If I've understood correctly, what is effectively being asked is whether the legislation can be amended so as to allow the state to become involved in a civil dispute and to assist one of the parties to that civil dispute. I think that's basically what was being asked by way of including it in the enforcement provisions and detaining the ship.
I'm not aware of any legislation in which it ever happens that you include the enforcement authorities, whether they are the coast guard, the RCMP, or the local police. Usually if it's a civil dispute they back off and tell you to go deal with it. That's the first part. It's not the way it's done, and I'm not aware of it ever being done anywhere else.
The other part is simply based in part on my experience with bureaucracies, even efficient bureaucracies. It does sometimes take time to get things done. On the other hand, I know that I and my colleagues are very efficient on this kind of stuff. You might laugh at the $300 and think it's unrealistic, but if you're talking about a $5,000 supply of services, it is such a standard thing. It's basically just a matter of plugging a few numbers into a template that I already have. Maybe I was too quick to throw out $300, but it's not much more than that on a smaller case. It can be done quickly.
That's really why I was opposed to it. I'm trying to imagine how it could be better for them. If there were other ways for them to do it, I'd be happy for them, because frankly, my colleagues and I don't want to be involved in $5,000 cases or $10,000 cases.
That's where my thinking was.