given to committee members earlier, just to ensure whether or not there was a problem with them, where there could have been adequate discussion and checking into them? Or is this a soft-shoe approach to make sure something slips by?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Through you, Mr. Chair, at no time did I attempt to slide anything through, Bev. A number of the amendments were the result of the interventions of the Maritime Law Association, points that were raised in their testimony last week. Some are indeed very late in the day. If any opposition member, or government member for that matter, has questions on the amendments, that's why the officials are here, to help. In the case of this number 100 coming up next, it's just a change in the translation of a phrase. So they are essentially very minor touch-ups to the wording.

The Chair: Okay. It would probably be a courtesy, and it also may be the right thing to do, that you may ask the officials exactly what these amendments mean, so it gives you more information on it. As you know, we did have the bill and we did have a number of inputs, and I think the government tried to modify it where they felt there was good input.

Mario, you have the floor, from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Chairman, given that we received the amendments just this morning, let's not go so quickly. Let's take the time to get familiar with the legislation. Don't put so much pressure on us. Let's take the time we need to understand the words in the text so that it might be easier to follow.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I apologize. I know sometimes the committee does not want to include the officials, but in this particular case you may. Since they are the experts on some of the drafting, it's a good idea to find out from them. So perhaps, on this last amendment, the officials would give us something—we don't want a big dissertation.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Where are we now?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chair, all members have the opportunity either to ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify any comments he's made or, if appropriate, if they feel it's necessary, to ask the officials to explain a little further on any item we deal with. The item before us now is with regard to clause 100, and it's a French translation correction. That's what's been presented here. So that's on the table now, I understand, which is page G-4 in the full package.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On a point of order, Mr. Chair. Have we done this? Have we done up to 99 yet?

(Clauses 97 to 99 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 100—Regulations)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On clause 100, Mr. Chair, in deference to the opposition, this is essentially to correct the translation of articles of agreement in the French to “contrat d'engagement” rather than “accord d'engagement”.

The Chair: Any questions?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 100 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 101 to 109 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 110—Carrying excess number of persons)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, on clause 110, this amendment is required to make it clear it is not an offence to pick up survivors in a rescue situation.

• 1135

The Chair: Questions? Brian?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: No. I'm looking for some reasonable explanation of what's going on with these things.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Okay.

So do I ask the committee's support for the amendment to 110?

The Chair: Yes. Would you read the version into the record, Mr. St-Denis?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Okay.

Exception to subsection (1)

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a person carried on board a vessel in pursuance of the obligation on the master to carry shipwrecked, distressed or other persons.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 110 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 111 to 119 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 120—Regulations)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, this motion modifies paragraph 120(1)(k), which allows the Minister of Transport to retain authority to regulate or prohibit the operation of commercial vehicles. This change is consequential to a later clause, 136, so I ask the committee's support for the amendment.

The Chair: Madam Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Does this clause refer to any changes in the clauses coming up?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes. There's a change in clause 136 that affects clause 120. So it may be more appropriate to ask the questions at clause 136. Is that okay?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 120 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: With one abstention by Brian.

(Clauses 121 to 123 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 124—When compliance agreement in effect)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: At clause 124, Mr. Chair, the amendment corrects a typographical error. The subsection should not include reference to 122(1)—there is no subclause (1). That typographical error is being corrected.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 124 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 125—Definitions)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Again, Mr. Chair, this is a consequential change related to clause 136. So if the opposition is agreeable, we could defer questions until we get to 136. I'd ask the committee's support to amend clause 125.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): I would like to go back to clause 125. Is there a mistake in the French text? It reads: “time créée”. Should it be “maritime” or “time”?

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): It's just the line that is corrected.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, but what does “time” mean?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Take a look here in the legislation...

[English]

The Chair: Serge, according to the staff, apparently there is no error.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: He knows. He's realized it.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

• 1140

Mr. Paul Szabo: G-8 refers to clause 125, just to be clear that this is simply to amend the reference to the paragraph.

The parliamentary secretary wants to look at the underlined portion on G-8, where changes are noted. They're only to change the paragraph reference number.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: We're going to discuss clause 136 too, so it's a cross-reference change.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you. I would also point out that in the French version there is a small typo in the reference. I assume that will be corrected.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 125 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 126 agreed to)

(On clause 127—Variations from requirements or conditions)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, clause 127, like a few of the others, is a cross-reference change—the result of changes to clause 136. So I would ask the committee to adopt the amendment.

The Chair: We heard the explanations. Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Is that the one where you have the number 16 at the bottom circled?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, it's G-9.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chair, again, the referencing in the French has the same error in the parentheses.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's missing a bracket is what you're saying.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes. I assume we'll conform those items and have the parentheses inserted correctly.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 127 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 128 to 133 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 134—Presence on Islands)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On G-10, Mr. Chair, I'll make a short comment. If there are any technical questions, perhaps I might get the assistance of the officials.

