Evidence of meeting #68 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waters.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
You have the text of the bill. As for the “make contact with a conveyance” component, you didn't have to apply it?
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Traveller Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
No. I agree with the interpretation. It would be constitutional.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The French version says “n’a ni amarré, ni mouillé l’ancre, ni établi de contact avec un autre moyen de transport”. But the order is different in the English version.
Why should a person who only drops anchor, enjoys some sun, swims and returns have to report?
The role of tourism—to pick up on what you've raised—is to allow people to have fun. So we don't want to discourage people from engaging in recreational activities.
Why should people have to report in this case?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Let's look at the Thousand Islands National Park as an example. There are many islands where boaters would come and anchor and moor for a number of days. That's not what we were trying to deal with in this legislation. We were trying to deal with the boater who just entered into Canadian waters but did not stay, who was basically transiting or fishing. That was sufficient enough; they were moving through.
If they in fact were going to be staying—and I'm using the example of an island in the Thousand Islands National Park, where someone may stay for a number of days—that wasn't what we were trying to get at with this legislation, but more the boater who was just moving through.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
June 7th, 2017 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Well, I have a comment. It would have been nice if we could have done this on a boat, given the weather.
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just had to get that on the record.
No, I don't have any questions.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
My question is for Mr. Aubertin-Giguère or Ms. Radi. I would like to come back to subparagraph 2(5)(a)(i) of the bill.
From the perspective of maximizing the pleasure of boaters, who can dock without disembarking, would that be a way of covering everything, for example if someone was being nitpicky about a boater?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Program and Policy Management Division, Canada Border Services Agency
The way we see things is that, when docking, if the boat touches the ground, it's as if it were touching Canadian soil, or Canada, in other words. In that case, the person must report to the Agency.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Wouldn't it have been more complete if it had been worded this way or is that the interpretation with the words “not anchor, moor”?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Program and Policy Management Division, Canada Border Services Agency
We worked with the senator. We felt that these terms could adequately meet all these criteria.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Traveller Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Similarly, if someone crosses into Canada in a vehicle without leaving the vehicle, the person is considered to have touched Canadian soil through the vehicle.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
With respect to the water, it isn't a question of touching the ground or the coast, but rather mooring, anchoring—
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Traveller Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Anchoring is covered in the bill.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Traveller Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Anchoring is covered in the bill.
