ENVI Committee Meeting

    I call the meeting to order.

    Hello everyone.

     This is the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Welcome.

    This is a public meeting.

     For those in person, please remember the health and safety guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents for our translators.

    Our meeting today is to commence a study on Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, and we have MP Patrick Weiler here with us to talk about his private member's bill.

    Before we go to him, I have a couple of pieces of business.

    We have a vote scheduled for 4:15 today, so I am seeking the unanimous consent of the committee to go through once the bells start, until 10 minutes before the vote. We can then suspend, and people can vote, either in person or virtually. What is the interest of the committee? Does it work for everybody to go through closer to the voting time? Okay.

     We need to approve two—

    I'm sorry to interrupt, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Bonin, you have the floor.

    I have a question about the upcoming vote, since I'm not familiar with the procedure. With the leave of the committee, would it possible to vote electronically? That way, we wouldn't have to change locations and suspend the meeting for quite so long.

    We're hoping to stop ten minutes before the vote so that everyone can vote.

    That's fantastic.

    If I can't get the unanimous consent of the members, I will have to suspend the meeting for 30 minutes rather than ten.

    Thank you for the clarification, Madam Chair.

    Thank you very much.

     We have two small budget items to approve, and then we'll get to Mr. Weiler's opening statements.

    The first amount requested is $1,500 for expenses for the work on Bill C-244. Is there unanimous approval of that by the committee?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: The other one is for $500, and it is for the main estimates work that was previously conducted.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Excellent. Thank you.

    Mr. Weiler, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours.

     Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the environment and sustainable development committee. It's a real pleasure to be with you today to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act.

    I see some familiar faces, including from the fisheries and oceans committee. I see Mr. Arnold.

     These issues we're going to be talking about today are issues felt by many coastal communities, including my own in the riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, where we know the marine environment is inseparable from our communities, our local economies and our way of life.

    Over the years, I've heard consistently from local governments, first nations, harbour authorities, commercial operators, search and rescue personnel, the Coast Guard and, particularly, residents about the growing challenges posed by abandoned vessels and marine pollution. The clean coasts act would respond to this by addressing two specific gaps in federal legislation that coastal communities continue to encounter in dealing with these long-standing frustrations.

    The first relates to abandoned vessels. In 2019, Parliament adopted the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. In so doing, it established new protections, making it illegal, for the first time, to abandon a vessel. Crazily, you could actually abandon a vessel before that without committing an offence.

    Experience has shown that since then, vessel owners have found ways to avoid their responsibilities under the act. Rather than properly disposing of vessels at the end of their useful life, I've encountered countless examples of unscrupulous boat owners transferring them, usually for nominal amounts, to individuals who lack the means, capacity or intent to operate, maintain or dispose of them responsibly. These are oftentimes vulnerable individuals who are simply looking for a roof over their heads.

    In many cases, these vessels continue to deteriorate, creating risks to human safety, navigation and the marine environment. I've seen examples of loss of life, even in my own riding, when these vessels sink. There are many cases of communities and taxpayers bearing the cost of cleaning up toxic waste and other pollutants that come out of these vessels when they sink. At major expense, the taxpayer then pays to clean those vessels up off the bottom of the ocean.

    The clean coasts act seeks to close this loophole by strengthening accountability at the point of transfer. It would prohibit vessel owners from transferring ownership when they know or are reckless as to whether the recipient lacks the ability, resources or intent to prevent the vessel from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. One way of doing this is by creating a system whereby the boat seller will disclose the condition of the boat before selling it, and the boat purchaser will disclose how they intend to maintain and operate it. This would build on the existing system we have for vessel registration. This proposal complements the recent improvements that were made to that very system by Transport Canada and the pleasure craft licence system to strengthen ownership records and vessel traceability. Together, these measures will help improve accountability throughout the life cycle of the vessel.

    The second issue in the bill relates to marine pollution. At its core, it's guided by the principle that Canada's marine environment should not become a dumping ground, and coastal communities should not be bearing the costs of pollution caused by others. We see the impacts of deteriorating marine infrastructure when it breaks apart and enters marine ecosystems. We see them when aging docks and other structures release debris into our waterways. Most visibly, we see them when oil and other pollutants are released into the marine environment.

     A well-known example occurred in English Bay in 2015, when a bunker oil fuel spill caused significant environmental and economic damage. Despite the consequences, establishing the liability proved very challenging, because the existing provisions focus heavily on proving intent. The court found that there was a mens rea requirement involved in that, so the proposed amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act seeks to clarify marine dumping provisions so that accountability doesn't depend solely on proving that intent to pollute when harmful substances are entering the marine environment. It would allow someone who is spilling to still establish due diligence and that they took all reasonable measures.

    In closing, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, is not a complete solution. Preventing abandonment and strengthening accountability are important steps, but they must be accompanied by other practical measures that support responsible vessel disposal, recycling and cleanup efforts. For that, the long-awaited vessel remediation fund is needed.

     This is a practical and targeted bill. It builds on existing federal legislation, addresses gaps that have emerged through experience and focuses on preventing environmental harm before communities are left to deal with the consequences when they are much more expensive.

    With that, I look forward to the committee's study and would be pleased to answer any questions that members have.

     Thank you.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Weiler.

     We will now begin our series of questions. We'll start with Mr. Arnold for six minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    It's a pleasure to be here at this committee. I have been on the fisheries committee for over 10 years now, so it's interesting sitting here. I thank Mr. Weiler for his time as chair of that committee.

     I have a number of questions on this bill and what's led up to this.

     Mr. Weiler, you said that since the passage of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, vessel owners are finding loopholes and ways to get past the accountability piece of it. Were these loopholes and things missed in the drafting and passing of that legislation?

    The legislative process for the WAHV Act took place before I was elected. There are things, looking back on it now, that should have been included. This is one part of that.

     I think it is an unintended consequence. When you prevent people from abandoning their vessels, they're going to find a way around some of their new obligations of properly disposing of them. This is very complementary, and, of course, it builds on what's already in the act. In a perfect world, that would have been addressed from the get-go, but it is incumbent on us to address it now.

     Clause 2 of this private member's bill adds wording that says, “or allow the disposal”, so it reads:

     Does “allow the disposal” refer only to the vessel owner, or does it refer to the vessel operator? Is it anyone who is observing that vessel, who is nearby and may see this happening? Would they potentially be as guilty of an offence by allowing the disposal to happen without reporting it or seeing it happen? If not, how is this bill going to avoid that situation?

    What this section does is clarify that this is now a strict liability offence. You wouldn't have a bystander seeing something happening and then being caught under this. This would be just the actual source of the pollution. It may be coming from a vessel. It could be coming from another source.

    The way the court has interpreted this section is that you actually have to prove that they intended to dump. This changes it, so that it would be interpreted as a strict liability. You would still have to have the due diligence defence, but it would not affect folks who are not directly involved in it.

     The court hasn't interpreted your amendment yet. You're saying it's interpreted this in the current act as being disposal directly from a vessel. You're only hoping this would be interpreted the same way. There's no guarantee that it wouldn't implicate someone who observed a vessel being abandoned and didn't report it.

     Can you guarantee that that's not going to be the case?

     I got a legal opinion drafted before I put forward this legislation to address those issues and other issues that came up in early discussions about it. Of course, I can't guarantee how courts are going to interpret things. It will be up to the courts to do that. From the legal advice I've been given, this would be very sound and really focused on making this a strict liability offence.

     Okay. Thank you.

    I'll move on to clause 3, where you intend to change section 34.1 by saying:

    Can you describe to the committee how an owner who has a boat...? I come from the interior. There are lots of small vessels sold on the front lawn. Basically, the owners are tired of them. Say somebody driving by on the weekend stops in to buy it. How can this apply to a case like that, where the transaction may take place in less than an hour in somebody's backyard? That's a typical scenario, and I don't see how this bill will cover that.

     How can an owner—the current seller—possibly be expected to guarantee that the buyer is qualified?

     Thank you for the question.

    Obviously, there are limits on what the seller of a boat will be able to determine from a buyer of a boat. There is already a system in place for the registration of boats once they're transferred. As you will know, it's on the buyer of the boat to make that change.

    What this would introduce is a requirement for the boat owner to disclose the condition of the boat and then the person who's buying it to have some type of format showing their ability to maintain and operate it going forward. It would complement what is already in there with the vessel registration system.

    In a case like the one you're mentioning, it is more than someone coming by and just giving someone some money. You actually have an obligation now to register that boat within 60 days of getting it. This would complement what's already in there.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

    We will now move to Mr. Greaves for six minutes.

     Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Good afternoon, colleagues.

    Good afternoon, MP Weiler.