A couple of amendments refer to Sable Island. The Canadian Coast Guard retains responsibility for a number of islands used for navigational aid purposes. These require no citing in the Canada Shipping Act, as responsibility is maintained in other legislation. Thus, removing the reference to St. Paul Island in Bill C-14 does not change the coast guard's current responsibility for St. Paul Island.

But removing it does give the coast guard greater flexibility, if it desired, to transfer or divest St. Paul Island to the province or to some other authority.

If there are more technical questions than that, Mr. Chair, I would refer them to one of the officials.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Alliance.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I do have some questions about that. Is there nuclear waste on those islands, or is there some ecosystem they don't want any humans there to affect?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Navigational aids—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: It says “No person”. It doesn't just confine itself to shipping, does it?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Could I ask Mr. Streeter to take this?

The Chair: Sure. Now be precise and answer the question.

Mr. Bud Streeter (Director General, Marine Safety, Transport Canada): Actually, because it's a coast guard matter, I will defer to my colleague on my right.

Mr. Steve A. Troy (Director, Safety and Environmental Response Systems, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, there's no hazardous waste that we're aware of. So to deal with your question, as I said, it's purely to pick up on the reference to coverage under other legislation.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Under this act, do I understand correctly that no person can be on Sable Island?

Mr. Steve Troy: For Sable Island, yes, there are ecosystem concerns because of the ponies on the island. But the reference here is to St. Paul.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Why do we have this prohibition? That's what I'm wondering. I know why you've taken St. Paul off, but why is there a prohibition on human beings being on Sable Island?

Mr. Bud Streeter: They need authorization.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Not without authorization, okay.

• 1145

Mr. Bud Streeter: There are a number of reasons. As Mr. Troy said, there are ecosystem concerns: the Sable Island ponies are a unique breed. Also, because the Sable Island group is mainly made of sand and changes its topography because of the shifting sands, there are safety concerns if people were out there.

There is also a very sophisticated remote weather station there for marine and aviation forecasts. It's a Government of Canada facility, and of course the users would not like to have it interfered with. So if you wish to go onto Sable Island, you have to have permission. There are checks to make sure you don't upset the ecosystem, don't chase the ponies around, don't go digging holes looking for the reputed pirates' treasure. This is a unique part of Canada.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: To follow up on this point, if I was deciding whether a particular part of Canada was available to me, as a person, and whether I had mobility rights there under the charter—I wouldn't start looking for this sort of prohibition in the Shipping Act.

If the thrust of this is protecting the environment, the last place I'd think to look would be under the Shipping Act. I'd be scratching my head a long time, and looking through a lot of acts, to figure out that the Shipping Act was where this sort of provision was. It seems strange to me.

Mr. Bud Streeter: The reason for it is purely historical. It's been resident there since time immemorial. As we amended the act, it was brought to our attention that this is one of those issues you amend at your peril. So it was deemed best to leave it where it is—with the exception of St. Paul Island, which is quite close to Cape Breton. It only has a navigation lighthouse on it, and it's actually becoming quite accessible. So rather than have people request permission every time they go onto St. Paul, that restriction has been removed.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I'll just raise one other point. There's an old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I would say this sort of provision is really throwing that idea out into left field, because I don't know how an average citizen could possibly comprehend these sorts of provisions. You might, but I don't think the person on the street would ever anticipate this sort of provision being in the Shipping Act.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Well, I would respond in two ways. If you and I, as voters, decided we wished to go to Sable Island, I assume the first thing we would do is get our road maps. And our road maps would say, very clearly, “Access prohibited, please contact so-and-so”. Or we would search the web to find out about visiting Sable Island and we would get the same warnings.

We do the best we can to make sure these types of prohibitions are put on all aviation and nautical charts. Actually, on some road maps of Nova Scotia, I believe you may even see a small reference that travel to the island is prohibited.

The Chair: We have a number of interveners, starting with Mario. I have Bev, Mr. Doyle, and Marcel Proulx. We'll start with Mario from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: My question is for Mr. St. Denis. Is the sole purpose of this amendment to ensure that Saint-Paul Island is not subject to this regulation?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Desjarlais of the NDP, please.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Well, since I know the historical background of Sable Island, I can understand the provision being here. You probably want shippers to know they can't land on the island. But I don't know about St. Paul, and there's no way for me to check with other people who may object to it being taken off the list at this late date.

From my perspective, I won't agree to it—only because there's just no way for me to check further. To me this isn't just a little regulation change, a legal matter. This is quite a big change without any sort of verification.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: My only comment is to characterize Sable Island and St. Paul Island as being hugely different geographical entities. Is that fair? The overriding need to preserve Sable Island isn't on the same scale as the need to protect St. Paul and require people to have authority to visit.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Well, why did they do it at all?

