Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am using my time to assist our committee.
In the Canada Shipping Act they have the objectives of the act and then they have exclusion. Under exclusion there's a subheading called “Conflicts with foreign rules”, and that subsection basically says “Regulations made under this act do not, unless they expressly provide otherwise, apply” to vessels—blah, blah, blah.
The subheading which says “Conflicts with foreign rules”, is at the front end of the statute. My understanding from when I worked in legislative drafting is that you put provisions like that at the front of the act because you're saying this is how this act is to be read. The provision is “Conflicts with foreign rules”, and it says if there are any conflicts with a foreign rule, then that foreign rule prevails.
It then applies later on. It applies later on if you have a right to bring a legal action or to file a request for investigation or to ask for a rule to be revisited. All of those rights can be exercised, but the government only has to respond within the boundaries of what they've signed on to and ratified in international law. That's my understanding.
With respect to where you might potentially place that, sometimes those kinds of provisions go at the end of the statute simply as clarification of such and such being excluded if there's any conflict with international law. I think that's of lesser concern. We could maybe talk about that.
I still think it's a useful amendment, and it responds to some of the issues raised by some of the witnesses.