    Thank you so much for bringing forward this private member's bill and for giving us the opportunity to talk about an issue that I know is of great concern to residents in your part of the country, which is close to my part of the country, and our coastal communities, where this issue is a surprisingly topical one in many instances. It's probably the first issue, in fact, that I was approached on after last year's election and that people demanded our government take action on. I appreciate your stepping in to help address that need.

    I think it's particularly important, as our colleague opposite mentioned a moment ago in his remarks, to bring attention to this issue for our colleagues who may not live in coastal communities, who may not live in marine-adjacent ridings such as ours and may not be familiar with the many aspects and challenges associated with dead and derelict boats being, in many cases, abandoned.

    One thing that leaps out at me about this issue is that people see it through many distinct lenses. We have, obviously, an environmental perspective in terms of contamination in the waters and on the shoreline and impacts on animal populations. We also have implications in terms of local economies, tourism and destination-based economies like ours. These vessels are something of an eyesore. There are also impacts on public finances—because, at the end of the day, the cost to remove these derelict vessels falls on the public purse—as well as for safety and other reasons. There are numerous different ways in which we can interrogate this issue.

    With that in mind, would you be able to expand for our colleagues, who may not be as familiar with the knock-on impacts of these vessels in our communities, on how Bill C-244 will work to reduce the instances of new boats being added to this problem?

     Thanks for that question.

    I have a similar experience. This was an issue that I didn't understand all that well before I started running for office. I can tell you that, even before I got elected, I had people reaching out to me to fix this problem.

    It's a problem that drives people crazy, because it involves all different orders of government, in different ways and in numerous different departments. I think it is helpful that we have many officials behind me who will be able to speak to this afterwards, in the next hour.

    When WAHVA was passed, an important change was made to prohibit abandoning vessels. Earlier this year, we updated our vessel registry system, so we have a better idea of who owns these vessels. Every five years, that will need to be updated, so we have a good sense of who owns those vessels.

    What this legislation will do is prevent the transfer of vessels to individuals where the current owner knows they cannot maintain or operate them. This will prevent a lot of new hazardous vessels from being out there on the water and causing all of those impacts that you mentioned. I'd say that's one piece of the puzzle.

    I think the other piece that hasn't been solved at this point is making sure there's ongoing funding to pull those problem vessels out of the water when we can identify the owners, and also having a sustainable system to dispose of and recycle those boats.

    I think, if we can have all of those pieces in place, then we'll be able to deal with this issue.

    This legislation will prevent the problem from getting worse. There are other jurisdictions that have already done this. Washington state has a good system in place that we can learn from, and I think this is one step to getting there.

     Thank you for that response.

    I want to pick up on one piece of what you just said. I feel that, in many communities where this isn't as relevant an issue, there isn't an appreciation of the costs and the quite specific technical expertise that could be required to remove these boats from our shores and communities once they've been abandoned.

    Certainly, in Victoria, I have people quite frequently ask me about where the responsibility for dead and derelict boats falls. Who's responsible for paying for their removal? Is it the Coast Guard? Is it the municipality? Is it me personally? Should I dive into the water and pull them out with my bare hands?

    I'm wondering if you could speak to the challenges related to resources and jurisdiction that arise around this issue, because I know there's quite a bit of complexity here. At the end of the day, if the cost of removing these vessels falls to the federal government, there's a considerable cost to pay.

     Yes, it's a very considerable cost. We have a program called the abandoned boats program to clean up vessels that have already sunk, but it's out of money and hasn't been recapitalized. It needs to have more money. There isn't funding there. Thankfully, in the spring economic statement, we got more money for the ghost gear fund. Ghost gear is another really damaging form of marine pollution. If we had the vessel remediation fund, which is something the government promised back in 2021, that would be one way of addressing this. There would be a small fee to pay every time you register your boat, in order to make sure you have those funds in the long term.

    The abandoned boats program runs through Transport Canada. There's a separate one that runs through DFO for small craft harbours. Part of the challenges you bring up is that there are so many different responsibilities here. Transport Canada will get involved if the boat is a navigation risk. DFO will get involved if it is in a small craft harbour. Environment and Climate Change Canada will get involved if it's currently spilling. Now the Coast Guard is part of National Defence, so, in an urgent situation, they can step in and give a private operator the ability to remove the vessel. It is a very complex thing. That's what makes people so frustrated. It allows agencies to point fingers at one another, and the problem doesn't get solved.

     Thank you.

    In our last 30 seconds or so, let me ask you this: The bill would make it an offence to transfer a vessel if the owner is “reckless as to whether” the buyer has “the ability, resources or intent to maintain” it.

    Can you speak to what message you feel your bill sends to boat owners in Canada who view selling their boat for a dollar to anybody who comes along as an appropriate disposal strategy?

    It's not a proper disposal strategy. It comes back to personal responsibility. This is your boat. You have a responsibility to properly dispose of it. It's not fair to put having to clean it up when it sinks on the taxpayer or the coastal communities.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you for being here, Mr. Weiler. I have two quick questions for you.

    The bill you've introduced would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. From what I understand, this amendment would address a problem we've seen in the past: following a 2,700-litre spill, the owners of a vessel were acquitted of the charges against them, with the court ruling that it was up to the Crown to prove intent rather than requiring the polluter to demonstrate that they acted responsibly.

    Your position is that this amendment would shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the polluter. The polluter would thus be responsible for demonstrating that appropriate measures were taken to prevent a given situation.

    Having read the provisions in question, I have some questions. I'm not sure I understand what we're doing here. I understand the intent—you've explained it well—but I remain unconvinced by this amendment. Please note that I am not a lawyer, but a legislator. Can you explain to me how this minor amendment addresses the original problem?

    Thank you very much for the question.

    I'm sorry, but I don't have the French version in front of me, only the English version. The original intent, when this law was passed, was that this section would constitute a strict liability offence.

    In 2015, as I mentioned earlier, there was a spill, and the court that handed down the ruling interpreted the law very differently. The government could have appealed the decision, but it didn't.

    So this amendment brings us back to the original intent of the law. If you abandon a vessel without following the steps a reasonable person would take, that constitutes an offence.

    So that's the intention. It's clear.

    Certainly.

    I'd like to return to proposed section 34.1 on transfer of ownership.

    You mentioned the seller's responsibility to disclose the vessel's condition. Is it clear to you exactly how far this responsibility extends and what specific conditions must be disclosed?

    It's not clear to me. Do they have to conduct a comprehensive inspection with an independent inspector? Specifically, what conditions are they required to disclose?

    There are several ways to determine the condition of a vessel, including requesting an appraisal. What's important here is that the person buying the vessel knows its condition.

    This is the step the person selling the vessel must take. In fact, for the buyer to know whether they will be able to maintain the vessel, they must first know its condition. They can then explain how they intend to maintain that condition. There are different ways of doing this, but the intention must be there.

    How far should people take this? They'll have to interpret this law, but how far will they go, both in terms of the vessel's condition and the buyer's ability to ensure that they can operate or dispose of it in a way that prevents it from becoming a wreck or other hazard?

    There are limits to the information the person selling the vessel can provide. It is primarily up to the buyer to describe how they will maintain it.

    It is difficult for the person selling the vessel to do more than that. This won't solve the entire problem, but these are the things the seller can control.

    I'd like to return to the issue of potential spills.

    In your bill, when you say “or allow the disposal of a substance”, I assume that doesn't apply to an outside party who would then be held liable. You're referring to the owner or operator of the vessel, not someone who would witness a spill and fail to intervene, correct?

    Only the person or company responsible for transporting the substance from one place to another would be committing the offence, not someone who is merely watching it happen.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Bonin.

     Mr. Arnold, we go back to you for five minutes.

     Thank you.

     I'd like Mr. Weiler to clarify a bit further how a seller would provide the declaration, if you want to call it that, of the condition. You talked about many ways of doing this. I spent about 42 years in the boating industry, and there really is, probably, only one defensible way of declaring the condition of a boat, and that is through a proper marine survey. A marine survey can cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, depending on the size of the vessel, and it's hundreds of dollars just for a small pleasure craft.

    One way that they can look at a vessel is by determining moisture content in encapsulated wood that may be rotting—they have a number of ways like that. For a vessel that's nearing the end of its life, how do you propose that a vessel owner would provide that declaration of condition? Further to that, how would a seller verify that the purchaser would be qualified to maintain it? Would that require checking financial status, knowledge of vessel maintenance or vessel operation requirements? Please expand on that.

    Thank you for that.

    That could be, absolutely, one way of understanding the condition of the boats. One thing I should have mentioned earlier is that this isn't going to capture all boats. It's going to capture the boats as defined under the WAHVA, which has de minimis and maximum sizes of boats. Obviously, bigger boats are captured by different processes in the shipping act, for instance. However, one way would be just that: having a proper, in-depth assessment of the status of the boat.