• 1150

The Chair: Mr. Doyle, of the Conservatives.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): I had been wondering about St. Paul. He answered my question already on that.

The Chair: Marcel Proulx, and then I'll come back to Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are we to understand that these—at least the one on Sable—exist now, or existed before those restrictions existed? Aside from the maps and the website, because not everybody has access to the website, I suppose there is local signage, if somebody decides to use their rowboat to go there.

Mr. Norman Doyle: The sign is in the water.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: The Alliance.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chairman, I also understood that part of the rationale is that it may not be safe to dock there. There aren't adequate facilities or whatever. I assume that St. Paul has adequate facilities, so that could be taken off the list.

Mr. Bud Streeter: St. Paul is very close to the northern part of Cape Breton Island and has a wharf that is used by the lighthouse keeper and is used by the coast guard to resupply the lighthouse.

Because of the increase in boating it is becoming quite accessible. The difference with Sable Island is that it's extremely remote, and there are no facilities for landing. Most people who go there go by air, primarily by helicopter. In terms of wharfs, it's almost impossible to build wharfs because, as I say, the topography changes with the tides and the winds, and the sands come and the sands go. It's a very active system as well. So it's extremely difficult to land and to get access.

But, in response to the question, yes, there is signage on the island. It's a long row, but the signage is there in both official languages.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I have some follow-up questions on that point, just to be... There must be lots of islands in Canada, in our oceans and our inland areas and so on, that don't have wharfs. Am I safe to assume that we can take our boats to these ones that aren't on your list?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Yes, sir, you are.

The issue with these islands is, of course, the necessary structure that's there to protect mariners and to protect boaters; the aids to navigation that are there, the lighthouses—issues like that, that are required to protect and to be protected if they're not manned.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 134 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 135 agreed to)

(On clause 136—Regulations)

The Chair: There are two amendments to clause 136.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: There's amendment G-11 on your list, related to the same issue—the removal of the reference to St. Paul Island.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What's all that stuff? That doesn't look even a little technical. It's pretty sweeping.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Actually, maybe my list is different. I think there are two amendments to clause 136, and my notes only have the one, I think, here. My apologies.

They're in reverse order; that's all. Sorry.

Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I wonder if amendment G-12... Can I ask the officials if it matters if we do either of those amendments in any particular order? Does it matter?

It doesn't matter? Okay.

Amendments G-11 and G-12 both relate to clause 136, and they're just in different order in my notes compared to this list here. They all ultimately relate to the same issue, that being removing St. Paul Island and giving the coast guard the authority to deal with St. Paul Island outside the purview of the Canada Shipping Act, if it comes to transferring it to the province of Ontario or some other agency. Is that a fair characterization, Mr. Streeter?

• 1155

Mr. Bud Streeter: Yes, sir, that is true for clause 136, line 22. The other amendment to clause 136 is in response, as you may recall, to the intervention by the Canadian Yachting Association that the existing language permitted the Minister of Transport to regulate and prohibit anchoring of commercial ships, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do the same for recreational vessels. Perhaps the two of them might not agree, so we would have this silly situation where commercial ships could anchor, for example, and pleasure craft could not.

So the second amendment in your order, which is the—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Amendment G-12.

Mr. Bud Streeter: —G-12, yes, sir, in fact gives joint regulation-making authority to ensure that—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's amendment G-11.

Mr. Bud Streeter: It's amendment G-11, I'm sorry... to make sure that we would not make the mistake of regulating the two sectors differently. So it has the consequential amendments that you referred to earlier, in fact. It removes the authority for the Minister of Transport to deal with vessels above 15 gross tonnes and for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to deal with vessels below 15 gross tonnes, and it permits both ministers to deal with all vessels together.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I'll throw out a hypothetical so I can try to relate what we're doing here. As I say, I haven't had a lot of time to study these. Let's say I'm in northern Ontario, and I have a 16-foot-long boat with a 35-horsepower Johnson outboard motor on it, and the lake I'm operating on doesn't have mooring facilities, etc., on it. Under this provision, if the minister deems that the lake should have mooring or wharf facilities on it and I pull that boat up on the shoreline, I could be in violation of these regulations?

Mr. Bud Streeter: No, sir. If I could use perhaps the same boat but a slightly different example, what this would say would be if in that lake there were cables leading to telephones or power cables underwater, there may be prohibited areas where you could not anchor your boat because the act of anchoring might damage the underwater cables. So those areas could be prohibited.

Under the old provisions the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would say that for your small vessel. Then the Minister of Transport would have to say similarly for the commercial large vessel. What we've done with this amendment is to say that the two ministers collectively can say to the Governor in Council, we would like to prohibit anchoring in that area to protect those underwater cables.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Without having a lot of time to read this provision, with all due respect, I can't accept that. I'll just read it:

prohibiting the navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels for the purposes of promoting the safe and efficient navigation of vessels and protecting the public interest and the environment.

