Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

[Marc Sanderson]

I think that's exactly the interpretation. That's what's intended, that there are a range of tools, a range of options that the enforcement officer might choose to use. For example, in this case of directing a vessel, it may already be tied to a wharf in Canadian waters; it may already be static. It might not be necessary, in that particular case, to direct the vessel to be moved somewhere else immediately. It's a permissive list, as my colleague has stated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

With respect, subsection (b) doesn't say what the witness just described.

In this case, the enforcement officer could direct the vessel to moor, anchor, or remain there for any reasonable period they may specify. The change I'm trying to make here is to say that, if the enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under this act has been committed, then they must act. They do have a range of pieces, but some of them absolutely could include a vessel that is already tied up to a dock having to remain there and cannot then vamoose and leave the marina owner having to pay the bill, for example.

The discretion is built in there, but the action, if my amendment passed, would not be.

[Ellen Burack]

If I can point to subsection (b), there's an “and” in there that's very important. You're right that, if this were just a list, it might have additional discretion, but subsection (b) says that they would be directed to proceed and then to moor and do those other things. It's kind of a string of requirements related to a particular type of scenario. It's from that list we know that more things may be required, but that “and” in subsection (b) is very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

We'll call for a recorded vote on NDP-7.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 74 agreed to)

(Clauses 75 to 94 inclusive agreed to)

On G-3.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have another fairly straightforward explanation. The language as it's currently drafted wouldn't have the administrative monetary penalty regime kick in upon the legislation being passed. Again, I think this was just a drafting oversight that can be corrected by the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Does the department have comments?

[Ellen Burack]

I just want to add the reason that this fairly large section was not included. There are two ways to go with the AMP regime: to do it through regulations after the legislation is in place, or to embed it in the legislation. We chose the embedding in the legislation to make this legislation effective more quickly. It was just lost in the process of drafting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 95 to 106 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 107)

On NDP-8.

Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

As written, the minister retains discretion to keep a public record of notices of violation or default for any vessel owner who does violate the terms of this legislation. My proposal is to change the word to “must” so that there is transparency and a record-keeping of the number of violations and the number of fines that are issued. I think that, if we do not do this, the public will never know if this legislation has had any effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm inclined to support this one.

Perhaps, Sheila, I'll throw something out there. There's one concern I have on this one. Typically, as I've just explained, when facts are changing on the ground, I think discretion can be important. However, when we're dealing with the process, and there's a conclusion made that a violation has been committed, I think transparency is a valuable thing.

There's one minor concern I have, that in certain very minor offences, we might be putting a fairly heavy consequence on someone who may not deserve it. I don't know if that's enough to say that we shouldn't report it. I'm just curious if that serves as an obstacle to you. I think I'm comfortable with the language as you've put it forward, but there's one outstanding issue I wanted to give you a chance to comment on, perhaps.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That's fair. The way the legislation is written—simply saying “a public record”—does not mean there will necessarily be a wall of shame in the town centre. As we know, sometimes government records take some time to dig up. It could be an access to information request. It would be ideal if we had the minister report to Parliament periodically to say there were x number of violations. If any member of Parliament or journalist wanted to dig in on that, fair enough, but I just want to have good record-keeping and at least to know this legislation is being well used.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Marie-France Lafleur]

It is a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

Shall amendment NDP-8 carry, on a recorded vote?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The motion is carried. Congratulations, Ms. Malcolmson. It's been a hard day's work for you.

(Clause 107 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 108 and 109 agreed to)

(On clause 110)

On amendment G-4, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Amendment G-4 is essentially just another drafting error. Section 78 was potentially put in the wrong place and it refers only to a particular offence, that of interfering with an enforcement officer. The intent, I understand, was to make this a more serious offence.

If I have perhaps missed something, if the department wants to comment, or if you think I have captured it, I am happy to put that to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further comment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have Conservative amendment CPC-1. Mr. Hoback, did you want to speak to this?

You don't have to move it, but you can certainly speak to it if you like.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Chair, we had a discussion with you about this beforehand. If it's the committee's will, we'll withdraw it with the understanding that we'll do a small study on this. We understand the clerk has done some great work on this, and we'd have a chance to analyze that work and maybe bring forward some witnesses. It sounds like the first week after the two-week break—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I believe we already have a tentative date of March 19 from our clerk.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It is great that we're going down this road, because it is separate from what we are dealing with here today. Having said that, would it be appropriate to include Heritage Canada in these discussions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll invite them.

Certainly when the issue was raised at committee on the war graves, it caused concern for all of us.

Do we need unanimous consent for Mr. Hoback to withdraw that motion?

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw amendments CPC-1 and CPC-2? We'll do a report at committee.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

(Amendments withdrawn)

Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Chair, for the benefit of the witnesses we had at committee, who put a lot of time into their testimony, and also for the people watching at home, I wonder if you or one of the Conservative representatives could just give us a couple of sentences about what we heard or why we are going to study this in further detail, rather than include it in this legislation.