     For the person who is buying the boat, I think you could get financial records, but getting that and verifying all of that information is not within the boat seller's control. What is going to be required here is that they submit, in writing, that they can take care of it.

     Are you simply saying that the buyer has to sign something saying, “I'm going to maintain this boat,” and that's it? Is that as far as they have to go?

     It's more than that. It's going to say how they can maintain it.

     If they don't have the vessel operation or maintenance experience, if they're a first-time buyer, how can you expect someone to have that experience?

    I'll let you answer that first. Then I have another question.

     I think it's a fair question.

    Again, there are a lot of different ways in which someone could prove how they would maintain the boat at that point. Having all of that information is not something that every boat seller is going to have, either. It's not their responsibility to prove all of those things, but this is the due diligence that you can do, as a boat seller, as you're selling it.

     Maybe you can just clarify.... You were talking about the intent of the bill. Is the intent of the bill, really, to track who actually owns the vessel, who is legally responsible for it, so that, if it is abandoned, someone can be sought out to be responsible for the cleanup? Is that an intent of the bill? That's not what you were talking about earlier, so please elaborate on that.

     Yes. Very much so.

    To get back to your earlier question, you're not going to be able to show, at the sale, how someone can fully take care of it. However, this will be information that will be on hand, let's say, if this boat does become wrecked or abandoned, or it actually sinks to the bottom. You would be able to show the steps you took, as the boat seller, to ensure that didn't happen, so it is about having that on hand. There will be penalties associated with it if you're not compliant with it. There are fines that could be up to $5,000 for that. This will be more of a procedural thing that they'll be able to show.

     Okay. I'm really having difficulty seeing how this is workable in the long run, putting a lot of onus on sellers, who don't have that legal expertise. They simply want to sell an asset that is becoming a liability for them.

    If you could just elaborate again, how does the seller determine the qualifications of the buyer?

     Answer quickly, please, Mr. Weiler.

    Maybe we can get to that in the next round. Essentially, this was just meant to get around those bad-faith sales in which someone is selling this, for a nominal amount, to get around those responsibilities. I can elaborate on that in the next round.

     Thank you very much.

    We'll now turn to Mr. St-Pierre for five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'd just like to take this brief moment to wish a happy birthday to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I believe he's turning 35 or 36, so now we have a live recording of your birthday.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

     I'm 34.

     Oh, are you 34? I'm sorry. I had the wrong year, but happy birthday.

    I'll move on to more serious matters.

    To my colleague, Mr. Weiler, have you heard any concerns directly from folks in your riding about abandoned boats landing on the shores or anywhere in your riding? Can you maybe speak a little about what you're hearing from local residents, what you're hearing from first nations communities, locally elected officials or harbour authorities, even? I'm curious to hear about what it's like on the ground.

     As I mentioned before, this is an issue that is, obviously, a very visible one when you see abandoned and derelict vessels out in the water, and it's a growing issue. From one end, yes, it's an eyesore, but on the other end you're seeing examples of these vessels actually polluting the water and causing major environmental impacts.

    I can give examples of that pollution leading, in a lot of places where normally clams would be harvested, to first nations no longer being able to do that. We have harbours where boaters are having challenges navigating through them, because there are numerous vessels congregating in different areas.

    I hear it from marina owners, who are called in the middle of the night by someone who says, “One of these boats is sinking.” Then they need to seek the ability, from the Coast Guard, to actually go to clean them up. It's one thing if you're close to an urban area, if the Coast Guard is near that or if you're near where the authorities are. However, in many cases, particularly throughout coastal British Columbia, they happen far away from that, where you don't have that ability to rapidly respond. This then leads to many, many more significant issues taking place.

    This is one of those issues that I think brings all people together, because they know it's a massive issue. It's one that falls within, or in between, different jurisdictional responsibilities. This is meant to prevent the problem from getting worse.

     Great. Thank you.

    Can you give me examples of any businesses, local governments or environmental groups that have come out in support of Bill C-244? If so, can you provide maybe a list of supporters to this committee?

    Yes, absolutely.

    West Coast Environmental Law, Surfrider Foundation, Ocean Legacy Foundation, the Georgia Strait Alliance, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the Dead Boats Disposal Society, the Howe Sound Biosphere Region Initiative Society and the Marine Life Sanctuaries Society of British Columbia are some of the environmental organizations that have supported it. More locally, in my riding, the Sunshine Coast Regional District has endorsed it, as have the District of Sechelt, the Town of Gibsons, Bowen Island Municipality, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, the District of Squamish, the shíshálh Nation and Squamish Nation.

    You can see that there's broad support for this. There are municipalities that are taking their own action and first nations that are taking their own action. I can tell you that there are some first nations that want to build shipbreaking facilities and have those recycling opportunities take place on their territory. There are municipalities that are taking steps to prevent anchorages in certain areas, so that you don't have those boats that become problem vessels there.

    All these organizations are doing what they can to address the problem. There are steps that the province needs to take, and there are steps that the federal government needs to take. This is part and parcel of that.

    Great. That's a pretty long list. I'm looking forward to reading it.

    I love the name of your riding, Sea to Sky. I understand that tourism is really important for your riding. In 45 seconds, can you explain the importance of this bill to tourism in your riding and across British Columbia as well?

     I can give you a good example of this. There's a bed and breakfast in my riding, in the Porpoise Bay area. This bed and breakfast was actually highlighted by The New York Times as one of the top destinations in western North America, but since that time, this issue has become worse and worse. You have a number of derelict vessels proliferating in the area and major pollution happening. It has now become a major issue for her brand. People who go there are expecting this beautiful natural environment with access to the water. Now they're seeing issues with major pollution. I know that's present in many other parts of coastal Canada. Mr. Greaves would probably be able to speak to issues in his own riding where that's taking place as well.

    I'd say that's part of it. The other part is that many of these vessels end up becoming navigation risks. That's an issue for folks from within Canada and also those who come from other countries who want to experience what our country has to offer.

     Thank you.

    I will note that the bells are ringing now. As discussed, we'll continue until 10 minutes before the vote. I think we should be able to wrap up our last three speakers.

    Mr. Leslie.

    Just out of curiosity—this is some weird timing—I'm assuming that we can run through until 4:30 before we release. Are any of us actually going back to the House? If we all vote here, we could probably run very close—

     I'm happy to do it virtually if—

    There's no point in pausing for the sake of pausing. If we all agree, we could probably get the officials in. I don't know if they have statements at the beginning.

    We could probably get that done, take our pause to vote and then come back without physically leaving.

    Is everyone good with the online vote?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay. Excellent.

    Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'd like to come back to one point, Mr. Weiler. I believe you mentioned the size of the boats or vessels that would be subject to the act. Could you elaborate on that? Does a simple small rowboat count among the vessels for which the owner's declaration and the buyer's capacity would be mandatory? Also, what is the maximum size?

    Only vessels longer than 5.5 metres are subject to the current Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

    Thank you.

    Let's go back to the amendment you're proposing to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. You say that an owner would have to prove that they took all appropriate measures to prevent, for example, a spill of substances or oil. However, how do we determine whether they actually took all necessary measures to prevent that? It's still rather vague. You might point to ignorance and the adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but how do we define that?

    That's a good question.

    I think it's impossible to have a list of everything that should be done by the various authorities. That's something the courts will be able to determine based on the specific circumstances of each case. I think it's difficult, but the law is based on the principle of what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. If you don't act irresponsibly, you won't be committing an offence under this act. This is something that will be determined by the judges, who will base their decisions on the various arguments presented to them.

    Okay.

    Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

     Mr. Ross, we will go over to you for five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you for your testimony, MP Weiler.

     I grew up on the West Coast, and I still live there today, so I'm well aware of the scourge of abandoned vessels sinking on the west coast of British Columbia.

     When I was a band councillor as well as a chief councillor, we tried to address this as well, and it ended up with us using our own resources to take abandoned vessels out of the water. We're well aware of the problem of buying a vessel for one dollar.

     Bill C-244 puts more responsibility—and I might say more liability—on the seller. The seller has to ensure that whoever he's selling this boat to has “the ability, resources [and] intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked [or] abandoned”.

     This is the way I read that: If I sell the boat to my colleague here, who has never owned a boat—I don't even think he's seen the ocean—then I have to figure out if he has “the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel”. I'm also assuming, on my part, that he has some kind of a document saying that the vessel is in good working condition and that my colleague has a résumé of items that he intends to do to operate this in an efficient manner. If not, the document has to stand up in the courts.

