CONFERENCE RECAP
The exchange underscored a central truth: maritime law doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s shaped as much by economics and politics as by principle.
contracts, you’ll save money and head- aches by getting legal advice early.” Swanson concluded with a nod to shifting political winds. Canada’s new Building Canada Act , he said, gives the federal cabinet sweeping powers to amend maritime legislation, includ- ing the Canada Marine Act itself. “It’s going to be interesting to see how ports respond to those changes,” he said. “There will be opportunities — and challenges.” The “One Waterway, Two Legal Systems” session offered more than a comparison of statutes. It reflected the broader relationship between Canada and the U.S. — a balance of independ- ence and interdependence, of national interest and shared geography. Both countries cherish their mari- time sovereignty, yet their ports depend on each other for commerce, tourism, and resilience. The Pacific may be one ocean, but it flows through two distinct legal channels — each shaped by history, politics, and culture. As Goldstein and Swanson reminded their audience, the key to success lies not in uniformity but in understand- ing. “We may have different laws,” Goldstein said, “but we share the same water — and the same responsibility to keep it open, safe, and prosperous.”
security, and industrial capability. Right now, our shipyards are overloaded just meeting military needs. We need more capacity, not less.” Another attendee, Konrad Mech with Cellula Robotics, raised a thorn- ier issue: “How does it make sense for British Columbia to spend taxpayer money on ferries built in China? Doesn’t that undermine the idea of domestic capability?” Swanson acknowledged the contra- diction. “You’re right,” he said. “Those ferries are foreign-built, though Canadian-flagged. There used to be a 25 percent import duty on foreign- built ships, but that was removed about a decade ago. The reality is no Canadian shipyard wanted — or had capacity — to bid on those ferries.” Goldstein added a parallel from California. “When the Bay Bridge needed replacement, parts of it were built in China and shipped over,” he recalled. “It’s inconsistent, yes, but it comes down to political influence, existing legislation, and strategic priorities to shape these decisions, often leading to trade-offs between economic efficiency and national interest.” The exchange underscored a central truth: maritime law doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s shaped as much by eco- nomics and politics as by principle. Vessel arrest and legal remedies With time running short, Goldstein briefly touched on one of maritime law’s most distinctive features: arrest- ing a vessel. “In most cases, you sue a person or a company,” he explained. “In admiralty law, you can sue the ship itself — in rem . If a vessel injures you,
or owes you money, or fails to deliver goods, you can file a complaint in federal court, and the U.S. Marshal can literally arrest the ship.” Once arrested, the vessel cannot move until the dispute is resolved or the owner posts a bond. “It’s powerful leverage,” Goldstein said. “A ship stuck in port means lost time, lost money, and pres- sure to settle fast.” Swanson highlighted that Canadian law provides analogous mechanisms, though the legal framework and pro- cedures differ. These tools provide ports, shippers, and service providers with critical leverage, ensuring com- pliance and financial accountability in the maritime sector. The case for planning ahead As the session drew to a close, both speakers emphasized one theme: pro- active legal planning. “Benjamin Franklin said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” Goldstein reminded the audi- ence. “That’s true for ports. Whether it’s environmental compliance, hiring a director, or signing infrastructure
24 — PACIFIC PORTS — October/November 2025
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator