Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 62
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Transport committee  There are important changes that Bill C-64 introduces when a wreck is identified. In the past a salvor could get in there already before notifying the receiver of wreck. Now they cannot touch the wreck before going to the receiver of wreck and getting the okay to do so. We have b

March 19th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  If I could add to that, it's one of the reasons that certain parts of Bill C-64 don't apply to wrecks considered to have heritage value: to take away that potential conflict with some of those pieces of provincial and territorial legislation.

March 19th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  I think it's important to also remember that the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard has a role at the start of this process. Bill C-64 and the activities around it clarify that the first point of contact when a wreck is identified is the Canadian Coast

March 19th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  The Department of Transport does not have any opening statements, Madam Chair.

March 19th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  I can confirm that compliance with marine safety regulations is in the departmental performance report. If the library was looking for something in particular labelled with respect to the pleasure craft licensing system, perhaps that was not found because there is no report that

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  As part of the national strategy on abandoned vessels that was introduced under the oceans protection plan, the government is exploring enhancements to both the pleasure craft licensing system and the commercial vessel registry, the large vessel registry, both of which are regula

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  This legislation does not cover government vessels.

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  Yes, they do. Section 3 of that act gives them the authority to do that. That would be relevant for amendment NDP-11.

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  There are a few different things. It's already been mentioned that Treasury Board has the ability to deal with conditions of sale. I will note that it's very difficult. In talking to our colleagues at Public Services and Procurement, we learned that it's extremely difficult to im

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  My understanding, in fact, is that the conditions-of-sale issue is dealt with in NDP-11. NDP-10 is aimed at retaining vessels that are surplus and intended for sale, and are in good working order. Is that correct?

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  The amendment as proposed to the Surplus Crown Assets Act would require the duplication by the Minister of Public Services and Procurement of activities that currently exist elsewhere. If a department, say the RCMP, has a boat of a certain size that they want to surplus, generall

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  I'm looking to the chair for guidance. The conditions-of-sale issues are in NDP-11. I'm not sure what I'm providing technical support on.

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  Certainly the government wouldn't sell an asset suggesting that it was seaworthy when it wasn't.

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  You asked if there was significant cost. The significant costs associated with this amendment are to duplicate the maintenance and technical expertise associated with maintaining vessels within Public Services and Procurement when they already exist in the departments that own an

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack

Transport committee  Elsewhere in Bill C-64 is a requirement for a five-year review by one or more parliamentary committees. That would of course include all political parties in the review. The view is that this would be redundant as a result to have another five-year review, five years after the le

February 26th, 2018Committee meeting

Ellen Burack