     Are we assuming that this document we're talking about has to be notarized? Does it have to be legalized in some manner to protect my liability and my responsibility? I don't want to be fined $5,000 when I know he has the resources and I know he has the ability to use YouTube. I know all that, but he still lets the boat sink. I don't want it to come back to me.

     What kind of a document do we need to ensure that I've done my due diligence?

     Thank you very much for the question. I think it's a very important one.

     I'll go back to how the legislation is written here. It says:

     You don't have to prove it, but if you know this person doesn't meet these conditions, or if you don't take any steps to ascertain this, that's when you would be committing—

    What are the steps? Is it a notarized document to protect myself? Is it a notarized document, for example, or some other type of document to say that I did my due diligence? Does it say that I interviewed him and questioned his dad, his mom and his friends, and that I looked at his history? I don't even know what I'm looking at here. I investigated him as much as I could.

     What kind of a résumé does that look like? What is going to protect me and ensure that I did my due diligence? How extensive does that document have to be, and does it have to be legal?

     My view is that you wouldn't have to get something notarized, but you would have to ask those questions. Again, going back to the original thing, disclosing what the condition—

    It has to be able to stand up in court, though.

    If Transport Canada wanted to issue a penalty under it, you would have to show this. That's what it would require. It would be....

    I would still be fined, so then I would take it to court. I would still need a document from him that could stand up in court to say that I did my due diligence.

    Yes, you did your due diligence, and remember what the standard is here. You don't have to prove that he meets all these conditions, because those are things that would be very difficult to do, but you have to prove that you took steps to ascertain it.

     If I didn't verify that in some document, I'm breaking the law. It's prohibited for me to sell that vessel to Branden here without checking all these checkboxes. It's going to come back to the courts.

     In terms of enforcement, I assume that Transport Canada is going to enforce this, so will they be enforcing by looking at the documents? Marine assessment is not a problem. Marine survey is not a problem. They already exist. Will I have to submit to Transport Canada the résumé that Branden gave me to ensure that he's not a reckless boat owner?

     Yes, it's exactly that. You would have to submit the statement or the documentation wherein the buyer shows that he has the ability to maintain it.

     How will this apply on reserves? How will it be enforced on reserves?

     This would be enforced the same way right across the country. This is in addition to the vessel registry system.

     No, it's not—not on reserve. There are a lot of laws that aren't enforced on reserve, whether provincial or federal. Most of the time, you ask permission to come onto reserve and enforce. Will the band council...? Band councils own boats and sell them as well. Will this need council buy-in, say, under the Indian Act?

     I know there are.... I think, unfortunately, the time is up. I'd love to get more into that one afterwards. I know in some cases you do need band council resolutions to do those things.

     Okay, thank you.

     We'll go over to Mr. Fanjoy for five minutes, please.

     Thank you, Chair.

     Thank you, MP Weiler.

     Is the problem of wrecked, abandoned and hazardous vessels because our laws are insufficient or enforcement is insufficient, or are there other factors too?

     I'm sorry, but can you repeat that?

     Is the problem of wrecked, abandoned and hazardous vessels because our laws are insufficient as they currently exist or enforcement is insufficient, or are there other factors?

     I think it's all of the above.

     There was a major legislative gap before the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act was introduced in 2019. I mentioned before that it was not even prohibited anywhere to abandon your vessel. That addressed one of the problems there.

     One of the issues that have long existed is that we don't understand who owns most boats. It's based on a paper-based system, so it's very outdated. Earlier this year, we introduced a new system, so it's all going to be in one database, and you're now going to have to update the system every five years so we have a better sense of who owns it. Those are really important changes. There are many issues when people don't register when a boat changes hands. These are things that are major gaps in our laws.

     Then there are major issues in enforcement on the water. Part of the challenge is that so many of Transport Canada's, DFO's and the Coast Guard's resources are centralized in different areas, and many of these issues end up happening far away from them, so there's a lack of capacity in many respects. Frankly, there were a lot of regional bases that were shut down in the early 2010s as well. I can tell you that my riding on the Sunshine Coast used to have a DFO site, and that was shut down in 2012.

     I'd say that those are both issues that are there, and they need to be addressed.

     What options are available to vessel owners in properly disposing of a vessel?

     This is one of the areas that are a big gap in Canada, because, in many respects, for a lot of these vessels, to properly dispose of them, you're sending them to a landfill. There are better ways of dealing with it than that.

     There are a number of different organizations that want to set up shipbreaking facilities and recycling facilities, where you could properly break them down and recover some of the materials in there that are still valuable. We don't have those facilities. We need to invest in those in Canada. Other jurisdictions have them. As a west coast example, Washington state has a lot of those facilities. We also need to make it very cheap for people to dispose of their boats that way, because, if you send it to the dump, it's very expensive. These are some gaps that need to be addressed.

     I mentioned earlier in my testimony that one way of doing that is the long-promised vessel remediation fund, so you know you're going to have a capitalized fund over the long term for that vessel disposal. Right now, those are not there, and that's one of the other gaps that have to be addressed.

     How widespread is the problem of abandoned vessels?

    The abandoned vessels problem is an issue right across the country. It's more of an issue in British Columbia. I couldn't give you an accurate number on how many vessels are identified as abandoned. I can tell you that I think it's a few thousand, but I bet you the actual amount is 10 times that, probably.

    It's a bigger issue on the west coast, because we have milder winters and more examples of people who live there throughout the winter. There are more pleasure crafts, whereas on the east coast you have more commercial harvesting vessels. It's a bit different. There are certainly issues on the east coast as well. A colleague from Îles-de-la-Madeleine was bringing up pictures, showing me some examples in his riding. It's just that the state of these vessels is different. There are more commercial vessels on the east coast and more pleasure crafts on the west coast. I would venture to say that there are probably some issues in the Arctic as well.

    Oftentimes, people will see an opportunity. I remember watching The Beachcombers when I was growing up. Is there a beachcomber opportunity for enterprising people with the right equipment and skill to help solve this problem?

    I love that example, because that show was filmed in my riding, in Gibsons. It's the most-watched Canadian show of all time.

    I think there's absolutely an opportunity to do that. Part of the challenge right now is that you have to know whether a vessel is actually abandoned. You have to give the person 30 days' notice before you can do anything about it.

    There's a better way of dealing with these problem vessels. Right now, in our program, they take out individual boats. It's very expensive. If you had someone deal with all the abandoned boats in one region at one time, it would be much more affordable. That could be a fix in the program design, going forward. There's certainly a market for that, because there are valuable materials that can be recovered. Right now, though, we don't have the resources or the proper disposal facilities to deal with it.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Fanjoy.

    Thank you, Mr. Weiler, for your time.

    We're going to suspend very quickly to switch the officials. If everyone stays in their seats, we'll probably get through at least one opening statement, if not two, before we have to vote.

    Thank you.

     We're going to start this up again.

    We have just enough time for our first speaker. I will introduce the witnesses by department as we go by speaker.

    First, we have, online, Josée-Annie Verville, director, monitoring and compliance, Canadian Coast Guard.

     Josée-Annie, the floor is yours for five minutes.

    Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

    My name is Annie Verville and I'm director of monitoring and compliance at the Canadian Coast Guard. Thank you for inviting me to participate in the discussions on Bill C‑244.

    The powers conferred under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act are shared among the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Coast Guard. The Coast Guard handles cases involving hazardous vessels, while Transport Canada is responsible for impacts on navigation, as well as abandoned and derelict vessels. We both work closely with all other levels of government, as well as with indigenous and coastal communities, since certain areas where problematic vessels are found involve multiple jurisdictions. We also work closely with our colleagues in the small craft harbours program. This program falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries when vessels are in a designated harbour.

    The Coast Guard acts as a single point of contact for reports of problematic vessels submitted to the Government of Canada, receiving reports on vessels of concern. Each vessel is assessed based on the risk it poses to the marine environment, the public and infrastructure. The vessel is then added to the Government of Canada's national inventory, a publicly accessible registry that is regularly updated and available on the Canadian Coast Guard's website. If the vessel poses no danger, the case is transferred to our colleagues at Transport Canada.

    The Canadian Coast Guard works closely with vessel owners to ensure they fulfill their responsibilities when their vessels pose a hazard. We also hold owners accountable, including by imposing administrative monetary penalties when they fail to comply with orders. Canada applies the “polluter pays” principle, under which those who cause marine damage, such as pollution, are responsible for the costs of removing the hazard and restoring the site. If the polluter is unable to take direct action, the Canadian Coast Guard intervenes to address the hazard and then recovers the costs from the owner or their insurer.

     The intent of Bill C-244 aligns closely with the Canadian Coast Guard's responsibilities regarding hazardous vessels. The provision targets risky vessel transfers at the point of sale, which will help reduce future cases of hazardous vessels or wrecks. It aims to discourage owners from transferring vessels to individuals who cannot manage them responsibly. Preventing problematic transfer could lower the number of vessels requiring costly intervention, monitoring and remediation, sometimes at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer.

     The cost of removing and disposing of hazardous vessels can range from tens of thousands to several million dollars, depending on the vessel's size, condition and location, and the presence of pollutants and hazardous materials. The process is complex due to the need for the safe and environmentally sound management of these substances, limited access to appropriate recycling or disposal facilities, and the high cost of transporting vessels, particularly in remote or northern regions.

     The Canadian Coast Guard has clear equities in this bill, as we regularly observe cases of irresponsible owners selling hazardous vessels at a low price to avoid the costs associated with proper end-of-life disposal. These types of transactions often lead to vessels being abandoned or becoming hazardous, which creates environmental, safety and financial risks. These sales can also make it more difficult to find the responsible owner, resulting in delays to enforcement and remediation actions under the WAHVA.

     While the Canadian Coast Guard supports the intent of the bill, enhancing the enforceability of its provisions is key to realizing its purpose. As drafted, we have identified the following considerations.

     The bill may be interpreted as requiring owners to determine whether a prospective buyer has the capacity to manage a vessel appropriately. In practice, this could present challenges, as it may involve assessing the likelihood of future actions, such as the potential for vessel abandonment, and evaluating factors such as intent and financial means. This may raise questions about the extent to which an owner could be held accountable for the subsequent action of another party.

     The provisions may present practical challenges from an enforcement perspective as well, including demonstrating what an owner knew about a buyer's circumstances or intentions and establishing a clear connection between that knowledge and eventual outcomes, such as a vessel becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous.

     Thank you. I welcome any questions.

     Thank you very much.

     We're going to suspend briefly so we can diligently vote, and then we will resume.

     I call the meeting back to order.

    Thank you, everybody.

    Thank you to all of our officials for being with us this afternoon as we discuss Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

     We've already heard from Josée-Annie Verville from the Canadian Coast Guard. I'd like to introduce the rest of the witnesses who are here today.

     From the Department of the Environment, we have Stephanie Lane, executive director of legislative governance; Daniel Wolfish, director general of environmental protection operations; and David Taillefer, national manager of marine programs.

     From the Department of Transport, we have Sean Rogers, executive director of legislative, regulatory and international affairs; Michelle Sanders, executive director of navigation protection and environmental programs; Paula Vieira, director general of environmental policy; Colin Henein, director of marine environmental policy; and Joanne Weiss Reid, director of operations and regulatory development.

    Thank you all very much for being here.

    I believe we have two more opening statements.

    We'll go next to Ms. Lane from the Department of the Environment. The floor is yours for five minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Honourable members, as introduced by the chair, my name is Stephanie Lane. I am accompanied by my colleagues Daniel and David.

    Thank you for the invitation to discuss Bill C-244.

    As its sponsor has stated, if passed, Bill C‑244 will amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The parts of the act that would be amended are administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

    Before discussing the amendments that the bill would make to the act, I will briefly describe the current disposal at sea regime established under the act.

     The disposal at sea provisions establish a comprehensive framework for protecting the marine environment. They prohibit the disposal of waste or other matter from ships, aircraft, platforms or other structures at sea. The provisions of that act do not apply to land-based activities. The act sets out over 10 specific prohibitions related to disposal at sea, including in subsection 125(1), which this bill proposes to amend. These prohibitions can be lifted only by permit, and only for a small, limited set of low-risk wastes listed in schedule 5 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

     Returning to the amendment in the bill before us, we understand from the sponsor that the intent is to clarify that disposal at sea under subsection 125(1) is a strict liability offence and, therefore, does not require proof of intent. The proposal, as MP Weiler indicated in the last hour, is intended to prevent a recurrence of the not guilty finding in the 2018 MV Marathassa decision, which stemmed from a 2015 oil spill in Vancouver's English Bay.

     Indeed, disposal at sea offences in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as with most offences under the act, are already interpreted as strict liability offences. This is made clear by the availability of the due diligence defence in section 283 of that act. It is a defence that is available only for strict liability offences. While the court in the MV Marathassa case does not appear to have addressed this section, I can confirm that the department treats the disposal at sea offences under the act as strict liability offences.

    Thank you, members of Parliament. I believe my colleagues will also make a few opening remarks. We will be happy to answer your questions.

     Thank you very much, Ms. Lane.

     Now we will go to Mr. Rogers, from the Department of Transport, for five minutes.

    No. I'm sorry. It's Ms. Vieira. Okay.

    Go ahead. Thank you.

     Thank you, Chair and committee members. Good afternoon.

     My name is Paula Vieira. I am the director general of environmental policy at Transport Canada.

     My team was responsible for the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act and helped create the national strategy to address wrecked and abandoned vessels. The pillars of this have guided Transport Canada and the Coast Guard's work to address this issue.

     I am joined here today by my colleagues from the navigation protection program and marine safety and security at Transport Canada, as well as by operational colleagues from the Coast Guard, who are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of portions of this act. They will all be available to take your questions.

    Since 2016, the Government of Canada has been advancing the national strategy to clean up existing wrecked and abandoned vessels while working to prevent the introduction of new ones.

     For example, since 2016, Transport Canada has removed almost 900 wrecked, abandoned or dilapidated vessels from Canadian waters, and since 2019, the department has also issued orders or warnings to more than 450 owners, as well as issuing three administrative monetary penalties.

    Additionally, the government has made enhancements to its pleasure craft licensing systems that will allow for better owner identification and hold owners accountable for their vessels.

    We are pleased to be here today to discuss the vessel-related provisions of Bill C‑244.

    Transport Canada is aware of concerns relating to the transfer of end-of-life vessels from an owner or seller to a buyer, who is not able to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in accordance with the act.

     Transport Canada understands that this bill would prohibit the transfer of a vessel from a buyer who “lacks the ability, resources [and] intent to maintain, operate or dispose of” it in accordance with the act.

    The department has reviewed the text of the bill, which we understand is focused on the transaction between the buyer and the seller and would not involve the government in the process of determining ability, resources and intent, which would not be feasible.

    Transport Canada has identified four main considerations that the committee may wish to take into account in its study of the bill.

    First, it would be challenging for the seller to determine the buyer’s ability, resources and intent, as this would require access to information that is not normally in the public domain. As currently written, the bill does not require the seller to disclose the condition of the vessel to the buyer.

    Second, the proposed amendments would present enforcement challenges, as they would necessitate proving the seller’s knowledge or recklessness and assessing the buyer’s ability, resources or intent. These concepts are inherently subjective and may lead to differing interpretations and disputes.

    Third, the requirement for a seller to assess a buyer’s abilities may result in inconsistent or risk-averse decision-making, potentially leading to differential treatment of certain individuals or groups. This could raise concerns from a human rights perspective.

    Fourth, the provision would apply to all vessels regulated by the act, from small motorized pleasure crafts up to and including the largest commercial cargo ships. This might create an undue burden for Canadians, especially for vessels that may pose a lower risk of becoming derelict or abandoned following a sale.

    Transport Canada remains committed to advancing efforts with our partners to protect Canada’s coastal waters from the consequences of vessels of concern. We look forward to answering your questions about this bill as we support the work of the committee on this important issue.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Vieira.

     We will now go to questions by the committee. We will begin with Mr. Arnold for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank all of the department officials for being here.

    It's interesting to see how this bill crosses over three different departments of government. We saw that in our studies at the fisheries committee on derelict and abandoned vessels.

    This is a question for either Ms. Verville or Ms. Lane. Are there any other statutes in Canada that require the seller to verify or qualify the capacity of the buyer to maintain property or tangible assets?

     I'm sorry to answer that I don't know to the first question that you're asking, sir. We haven't done a full study of all the other legislation. We would have to look into that question.

    Okay, so it can't be verified.

    We're all concerned about the potential damage caused by derelict, abandoned and wrecked vessels. We want to see this cleaned up, but we want to see it done efficiently and, most of all, effectively.

    Currently, the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, has loopholes. People are finding ways of avoiding accountability. If we're creating more legislation, we want to make sure that it is both enforceable and workable for average Canadians.

    I've heard two different pieces of testimony saying that there are concerns and challenges regarding the enforcement. I believe it was Ms. Verville, from the Coast Guard, who spoke about the challenges of enforcement.

     I would like to direct the question to my colleagues at Transport Canada. On the amendment as written, Coast Guard currently does not have any enforcement role.

     I am Joanne Weiss Reid, director of protection of navigation, and I'll talk about how we do enforcement.

    We have a graduated approach to enforcement. A vessel identified as hazardous would go through the Canadian Coast Guard. They would then do their assessment to see if it was hazardous. If it was not hazardous, it would come to Transport Canada. We deal specifically with abandoned vessels and dilapidated vessels and wrecks. If a vessel is identified, we make attempts to identify the owner as the first step. We engage either the owner, if we know the owner, or our stakeholders—community and indigenous groups and the municipality—to find out more information about the vessel.

    In the event that there was a vessel owner—

    Would this bill improve that?

     With this bill, it would be aligned with the accountability—with the owner or the seller of the vessel—but in terms of vessel ownership, I might turn that over to my colleague.

     It sounds like this could be a complicated question, so perhaps you could provide that in writing.

     I'd like to pass the rest of my time over to Mr. Leslie.

    Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

    This is a fascinating topic. I have learned more than I expected to so far. The government doesn't seem to support this bill, which is interesting. Various departments seem to take issue with that.

    All of that is to say, Madam Chair, that I would like to move the motion that I had put on notice on June 11 in the aftermath of the net-zero body members who appeared before the committee and talked a lot about the challenges of the functionality of the net-zero advisory body. I went ahead and had a look at the original act that enabled that body to function. It was the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which they criticized throughout that testimony.

    All of that is to say that, importantly, within that act, there is a provision that a review of the provisions and the operation of the act be undertaken five years after the act comes into force. That happened to be on June 29, 2021. My intention with this motion, which you should all have in your committee binder, is that immediately following the disposal of Bill C-244, once we come back, the committee look at the government's progress towards the 2026 interim objective, the 2030 target and the 2035 target, the transparency and reliability of the government’s emissions modelling, costing and reporting, and whether amendments to the act are required; that the committee hold three meetings on the topic, including inviting the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development; and that the chair issue a press release inviting stakeholders and interested Canadians to provide written submissions to the committee.

    It just so happens that the five-year timeline for statutory review is something that this committee should undertake within five years, or at least very soon after. I would like to move this motion today, so that immediately after finishing up with this bill in late September, we get on with the important review of this legislation.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

     Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

    Mr. Bexte.

     Thank you, Chair.

    I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I think it's very important that this take priority in our studies. The statutory reviews serve a very important purpose in ensuring that legislation remains whole, that legislation remains relevant, that legislation fulfills its intended functions and that it maintains its responsiveness to a changing world.

    This act needs to be looked at. It's relevant to today as much as any other act or any other issue that is currently on our docket to study, and it should take some priority. We need to be able to ensure that it is fulfilling its purpose. We need to ensure that there is appropriate accountability and the opportunity to change and make suggestions to the act so that it doesn't become stale and so that we don't become victim to unintended consequences—not just we here, but Canadians in general across the country. Probably one of the worst things we could do would be to be complacent about our duties to attend to legislation and make sure we maintain its relevance over time.

    For those reasons among many others, I fully support this motion. It behooves all on this committee to vote to support this motion, when it comes time, and to proceed to this with all haste.

     Thank you, Mr. Bexte.

    Mr. St-Pierre.

     I thought I was being nice by providing a birthday gift, so I guess this is a reciprocal birthday gift. I think it's because I missed the member's previous birthday. He might be a bit upset with me.

    I will remember your next birthday, sir.

    At the last meeting, it seemed there was a lot of freaking out going on when the member for Carleton introduced a motion. It was his first motion in 13 months, actually. There have been very few motions for studies from the Liberal side.

    I think you filed six motions last week. I'm having a hard time keeping up. There was a moment when you were quite visibly upset, and you put this on social media. You were quite upset that we interrupted witnesses. I'm seeing a lot of witnesses today, so I want to go back to that moment. I think you should appreciate this specific moment. I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of the motions. To be honest, there have been a lot that you've filed in the last week.

    One, we don't even know if we're going to be here in September or October—

    Mr. Leslie has a point of order.

    Until I move them, it's privileged information we can discuss only in camera.

    Thank you very much.

    You may continue, Mr. St-Pierre.

    I think we're lacking time today, and we have some very important witnesses we want to hear from.

    I move that we adjourn debate and take this to a vote.

    Thank you.

    We'll go to a vote on whether to adjourn debate, with a recorded division requested.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We will continue with our questioning of the witnesses.

    We will now go to Mr. Fanjoy for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    My first question is for the Canadian Coast Guard and Madame Verville.

    How often is ownership information incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable when dealing with abandoned vessels?

    The Canadian Coast Guard deals with hazardous vessels, and my colleagues at Transport Canada deal with abandoned vessels.

    I can certainly say, Madam Chair, that finding the owners so that accountability can be put on the right person, rather than taxpayers being burdened, is a challenge for the Canadian Coast Guard.

     Would it be more than 50% that have complete information? Is it less than that?

    I could not qualify that information.

    I will say that we are meeting the challenge of enforcing the hazardous vessel provisions more often with smaller vessels or pleasure craft.

     If Bill C-244 is adopted, how would it change the Coast Guard's operational approach to monitoring and compliance?

     As my colleague Joanne at Transport Canada mentioned, we are the single window for all notifications. We assess whether it is within the Canadian Coast Guard's mandate. If it is not, we send the file to Transport Canada for their assessment regarding whether it is abandoned or derelict.

    The Canadian Coast Guard does not have any responsibility for enforcing the provisions for hazardous vessels as they are currently written. This would fall under Transport Canada's mandate.

     Okay. Thank you.

    Ms. Lane, how would ECCC evaluate whether this legislation, if passed, is achieving its intended outcomes?

    As I understand it from the sponsor of the bill, the intent is for amendments to be made such that the provisions of the disposal at sea regime would be strict liability offences. As I indicated previously, to date, the department treats those offences as strict liability offences.

    Perhaps, as Mr. Weiler indicated, it's about ensuring that there are no offences that are treated differently under law.

     Do you anticipate any unintended legal consequences that Parliament could or should be considering?

    As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are multiple different prohibitions that are in the disposal at sea regime. The proposed amendment in MP Weiler's private member's bill amends just one of those. It would be important to ensure that those prohibitions aren't treated differently and that they're all interpreted as strict liability offences.

    Thank you.

     Mr. Wolfish, you are responsible for the environmental protection operations. Would implementation of Bill C-244 require additional enforcement resources?

     Thank you.

    I don't manage the enforcement operations of our department. That is a special part of our department. We do, in the program, manage the administration of disposal at sea, and we do manage compliance promotion around the requirements for the act and for the permits.

     In this particular case, since the intent is to change the liability, our permitting regime would still remain the same. In other words, it is a prohibition to dispose unless permitted, and it is the team that we have across the country that does that permitting.

    Mr. Taillefer, can you explain how the disposal at sea permitting system currently works?

     Basically, CEPA provides an absolute prohibition on disposal from ships, aircraft or platform or other structures at sea. The CEPA permitting program allows us to issue permits for a limited number of low-risk materials that are found in schedule 5 of CEPA, the largest of which is dredged material that is cleared from shipping channels and harbours, in order to keep our ports and harbours open.

     In order to get a permit, you have to go through a strict assessment of the material, the disposal site and the operations around the disposal at sea. Those provisions can be found in schedule 6 of the act.

     Thank you.

    What environmental risks are associated with unauthorized disposal at sea?

    There are a number of risks that could pertain to an unauthorized disposal, from the perspective of the environment. I think it depends upon the materials that are on the vessel and the degree to which that vessel has been cleaned. If there are hydrocarbons or other types of toxic materials from schedule 1 of CEPA, those can all provide hazards to the ecosystem and to fish habitat. That's why there's a prohibition unless otherwise permitted.

     Okay.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

     Thank you very much.

    M. Bonin, you have the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The folks at Environment Canada might be able to answer my question, but I'm not sure.

    My colleague was talking earlier about the idea of amending the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to require vessel owners to adopt a preventive approach, in other words, to put everything in place to ensure that a spill is avoided, if I understood the intent behind that correctly.

    Am I to understand that the purpose of this change—which would shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the polluter—is to demonstrate that the polluter did everything possible to prevent a spill, for example? Am I correct in understanding that the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of spills?

    I'm going to have to answer in English, since there are a lot of French words I don't know.

     As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to clarify and confirm that the prohibition in section 125 of the act is a strict liability offence. What that means is that there is an offence for which the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person did the thing that the act prohibits.

    In a normal prosecution, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were duly diligent. That is one of the defences available.

    As I understand it, the proposed amendment from MP Weiler is not intended to change the regime that currently exists in the act. It's not intended to change the burden of proof that exists in regulatory offences under CEPA. It's merely to clarify and, I believe he indicated, just to go back to the intention of the act, which was to make sure that, as with most regulatory offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, they are considered these strict liability offences.

    We're talking about strict liability offences.

