Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Transport committee It is meant to be an exemption for unforeseen circumstances that need to be dealt with in the best interests of Canadians in a fairly quick manner, and so the clause as written specifies that the terms would be determined as appropriate based on the context. This is what that exe
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I would add, consistent with the comments I just made, that the period for the application of the exemption would be specified—again, context specific.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I will simply say that exemption powers are commonly used across various legislation, and I'm certainly not aware of any abuses of them. We've tried to look at that. They are narrowly constrained. One of the examples we thought of—and I'll just give it back as a possibility—is th
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee Exactly.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I think the conversation we just had covers that.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee No, the threshold would limit the total on a vessel to 12,500 metric tons of the prohibited products, so the total amount of crude oil or persistent oil that is listed in the schedule could not be higher than 12,500 metric tons on a vessel . There may be occasions on which commu
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee It depends. There are different types of ships that are used for various elements of community resupply and industry resupply, so it depends on the vessel. It depends on how many stops it has. It could be smaller. It could be up to 12,500 metric tons maximum.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee There were some with close to that, yes.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I think if there were to be changes contemplated to this, it would have to be a legislative amendment based on the actual volumes being shipped at that time. Further study would have to be done to determine if that's reasonable.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I'm not sure I can answer that question readily. My colleague may be able to pull out that number.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I'm pleased to say that the oil tanker moratorium was designed to not interfere and to in fact resupply communities and local industries in northern British Columbia, and, to minimize economic impacts on these communities and industries, critical access is needed. Based on signif
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee You're right. Some of the smaller communities do have smaller levels. For industry resupply, there are some larger ones.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee It's the study that's public on the Transport Canada website.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I will just add that the purpose of the legislation is outlined in the title of the bill, and the proposed amendment does not reflect the policy intent of the moratorium. Certainly, the marine safety elements and the spill prevention and response capacity are being addressed thro
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin
Transport committee I do think there is a scope element here that we are looking at, and the title of the legislation very clearly defines what is the intent of it.
November 28th, 2017Committee meeting
Natasha Rascanin