That was my question. I'm surprised at the admissibility.
No disrespect, but the Canada Marine Act deals with economic policy and this is about security, which is already covered under the Marine Transportation Security Regulations. The enabling statute, of course, is the Marine Transportation Security Act. It would be duplicitous, at the very least.
I will give you some examples, Mr. Masse. Section 351 of the regulations--and thanks to the department for this--requires audits to be conducted annually at these facilities, including a security plan that contains a security procedure for each marine security level, continuous monitoring of a marine facility, and continuous monitoring of approaches, including land and water, as well as specific restricted areas in a marine facility and vessels that interface with the marine facility.
Other requirements under the regulations are that the minister conduct security assessments that take into account threats, types of security incidents and other elements, particularly in relation to foreign ownership. Any time a change in operator occurs, there is already a requirement to obtain a new statement of compliance from Transport Canada that looks at the review of a security assessment and security plan.
This is already actually in a statute. I don't know why it wouldn't be ruled inadmissible, to be honest, Mr. Chair, because quite frankly, it's totally inappropriate for this.