    Okay. So the intent is to clarify the law.

    But do you think that these clarifications will make people take more responsibility? Is it just that there are fewer financial risks for the government? Will this clarification lead boaters to conclude that they need to take more preventive measures to show that they've acted responsibly?

    With regard to the proposed amendment, I believe that the intent behind the words added to subsection 125(1)—as Mr. Weiler pointed out—is to clarify the strict liability for this offence. There are several ways this could be done.

    As I mentioned in another response, since there are several offences or contraventions under this section of the act that are already interpreted as involving strict liability, there might be a problem if we were to amend or change only one of these sections.

    Okay. I'll rephrase my question.

    Will this bill help create a safer environment where there is less risk of an oil spill, for example? The example that was mentioned was oil. Will the bill have any effect on that?

     The prohibition in section 125, as indicated by my colleagues, is the same. There are certain types of waste listed in the act that require a permit. There is a prohibition from disposing from certain platforms at sea. Those things don't change with the amendment proposed by MP Weiler. The prohibition remains the same.

    Okay.

    Doesn't this mean, then, that this bill does nothing to reduce the risk of an oil spill?

    That's correct; it does not alter the offence under the act.

    Okay.

    Excuse me, Mr. Bonin. Let me add a comment: It does not change the process for obtaining a permit. A permit must be obtained before proceeding with disposal at sea. The process for obtaining approval remains the same.

    Okay.

    I thought that was one of the aims of the bill, in a way. Is there another bill that aims to reduce the risk of oil spills, for example? That is the point my colleague raised here.

    Do officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada have anything to add?

    We have programs to respond to environmental emergencies under the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The program's role is to support the Canadian Coast Guard and others in coordinating responses, including coordinating the government's scientific activities and providing advice on the effects of a toxic substance in a marine environment. This program helps to enforce the law, but it is not a separate piece of legislation with its own regulations.

     Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

    I will note that the bells are now ringing. Do we have unanimous consent to continue in the manner we just did until 10 minutes before the vote, and to vote virtually?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Ross, the floor is yours for five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony.

    I pretty much exhausted my questions on this a few months ago when it was first introduced in the House. Being a boat owner, a boat seller and a boat buyer, I just didn't understand the legalities around this and the enforcement.

    We still don't have clarity on the question of how this is going to be enacted, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, where it's a really big problem.

    As a high-level question, how does this relate to a seller in the United States selling to somebody in Canada? Does this legislation apply to that seller in the United States in terms of pleasure boats?

    Can anybody answer? Bueller? Bueller?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Ellis Ross: If you don't have that answer right now, that's great. You can get back to us later with some written answers.

    It depends on whether the sale is taking place in Canada or the U.S. It's about the location of the sale. If there's a sale made in Canada, that's what the boat—

    If the seller is in the United States and that's where the purchase is made, and the boat comes to Canada and it sinks because the buyer wasn't able to maintain the boat, then does that liability stay with the buyer?

    The way we understand this bill, the obligation is on the seller—

     Exactly, but you just said that, if the sale is made in the United States, then there are different rules.

    That's right.

    If the sale is made in the States, and the buyer brings it to Canada and the boat sinks, you can't put the onus on the seller in the United States.

    That's right.

    The way WAHVA works is that it's about the owner of the vessel. The owner of the vessel is the responsible party.

    I understand that, but the point of this bill is that the onus is on the seller. They say that you have to do the due diligence to ensure that the buyer is competent enough to maintain a boat.

    How will Canada do this at any level of government when they're selling surplus vessels to boat owners? How will they do it? Who will do it on behalf of Canada?

    As the bill is written, it would apply to any vessel that's regulated by WAHVA. Canada would have to provide an assessment of the condition of the vessel.

    As well as the competence of the potential owner, the buyer, to ensure that that new owner is competent or not reckless in owning a boat or maintaining a boat.

    Yes, that's right.

     Thank you.

    Currently, it's really tough to enforce these types of legislation regulations on reserve. Has that been considered in terms of this legislation?

    Under the act, we do have the ability to enter into agreements with indigenous groups on the administration of the act. In this case, with the bill, there would be an option for us to enter into an agreement whereby we would talk about things like the interest in monitoring or identification of vessels on the water.

     I'll turn the rest of my time over to MP Arnold.

    Thank you, Mr. Ross.

     I'll continue, but I want to go back to statements about the MV Marathassa, the owner who was acquitted before the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act was passed. This happened in 2019.

    Ms. Lane, you said that this PMB is meant to prevent the repeat of the Marathassa, so why didn't the 2019 act include measures to prevent the repeat of that incident?

    If I understood the question, I feel that there were two parts to it. One related to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but then I think there were also elements related to the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Did I catch that correctly?

     The owner of the Marathassa was acquitted in 2019, before the Hazardous Vessels Act was passed.

    Right.

    Why didn't the act, in 2019, include measures to prevent a repeat of the Marathassa incident?

    With respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the offences under that act, the Marathassa case was a B.C. provincial court decision, so it was a lower court decision that didn't consider the fact that there is the due diligence defence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

    With respect to why the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act didn't include elements related to that, I'd have to pass that to my colleagues at Transport Canada. We're not responsible for that act.

     Do you want to give a quick answer on that or come back to it?

    We're out of time on this one, so we can maybe come back to that.

    Yes, we can come back in writing on that.

    Thanks very much.

     It's over to you, Mr. Greaves, for five minutes.

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Good afternoon to all our witnesses. Thank you for being here.

    I'd like to go back to some of the fundamentals around the issue that we're trying to tackle, broadly speaking, through this legislation, which my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has brought forward with this private member's bill.

     In a situation in which there is a boat that's been abandoned, a vessel that's derelict or dangerous, there is at the root, I would suggest, a lack of accountability. Who's to be held responsible for an object that poses some kind of risk to the public or is otherwise a blight in our communities? In most instances, where a vessel has been abandoned, the simple reality is that it's difficult to identify an owner, so the boat becomes the problem of the nearest marina, community, first nation or neighbourhood.

    For instance, in my community in Victoria, we're very lucky to have groups such as the Cadboro Bay Dead Boats Society, which is a group of volunteers who make it their work to identify vessels that have been abandoned or have washed up on our beaches, to try to get the relevant municipal and federal agencies involved. In some cases they take it upon themselves to do the cleanup directly. In this instance, the accountability or responsibility for the vessel is being taken on by people who are not actually responsible for its presence in the first place.

    In that context, speaking of the obligation and responsibility to clean up the boats, can you maybe speak to it? I would direct this to the officials from Transport Canada: Could you speak to how Bill C-244 could help to enforce or strengthen the legal accountability for vessel owners to clean up their own vessels before they fall into a state of severe disrepair that can then threaten our environment and human health?

     Yes, thank you.

    Chair, the approach of this bill, we understand, is that it's intended to address proactively the risk of vessel abandonment that's associated with the sale of a vessel, often for a very small amount of money, to somebody who is not really prepared to address that vessel and prevent it from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. The bill would do that by ensuring that the owner has the responsibility to transfer the vessel only to people who have the ability, resources and intent to do so.

    It's really that preventative step that the bill is aiming to do. If the owner doesn't take the step of ensuring that the vessel is being transferred to an appropriate buyer, they would be subject to enforcement under WAHVA. I'll pass it over to my colleague to talk a bit more about the enforcement aspect.

     Thank you for that.

    We talked a bit about disclosure of the vessel. Certainly, if you are required to disclose the status of your vessel in any shape or form, it's reinforcing the accountability of the seller of the vessel. The act specifically speaks to the owner's being accountable for the life cycle of the vessels. Certainly, if there is some disclosure and some accountability on behalf of the seller, it would reinforce that.

    In terms of enforcement, we would have some evidence on behalf of the owner that they did their due diligence to disclose the status of the vessel before transferring ownership, which would enable us to enforce it. As I mentioned, the way that we enforce this is by engaging the owner and the seller. We would talk to the community about what has happened. We generally have a good idea of what's out on the water. We have offices across the country. We have officers on the water as well, as we work in collaboration with the Coast Guard across the country. We have a good idea of these vessels that are reported in by the communities, and we would go and explore and assess the status of the vessel.

    In terms of enforcement, we have provisions under the act whereby we can administer monetary fines of up to $50,000. That, again, would be a preventative measure that would make sellers of vessels think twice before selling their vessels if they're in a state of disrepair.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.

    Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Lane, I would like to return to what you said.

    When introducing his bill to the House, my honourable colleague said that the aim was not to criminalize accidents, such as oil spills. That was the example he gave. He said the aim was to ensure that individuals and companies carrying out activities comply with higher standards.

     The bill would encourage better maintenance, the adoption of better safety protocols and better planning. It would both save money and protect the oceans. That is what he said. It is therefore not an objective of the act.