I would say that if the minister decided it's not in the best interest to have boats coming up on the sand or the beach, or that it might disturb the fisheries or something, he could make regulations prohibiting that under that provision. It seems to me it's fairly broad and wide.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Those provisions already exist and are used in the boating restriction regulations.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: That's scary.

Mr. Bud Streeter: For example, to permit rowing regattas—you wouldn't want speed boats in the middle of that, so you can use temporary prohibitions for that. They're used to permit things like the poker races that we see on the river here at certain times. They're also used for permanent restrictions in areas, as I say, of cables, of structures of cultural significance, or of heritage significance. They're used for speed limits. They're used for navigation rights of way to prevent conflict with large and small vessels that are perhaps using frequented waterways. They are necessary as highway regulations are necessary to restrict and control traffic, as and when required, all with Governor in Council approval.

The clear intent of this amendment over the act is simply to ensure that we do that jointly so that we don't have right-hand, left-hand in any scenario.

(Amendment G-11 agreed to on division—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Amendment G-12 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1200

(Clause 136 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 137 agreed to)

(On clause 138—Contravention of Act or regulations)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, I think it was Bev who asked about the new clause. We were dealing with amendments earlier consequential to clause 136 and I took it for granted there was a clause 136 amendment.

I'm sorry, we've done clause 136, and we've done clause 137. Clause 138 is consequential to clause 136 as well. It's a cross-reference change. I'd like the committee's support for amendment G-13.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 138 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 139—Contravention of section 134)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I have a government amendment at clause 139. It is G-14 on your list, colleagues. This is, I think, the last reference to St. Paul Island that needs to be removed. So I'd ask the committee's support.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 139 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall clauses 140 to 147—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but according to my notes here, I have an amendment to clause 141. I'd ask you to call clause 140.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Hold on.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What page is that?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, in my list here I have clause 141. Let me check with the officials here. In my briefing book it's clause 141. This amendment is required to ensure that all vessels are included in this part. It basically adds the words “all other” vessels in Canadian waters. I don't know why it's not in your package. Is it at G-16?

A voice: No.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'm not sure what we do, Mr. Chair. All we're doing at clause 141 is adding the words “all other”.

The Chair: Let's do clause 140 and then we'll make the change to clause 141.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Great idea.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: The secret amendment.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: We'll get it explained.

(Clause 140 agreed to)

(On clause 141—Vessels)

The Chair: There's an amendment.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, if I could read that, I'll then ask for the officials to support me on this.

I move that clause 141 be amended by replacing line 4 on page 67, with the following. The two words “all other” are added in front of “vessels in Canadian waters”. So it's “all other vessels in Canadian waters”.

Mr. Streeter, I'd ask you to explain that.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Thank you, sir. Basically, it replaces the word “foreign” with “all other”. It simply says so that this part would apply to Canadian vessels and in respect of all other vessels in Canadian waters.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 141 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 142 to 147 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 148—Duty of masters in collision)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: This motion is consequential to clause 141, the one we just did.

The Chair: Brian.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Is this G-15?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's G-15. Yes, sorry.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Just out of curiosity, has anyone thrown these sorts of things to the Justice people to determine whether they would fit with the charter?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Yes, sir, the entire bill and amendments have gone through charter review. This also, of course, was in response to a request from some stakeholders, including the police, in terms of investigation and following accidents. That's why it's in that section on incidents and accidents.

• 1205

The Chair: We have a question from Ms. Desjarlais of the NDP.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: So I understand that in the changes you're just adding the “if any” and the “representative if any”.

In follow-up to that comment, if it has gone through the process of being run through Justice as being okay, was that the old act or the specific changes?

Mr. Bob Streeter: No, it is the present act and the specific changes.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: If you could run those specific changes through Justice, why didn't we have them before today?

Mr. Bob Streeter: Because...

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Not being an expert on procedure... I understand that amendments are, like bills, secret until they're brought to committee, or something. I might need the clerk's advice on the procedure there.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Secret could be a dangerous word to be used these days.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: It is extremely disappointing that we're rushing and scrambling through this. You're scrambling through paper. We're trying to make sure we do the best job we can, and it might seem like there's no big deal with this bill, but if there's no big deal, then what's the problem with delaying it a bit longer and making sure everything's okay? Then we hear that these amendments were all ready. So why couldn't they come to committee? Why are we scrambling around at the last blooming minute?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, bills, when they are being drafted, for parliamentary reasons, historical reasons, and reasons of precedent, are secret until tabled in the House. But certainly Justice lawyers look at bills before they are tabled in the House. I'm assuming that on the same basis they would look at amendments before they are brought here. I will defer to experts in that regard, but that's my take on it.

