All right. There are two legal issues with this amendment that are going to create problems if it's adopted. It took me a while to put my finger on the problem when I first read it, but I had a conversation with someone and it became clear to me.
It's largely around the word “inconsistency”. I have seen this precise wording in a submission from a shipping group, I think, and I'm assuming that's where it was taken from. The difficulty with the word “inconsistency” is that it's not very legally precise. Most often, one would see the word “conflict”, as in “if there is a conflict”. Something might be somewhat inconsistent but not necessarily in conflict. I don't know how this will play out in the implementation of it, but I think it's a somewhat more vague and imprecise word.
The second problem legally with this provision is that it talks about an inconsistency between this act and the provisions of an international convention in force in Canada. I'm not sure that is the right way to proceed, in that sometimes Canada will ratify an international convention but at least not necessarily implement it in law immediately, if at all.
I would have thought that a better approach would have been to talk about a conflict between the provisions of this act and any other provision of Canadian law flowing from international written obligations or something along that line. To be honest, I haven't tried to figure out how it could be cured, but these are problems that I expect this committee and the House will be leaving to future generations if this amendment is passed.
Thank you.