     Do you think this will improve safety or that it will reduce the risk of an oil spill, for example?

    I am not aware of the comments made by the member. However, if I understand correctly, throughout the bill, he was referring to amendments to both the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Canada Transportation Act.

    He was really talking about the risks of oil spills, such as the one involving the Marathassa.

    You're telling me that, no, this bill does not reduce the risk of oil spills in Canada at all. Is that correct?

    What I'm saying is that the current legislation already prohibits this.

    The new legislation would not reduce these risks at all. Is that correct?

     As I understand it, the aim is to clarify that this is a strict liability.

    Okay.

    Do you think it is logical for the government to introduce a bill aimed at reducing the risk of oil spills, while at the same time proposing a potential increase of one million barrels of oil per day—or at the very least 300,000 barrels of oil—for English Bay via the Trans Mountain pipeline? That is equivalent to at least 150 more oil tankers per year.

    Does this increase the risk of oil spills?

    Thank you for that question.

     I would say that there is no direct link between the bill we are discussing today and the process for major projects of national interest, such as the construction of a new pipeline. The aim of the bill is to clarify the liability of shipowners.

    Major projects and measures to reduce environmental risks are another matter. There are programs in place to address environmental risks, including Canada's ocean protection plan for marine species. There is also a program for environmental emergencies, as well as other programs—

    Thank you very much. Your time is up.

     Mr. Arnold, we go over to you for five minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I want to go back to the question that I left off with last time. I'll go to Ms. Vieira, if I could.

    It was your department that was responsible for the Marathassa reporting.... Pardon me, it was Ms. Lane's department, but I want to ask the question to Ms. Vieira. Again, why didn't the 2019 act include measures to prevent the repeat of the Marathassa?

    I'll direct the question to my colleague from marine safety and security.

     Can I ask, just for clarification, is this the oil spill on the west coast from a large cargo vessel?

    Yes.

    That incident would not be covered under this act, because it deals with wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels and the sale thereof. That was a cargo vessel that experienced an oil spill.

     However, clause 2 of this act is specific to that. How could you say this act doesn't apply to it?

     My understanding is that it was a vessel that was in operation at the time. It was not subject to.... It was not abandoned.

    The act doesn't say anything about.... The amendment reads:

     I will have to send that back to Environment. I apologize.

     I apologize for the confusion.

    Clause 2 would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act does already include prohibitions. I can turn to my colleagues if you'd like more details.

     There was a case taken up against the owner of the vessel. It went to the B.C. provincial court, but it wasn't appealed, I think, as MP Weiler indicated. I'm not in a position to speak to why the Public Prosecution Service made the decisions it did, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Act does apply to that situation.

    Thank you. I think you've clarified that.

     I'll go to Ms. Verville from the Coast Guard, if I can.

    I think your department is more responsible for determining vessel seaworthiness and so on, and the regulations around that. Can you tell me what would be required of a vessel seller, in providing a defensible declaration of the vessel condition, that they would be subject to if this bill takes effect?

     Madam Chair, I would like to direct the question to my colleagues at Transport Canada, who are the regulators of vessels in Canada.

    Thank you, Chair.

     On this, the bill would require the seller to make a determination of whether or not the person has the ability, resources and intent. That could be based on a declaration, we've been hearing today, that would be made by the buyer as to their ability to handle the situation. The buyer needs to be informed as to the condition of the vessel in order to make that kind of a declaration.

     Really, this is a transaction between the buyer and the seller, and it could depend on the type of vessel. If you're selling a very small vessel, it might look quite different from a vessel that's over, let's say, 24 meters in size. Therefore, it really is appropriate to the transaction. It's about the seller assuring themselves that the buyer is able to make that determination by having some good information as to the condition of the vessel, the buyer being satisfied by that information and, then, going through and completing the sale. The appropriate standard is, really, a matter between the buyer and the seller.

    This really could end up being a situation of he-said-she-said, and just an argument in the courts over what was declared.

    Well, I think it will depend on how the bill is written, in the end. I mean, if the bill is written, in the end, that there needs to be a written declaration, then that would exist—

    That's not in the bill.

    —and could be verified.

    There's a big gap in what's in this bill already, then. Thank you.

    I want to quickly go back to the issue of a vessel being purchased out of the U.S. How could a vessel seller be held accountable in the U.S.?

     Very briefly, I'll clarify that the bill is about the transfer of ownership to another person. If the transfer of ownership is going to be registered in Canada, it would be that venue in which a seller is held accountable with respect to that transfer of ownership.

    If it's taking place in Canada, the seller would be—

    That's only half of the equation. What if the sale takes place in the U.S.? That's what I'm trying to get at.

    At the end of the day, the requirements of WAHVA are for owner responsibility. When the vessel comes back to Canada, the question is, “Who owns it?” If the sale is made outside Canada, it would not be regulated by the act.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold. You're out of time.

    We're now going to turn to Mr. Weiler for five minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I want to thank the officials and witnesses here for answering the questions.

    I want to start with some questions for ECCC about the amendment to CEPA.

    As I mentioned in my testimony, this was about returning it to its original intent: being a strict liability offence. Before that, the court case very much changed how it was interpreted.

    I'm wondering whether there have been other cases like this that have come up, ones the government did not advance because of this new interpretation of the law.

    What I would suggest is that we get back to the committee with a written response, because we aren't enforcement officials. That's a matter of enforcement. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada would have had discussions about it.

    There have been investigations and inspections under the disposal at sea provisions, but I'm not in a position to provide more specificity today.

     I understand that, for sure.

    My next questions are for Transport.

    We've had a good discussion about some of the challenges regarding how you determine the current state of a vessel. There are different ways you can do this. One potential way that was brought up is doing a survey, but that would be expensive and not necessarily fit for purpose for smaller vessels. The other way would be doing a declaration, where you talk about specific aspects of the vessel, like the engine, the hull and what have you.

    I am hoping you might be able to provide some feedback to the committee on how you would best approach this spectrum of disclosure, based on the kinds of vessels that could be sold.

    The purpose here is to ensure that the buyer is well informed as to the condition of the vessel, so that when they assure the seller of their resources and intent to manage the vessel, the seller can be satisfied and go ahead with the sale.

    It ranges, really. If you have a very small vessel and its condition is clear, it can probably be very simple. If you have a more complex vessel that has technical aspects to it, there may be a need to provide some more information. It's about the buyer and the seller being well informed and agreeing to proceed with the transaction while knowing their responsibilities under the act. It's from that perspective.

    May I add to this?

    You can equate pleasure craft sales to what is seen when there are used car sales between private parties. You can equate it to the kind of evidence a buyer requests from a seller. That could be maintenance records, the age of the vessel—obviously—or how the vessel was used. If you're looking at smaller vessels, you can equate it to this type of transaction between private individuals.

    Obviously, if it's commercial craft, you would be looking for something more extensive.

    Joanne.

    What I'll add is that we can explore some optionality there. We could come up with some options. We could provide some guidance that isn't a burden for owners of vessels that are smaller, for the reasons we discussed.

    There are some opportunities and ideas we can come back to the committee on, in terms of reducing that regulatory burden.

     Thank you very much.

    With the remaining time I have, I was hoping that Transport could give an update on the progress of the vessels remediation fund.

     I can start, and then I'll turn it over to Colin.

    We continue to work to deliver on the vessels remediation fund. In fact, we're continuing to do some analysis. One of the points of analysis that we're doing, given when we originally came up with this idea, is on the fee. What is the fee that had been intended? I think it was two dollars a year, so it would be $10 for a five-year period on a craft.

    Given the passage of time, we're now looking to re-examine that and do a bit of an elasticity analysis on whether that would be the appropriate threshold. Obviously, we don't want it to be cost-prohibitive, but we also do want, for a lack of a better term, the juice to be worth the squeeze.

    Go ahead, Colin.

     This emerges out of some preconditions that needed to be met. We needed to have it implemented in the bill. We needed to have the pleasure craft licensing regulations complete. That's now been done.

    With the passage of time, as Paula has said, we do need to reassess whether the amounts that we thought would be significant when we were out consulting in 2021 and 2022 would be useful and make a dent in the problem, while also bearing in mind the need to make sure we don't disincentivize the licensing and registration of vessels at the same time.

    Thank you.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Weiler.

    Thank you to all of the witnesses this afternoon and for all of the times many of you have appeared at committee.

    Thank you very much to committee members for a productive session.

    Thank you very much to our clerk, who has supported us for a long time and will be switching committees in the fall.

    We won't be having a meeting on Thursday, so we will next be convening when the House sits again.

    We are now going to adjourn to vote.

    Thanks, everybody.