Mr. Chair, can I ask Mr. Streeter to explain that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bob Streeter: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate being able to intervene not on a matter of technical expertise but certainly on a matter of the process we follow as we amend regulations.

As you may know, the drafters in our regulatory unit are in fact Justice personnel, and they are supervised by senior Justice people who have access by telephone or e-mail to experts in multiple areas in the Department of Justice.

When we're drafting regulations, that's one thing. But when we're drafting amendments to this act in response primarily to the stakeholder concerns and to address any issues, we discuss concepts as to whether or not we can do certain things with both the drafters. If they feel there are charter issues involved, they will invoke that call. It's not a case of having had the amendments written down, translated, and then sent over for Justice review.

That's why I said they have been subject to that review. They've been subject to that review in a multiplicity of forms, not necessarily a full, comprehensive written submission in the order we wanted it submitted.

In these cases where they were drafted, some of them, as late as yesterday unfortunately, were consulted upon via telephone, via our senior counsel who are represented here.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I want to reiterate a point on this whole process that we're in here. It's great to say things are kept in secret and so on, but as a member of Parliament, when I'm trying to assess legislation as a representative of my constituents, they expect me to do due diligence and to make an informed decision on what's going on and try to sort things out. This is impossible.

I would remind everyone involved here that Gordon Robertson, who was the Clerk of the Privy Council for four prime ministers, a very well-respected person in this town, has not got very kind words for a lot of the processes that are taking place in this city these days in the way of government. I think all of us should stand back a bit and reassess what we're all trying to do in this town.

I find it amazing that I'd get this all thrown at me and not have a chance to assess these amendments, and I'm not really, in all honesty, able to do that. This is a rubber-stamp procedure.

The Chair: For the Liberals, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the members will know that when we do clause-by-clause, any member can propose an amendment to the bill during this process, and that there is no designated or prescribed notice period, etc.

• 1210

I share the concern of the members, though, that where there are substantive changes any party would like to have considered and passed, those should certainly be discussed in advance as a point of courtesy and good form.

Having said that, I remind you that the parliamentary secretary indicated to members when this package was circulated that these were clean-up amendments. There is nothing in this package that is major. There is at this time, however, an opportunity for any member to ask questions for clarification, to ask the officials to reaffirm or explain any detail to the satisfaction of the member.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we're going through a process now of considering amending rules, what they call modernizing Parliament, and of looking at the question of efficiency. Since there is a debate tonight, I intend to speak, and this is certainly one of the instances where I think it would be useful for members to raise concerns about getting a lot of paper just beforehand. We get it from witnesses. They pass out witness testimony and information while the witness is getting seated, and we can't possibly read it. We do have some opportunities to fix this.

I would just suggest, for the good of the committee, that we take as much time as necessary to make sure that every member has a complete explanation for any question they have. In the event that there's anything they don't understand or something they need to consult, I suggest we stand down a clause until they find the answer. We can deal with the clause at the very end before we deal with the last paragraph. That is also an option to members, to stand a clause until they are ready to consider it or until they have made any inquiries they feel are necessary.

We do have the tools to do this properly, but I do share the concern about dealing with such a large number of amendments. I accept the parliamentary secretary's word that these are not significant amendments but are amendments that members can deal with adequately in the normal course of things, provided we take the time.

The Chair: Okay. Serge Marcil of the Liberal Party has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I will proceed in the following manner. It is moved that Bill C-14, in clause 148, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 14 on page 69 with the following:

(b) give the name

There is an “s” missing in the French version.

of the vessel, if any, the name and address of its authorized representative, if any, and any other prescribed information

Why do we want to add “if any”? Why not leave the clause as it is? There must be some reason for adding the words “if any”. The same thing occurs in clause 149. Why do we want to amend this clause? What is that going to add to the bill? Let's not make amendments for the sake of making amendments.

[English]

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, could I possibly help Serge on that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I will get Mr. Streeter to back me up on this, but I take it that not all boats have names. If there is a name for a boat, like the Mary Jane, then it will be included. That just reflects the fact that some boats don't have names, Serge, is that correct?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Yes.

The Chair: You can ask your question.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I would like to know whether or not the law makes it mandatory for every boat to have a name, or does it simply state that they need to have a registration number?

[English]

Mr. Bud Streeter: No, sir, the regulations do not require—

[Translation]

Pardon me. No, Sir, the regulations do not require every boat to have a name. Small vessels are governed by a licensing system and these vessels have numbers only.

Mr. Serge Marcil: I understand. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Shall amendment G-15 carry?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 148 as amended agreed to)

• 1215

(On clause 149—Inquiry into cause of death on board)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I have an amendment here, G-16. This is something to reflect the fact that even though provinces and territories have the authority to register births and deaths, there are births that take place on boats offshore, where no province or territory has jurisdiction. This is to make sure that babies can be registered federally if they can't be registered in a province or territory.

