Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the ability to ask questions, but with respect, I've worked in the builders' lien in Alberta and loggers' liens in Alberta. I'm familiar with the lien process as it sits. I'm familiar with the small claims system as well, and I know how much it costs to file a statement of claim, as do many other lawyers in this room as well.
The situation is this: the rules of court govern many of the actions that are taken, but the difficulty with your proposal is that first of all, when a person swears an affidavit, the person can do two years in jail for swearing a false affidavit. Often when people are in a dispute in relation to goods purchased, a dispute in relation to goods purchased would give them an additional option to file a lien and not be subject to a sworn affidavit that's filed in court, an affidavit that could actually cause them to do jail time. Actually, they would not even file a lien in court in this particular case, but it gives them a right to a lien on a ship, to hold and seize a ship that might be worth $20 million and have $10 million worth of cargo for $300 in gas. I just don't see that as being appropriate.
We heard from the law society, the Canadian Bar Association, that everything in place is working well. I know from a builders' lien perspective that it works well. It costs $200 to file a statement of claim in Alberta. I think it now costs $100 in Alberta to file a small claim. I think it was just changed, but I haven't practised law there for five or six years. I think it's pretty much the same thing in B.C. For $500 I'd file a $200 statement-of-claim lien. It would cost a client $500 to file a lien for a house that's worth $200,000 to $300,000. That's pretty easy to do.
In this particular case, doing it this way means the person has to be serious about it. They can't just do it as a result of a dispute for $300 or $500 in fuel and hold up a $20 million to $30 million ship. It doesn't make sense. It really doesn't.
For the most part, these carriers of foreign ships are going to come back to Canada again, even if they do escape, which seems fairly unlikely, because a ship's manifest has to predict when it's going to leave. The departure has to be well planned and a harbourmaster has to give authority, so everybody already knows when the ship's going to leave. If they provide goods, they're well aware of it, and quite frankly, I believe lawyers can be called on a phone--I know I was available most nights until midnight--and can do a lien and find a judge in time to do it even after hours.
If somebody who provides this kind of service to ships is so neglectful as to not plan out that proper process, quite frankly, for a $300 fuel charge, I think they should take the negative results of it.
The process is good. It works. Why change it? Why create an additional right for somebody to actually file a claim and seize a ship on the basis of no real evidence? In fact, it could be as a result of a dispute, and not a real claim. That's the problem.