Thank you, Mr. Jean.
Where there is commonality between the two motions, of course, is that it fixes a drafting point. You will recall that at least one of the witnesses had indicated that they thought it would be better drafting if, in proposed paragraph 139(2)(a), one referred to goods supplied to “the” foreign vessel, as opposed to “a” foreign vessel. So there's commonality there between the two, L-3 and G-4.
G-4 has one more saving provision, and it refers to a carve-out for section 251 of the Canada Shipping Act. That was latterly discovered. In the Canada Shipping Act there is already a provision dealing with the ability of a supplier of goods to a bare-boat charter--only to a bare-boat charter--and that there has to be a contractual nexus between the two. We think that it's necessary, in any form of proposed subsection 139(2.1).... I'll grant you L-3 doesn't deal with proposed subsection 139(2.1); we find that later in L-6. But while we're at it we can talk about it.
There is that difference there. In order to ensure that the rights of the bare-boat charter are preserved--and these are already in the Canada Shipping Act, and there's no intention of doing away with it-- it's a matter of policy that the carve-out is made subject to. Otherwise there could be an interpretation that this particular right for bare-boat charters has somehow been impliedly repealed by this provision. It could give rise to that argument. So it's a pure legal point to try to tidy this up so as not to conflict with an existing provision of the Canada Shipping Act.
I think those are my comments. I hope I haven't strayed beyond the comparison between L-3 and G-4.
Thank you.