The Chair: Okay. That's clear enough.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'm sorry, I jumped ahead. That's another one.

Mr. Paul Szabo: G-16 talks about death, not birth.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'm sorry. I just looked at the key word there, and there's another amendment along those lines, so I'll save that. I'll have one speech fewer to make later on.

In a similar vein, there are sometimes situations where there is no authority, no body, to conduct an inquiry. Well, the minister retains the right to conduct an inquiry where there is a death on a vessel, but if the minister is satisfied that some other inquiry such as a coroner's inquiry has done the job, he has a choice not to intervene. Where there is no other inquiry provision, he has the authority to initiate one. So this is to fill a hole. There's the same argument for a different problem.

The Chair: Serge Marcil of the Liberals, you have the floor, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: It is moved that clause 149 be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 69 with the following:

Canada, the Minister is to endeavour to ascertain the cause of death and, for that purpose, may hold an inquiry.

How would clause 149 read if the amendment were adopted?

[English]

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, if I may have your indulgence, you're adding the underlined portions, so the minister is to endeavour to ascertain the cause of death and for that purpose may hold an inquiry. However, it's possible that some other inquiry such as a provincial coroner's inquiry will take place.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. There's a problem in the line's identification on the French version. When we say line 22, we're shifting into subparagraph (ii), so obviously there's an indication problem there.

Presumably it should be line 20 instead of line 22.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Merci. Mr. Chair, maybe the officials can take note, and it'll be a—what do you call...

Mr. Bud Streeter: My apologies, sir, we will...

Mr. Brent St. Denis: We can make the numbers conform.

So I'd ask your support—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: May I ask a question on that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: If a person just died from natural causes—perhaps they had a heart attack or something along those lines, and it had nothing to do with anything unusual—would that section not require an inquiry to be held?

Mr. Bud Streeter: No, it would require that the minister ascertain if a cause of death had been determined. In this case, if it was because of natural causes, there would be a medical coroner in some jurisdiction who would do that. If there wasn't, if for example the person was a passenger and there was no competent ship's doctor to certify his death, it might well be that the minister would have to ensure that a death certificate was issued by a competent medical authority. Only if no competent authority was investigating would the minister investigate. The reason for the language is primarily to ensure that the mandate given by the Government of Canada to the Transportation Safety Board, namely to look into all marine incidents and accidents to determine cause and contributing factors, is not interfered with by the Department of Transport or the minister.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: So the minister in your department in all likelihood would accept a doctor's certificate stating the cause of death and would not pursue it any further, or would you feel it's in the public interest to pursue this matter further?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Unless there were circumstances that led us to believe that there was an issue, we would accept the medical certificate.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Would the minister himself inquire into those circumstances under that section, or would he delegate that to somebody in your department?

Mr. Bud Streeter: The intent is that he would delegate it. This authority is presently delegated to shipping masters, who look after the rights of seafarers in all offices of marine safety across Canada.

The Chair: Mr. Marcil of the Liberals.

• 1220

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I have a question on the same thing. Earlier, Mr. Chairman, I had asked that we introduce... The line number had not been indicated properly. I'm referring to line 20. If I move the amendment to the clause, this clause will read as follows:

149. (1) If a person dies on board a Canadian vessel, on the vessel's arrival at a port in Canada, the Minister is to endeavour to ascertain the cause of death and, for that purpose, may hold an inquiry.

We're replacing the words: “is to enquire into the cause of the death”. Clause 149, in its current form, stipulates that when a person dies on board a vessel, on the vessel's arrival at a port in Canada, an inquiry must be initiated automatically whereas the amendment that we want to adopt states that the inquiry may or not be initiated. We will “endeavour to ascertain the cause of the death”.

I find that the current wording of the clause has a lot more teeth or scope than the proposed amendment. Why do we want to attenuate the scope of this clause? Perhaps I'm explaining myself poorly. Why are we saying “endeavour to ascertain the cause of the death and, for that purpose, may hold an inquiry” instead of maintaining the clause as it currently is? If there is an inquiry, we will ascertain the cause of the death.

Mr. Bud Streeter: We amended the clause for the precise reasons that you have just given. The first version of this clause indicates that the minister must hold an inquiry for every death on board a vessel. The problem lies in the fact that the term "inquiry" has a specific definition. According to the Inquiries Act, this is a very formal process which would not be required in every case. For instance, an inquiry would not be necessary if the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board were already holding an inquiry. Nor would it be necessary if a provincial body were holding an inquiry. It would only be necessary if, for example, no reason for the death could be established or if a few details were unclear. This is why we have given the minister the choice. If a competent body is in the process of holding an inquiry, the minister will not conduct an investigation. If not, the minister will hold the inquiry. This is why the minister has been given a choice.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to verify this matter, because the competent authority is a Canadian authority. Regardless of whether the inquiry is being held by a provincial body or a federal body, it is a Canadian authority. It is not just the doctor who is on board the ship who issues the death certificate to say that the person died because of appendicitis or a heart attack.

Mr. Bud Streeter: No, but if, for instance, it is a Canadian vessel, the doctor on board the vessel will be Canadian too.

Mr. Serge Marcil: All right.

Mr. Bud Streeter: If we are dealing with a Canadian vessel in a foreign port, we normally conduct a procedure through the embassy or the consulate at the place of death.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Now I understand.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Before we vote on it, I want clarification. For the record, I want the exact wording of G-16. We had a lot of explanations, and I want it read into the record.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Well, I'm going to read it as it is right there in your notes, Mr. Chair. It is moved that Bill C-14, in clause 149, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 69 with the following:

Canada, the Minister is to endeavour to ascertain the cause of death and, for that purpose, may hold an inquiry.

It's the same as what you have there, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: So I'd ask the...

[Translation]

In French, it is on line 20.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Is that correct?

[Translation]

In French—

[English]

The Chair: It's line 22.

A voice: Ask for clarification on the French one.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: The wording is the same. It's just—

A voice: Then clarify it.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's line 20; that's all.

The Chair: It's line 20 in the English version and 22 in the French version?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: No, I'm sorry. It's lines 19 and 20 in the English version, just as it's written, and in French it's line 20. Sorry, I wasn't sure of what you were asking.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I think the officials would like to clarify this.

• 1225

Mr. Mark A.M. Gauthier (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada): In the French version, the amendment would be at line 22, as indicated.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Marcil had raised a question that it should be line 20, so maybe you could explain to Mr. Marcil—

Mr. Mark Gauthier: As I see it, line 22 currently reads in French:

[Translation]

“to enquire into the cause of death”

[English]

Those words would all disappear and be replaced with:

[Translation]

“endeavour to ascertain the cause of death and, for that purpose may hold an inquiry.”

[English]

Then it all seems to fall together.

[Translation]

An Hon. Member: You are right.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: All right.

[English]

So that's amendment G-16, the English and French, just as you have them there. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 149 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 150 to 191 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 192—Contravention of directions)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: This is a pretty simple one relating to the use of the word “imprisonment”—I don't have the original bill here. A vessel cannot be imprisoned, so the clause is corrected to delete the reference to imprisonment.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Have we no prisons to put these ships into? So we'll be doing that in the future, building some prisons to put them in.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, some big prisons.

You can't imprison a ship, so I'd ask the committee's support for amendment G-17.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 192 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 193 to 196 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 197—Manufacturers and importers)

The Chair: We have amendment G-18.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Amendment G-18 is in response to concerns raised by the Canadian Yachting Association in their written submission to this committee on April 24. This amendment ensures that commercial entities are responsible for plating all pleasure craft. Do you recall that discussion?

Unless there are any questions, I'd ask for the committee's support of that amendment.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 197 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 198 to 209 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 210—Definitions)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Amendment G-19 in your pile is consequential to clause 136, which we saw some time ago, and which had other consequential amendments. So I'd ask the committee's support for this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Do you have a question?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I believe it was pointed out that a person could make a motion without any advance notice for amendments or changes.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: A particular concern I have with part 10, particularly with clauses 199 and 207(j), the way they're worded, is that the current requirements for shipping could be retroactively applied to older pleasure craft—my 1986 Toyota example. I would like to see some sort of wording in this section to make it clear that these provisions could not be applied retroactively.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: We are currently calling clause 210. We had already dealt with the clauses that the member referred to, but I think in the spirit of the committee, the committee would be prepared to reopen any of those clauses. If he might take the time to write out the words of any proposed amendment so that it can be read into the record, we'll come back to it when he is prepared to do that.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Thank you very much.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Since we are now on clause 210, let's continue with clause 210, and when the member is ready, we will ask a question to reopen any clauses he raises.

The Chair: Did you say we're going to leave clause 210 and come back to it?

Mr. Paul Szabo: No, we'll carry on with clause 210.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: He's at clause 199. He's backwards. Can we go backwards?

Mr. Marc Toupin (Legislative Clerk): With unanimous consent you can.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: So we'll proceed, and we'll make sure we get to Brian's...

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 210 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 211 agreed to)

(On clause 212—Seizure)

• 1230

Mr. Brent St. Denis: This is G-20 on your list, colleagues. This amendment is in response to concerns expressed by the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia. This clause has been modified to clarify its intent, in that, in the majority of cases, property seized will be returned to its owner unless the minister has good reason to direct otherwise. In addition, this change corrects a problem of perception rather than one of law.

I might get Mr. Streeter to add a sentence or two on that, unless people are satisfied.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Question.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Then I'd ask the committee to support amendment G-20.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 212 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 213 to 215 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 216—Reasonable grounds)

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: There is an amendment here. All it does is to essentially make sure that the public is protected within this act to the extent that the public is protected under the Privacy Act. The minister can't provide more protection than is under the Privacy Act but won't provide less. So anybody going into the providing of information would know up front that they're protected to the extent of the Privacy Act. This amendment is just to make that clear, and I would ask for the committee's support.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 216 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 217 to 225 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 226—Abandoned vessels)

The Chair: This is G-22, is it?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes. This amendment is an attempt to reflect the Canadian Maritime Law Association's written submission to the committee on April 24. It corrects an oversight in not recognizing the master's disbursements—and read “master” as the ship's captain, for most purposes—or liabilities incurred for necessaries on account of the vessel in respect of the proceeds of a sale of a vessel. This protects the master in relation to what he has spent on behalf of his crew and whatnot, such as the fee that might be at the middle of a dispute. It's to make sure that the master, who perhaps used his Visa for something, gets his money back.

The Chair: No mutiny.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes.

So I'd ask for support of amendment G-22.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 226 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 227 to 268 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis, you have an amendment to add a new clause, that being 268.1.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes. As I understand it, if an agent or a servant of the crown does something in good faith that maybe the boss knew was wrong, the subject employee will not be held libel, even though the boss may be held libel.

Is that a short way of putting that, Mr. Streeter?

Mr. Bud Streeter: Yes, sir. It also confirms that even though the individual may not be libel for his actions, the crown may well be liable if due diligence was not taken on our part in terms of instructions or procedures. So the immunity is for the individual, not for the crown.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: That's right.

This is for the innocent employee acting in good faith, even though the boss or the crown may have acted improperly for whatever reason. It protects the employee but not the crown, necessarily.

I'd ask for the committee's support of amendment G-23 to create new clause 268.1.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clauses 269 to 273 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 274—Regulations remain in force)

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Amendment G-24 deals with clause 274. This is a very legal matter, one that has to do with making sure there's symmetry between the Canada Shipping Act and the Marine Liability Act.

• 1235

I might ask Mr. Streeter or one of his colleagues to explain amendment G-24 in greater detail.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Actually, it really is just to harmonize with the Marine Liability Act, so I'd defer to Mr. Gauthier, our legal counsel. It is, as you say, just a legal point, not one of significance.

Mr. Mark Gauthier: This is really a very good example of legal trade craft. It isn't much else.

To put it simply, the Marine Liability Act, which is Bill S-2, is coming up for third reading in the House, if I'm not mistaken. Once that bill passes, it would in effect make no sense to retain, under the Canada Shipping Act, all those regulations that will be repealed under the Marine Liability Act. It's purely a tracking exercise to expand clause 274 to more than the regulations under part XVI of the Canada Shipping Act, but rather to all of those that are also brought into the Marine Liability Act only to be revoked.

So it's purely a tracking exercise. I know it's not easy to explain.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 274 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 275 to 325 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 326)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Committee members will recall a good discussion around the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act and the notion of confidentiality in relation to contracts made between an individual member of a conference and an individual shipper. The question was on whether our confidentiality provisions were compatible with those in the U.S. I think there have been some discussions.

Amendment G-25 is an attempt to ameliorate some of the concerns. The bottom line is that this legislation, even without these words, is still compatible with U.S. legislation when it comes to confidentiality. However, the addition of these words, without changing the policy direction of the government, has allowed for the stakeholders to feel a bit greater comfort, I think, with the wording.

I know Jerry is here, and he can probably speak to it if there are questions, but I think this is a good step on behalf of stakeholders. I'd ask the committee to support amendment G-25.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 326 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 327 to 334 inclusive agreed to)

(On schedule 1)

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I have an amendment to schedule 1 that would delete item 25 on page 171. It's G-26. This might be something for Mr. Gauthier. At any rate, it's a lawyer's bailiwick.

Mr. Streeter.

Mr. Bud Streeter: Thank you, sir.

Schedule 1 lists the international conventions and protocols that the Minister of Transport is responsible for. The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, which is also mentioned in schedule 2, is in fact the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The amendment would simply remove it from the list for the Minister of Transport and leave it on the list for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Schedule 1 as amended agreed to)

(Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1240

The Chair: Shall the committee order a printing of the report, at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'm going to suspend for ten minutes. We're supposed to do the work of the committee, but if we don't have all the players I don't know if we want to continue. Do you want to deal with the budget right now?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes, let's do it right now.

The Chair: The clerk says we should be in camera, so we'll clear the room and then deal with the budget. I'll put the work plan on at the beginning of the next session so that we have everybody here.

We're adjourned.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]