Bill C-64 (Historical)

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations

This enactment enacts the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, which promotes the protection of the public, of the environment, including coastlines and shorelines, and of infrastructure by regulating abandoned or hazardous vessels and wrecks in Canadian waters and, in certain cases, Canada’s exclusive economic zone, and by recognizing the responsibility and liability of owners for their vessels.
The Act, among other things,
(a) implements the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007;
(b) requires owners of vessels of 300 gross tonnage and above, and unregistered vessels being towed, to maintain wreck removal insurance or other financial security;
(c) prohibits vessel abandonment unless it is authorized under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or it is due to a maritime emergency;
(d) prohibits the leaving of a dilapidated vessel in the same place for more than 60 days without authorization;
(e) authorizes the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to order the removal of a dilapidated vessel left on any federal property;
(f) authorizes the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to take measures to prevent, mitigate or eliminate hazards posed by vessels or wrecks and to hold the owner liable;
(g) authorizes the Minister of Transport to take measures with respect to abandoned or dilapidated vessels and to hold the owner liable;
(h) establishes an administration and enforcement scheme, including administrative monetary penalties; and
(i) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting such matters as excluding certain vessels from the application of the Act, setting fees and establishing requirements for salvage operations, the towing of vessels and the dismantlement or destruction of vessels.
The enactment also re-enacts and revises provisions related to the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 and to the receiver of wreck. The enactment strengthens the protection of owners of certain wrecks in cases where the owner is unknown or cannot be located and maintains regulatory powers related to the protection and preservation of wrecks having heritage value.
Finally, it makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that we are committed to moving Bill C-64 forward. In fact, we have heard from some of the communities we have been engaged with that more has been done in two years than in the past 20 years. It took the State of Washington over 10 years to establish its regime. We are striving to establish ours in a much shorter period.

When it comes to abandoned and derelict ships, this government is moving full speed ahead.

I want to assure my hon. colleague that we remain committed to moving Bill C-64 through the parliamentary process and have it come into force as soon as practical. While this is happening, we have and continue to take concrete actions to address the problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member did not answer my question so I will ask it in a different way.

If she is so pleased with Bill C-64 and it is so ready to go, why is it stalled again? It has been two months. Communities are demanding a much broader solution than what is in Bill C-64, but nevertheless, let us bring it back to the House and get it done. What could possibly be the explanation? If the bill is in such perfect shape, why not bring it back now?

If the government is going to continue to delay, can the member please assure me that the transport ministry is using this long delay for good purpose and actually inserting the solutions coastal communities asked for into Bill C-64? So far they were all voted down at committee, so I hope the transport minister has a different view.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud to be implementing a comprehensive national strategy to address the issue of abandoned and wrecked vessels.

This strategy, which goes well beyond the proposed wrecked, abandoned, or hazardous vessels act, or Bill C-64, was developed after discussions with a broad cross-section of stakeholders, interest groups, and indigenous communities. These include local communities such as Saanich Inlet and industry associations such as the National Marine Manufacturers Association. It is also based on lessons learned and best practices observed in jurisdictions in the United States such as Washington state.

Bill C-64 is a critical element of the strategy, and we remain committed to bringing it into force as soon as possible. All parties have expressed their support for the legislation, as have numerous witnesses before the standing committee that reviewed this draft bill.

It is past due that a framework be put in place that ensures owners are responsible and liable for their vessels at the end of life.

We are working in partnership with provinces and territories, given their extensive experience and expertise, to explore ways we could enhance the existing pleasure craft licensing system. At the same time, we are studying options to enhance the vessel registry system to increase our ability to hold commercial vessel owners accountable.

Our government has also heard calls from local communities about the need to address the backlog of abandoned and wrecked vessels. This is why in 2017 we fast-tracked the introduction of new programs designed to assist communities across the country in removing and disposing of these problem vessels impacting our communities today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is coming up to the middle of May. The boating season in British Columbia has already begun. Therefore, I am here to encourage the government to move forward on its legislation to deal with the long-standing problem of abandoned vessels. These problems are well enumerated.

I know the government has said repeatedly that it shares my commitment to finding a long-standing resolution, a comprehensive, country-wide solution, as most other maritime countries have, in some cases decades ago.

My question is not about the level of the government's commitment. Rather, I am seeking a very specific update on when the government will return Bill C-64 to the House for further debate. It was two months ago that it was returned by committee to the House.

I will also indicate my hope that the reason for the delay in returning the bill to the House is that the minister himself is considering the amendments I proposed at committee, which the Liberal members of the committee voted down. The government is maybe still considering the fine details of those amendments. That is the only reason I can imagine for why the government would not already have the bill back to the House and be moving forward with the next stages of debate and reading stages. We could finally see some resolution, especially for the boaters this summer, who could be out there saying it is great that an abandoned vessel solution was legislated by their federal government. It would build some faith and trust.

Members will remember that the bill was fast tracked by the NDP. It was quite rare to get the unanimous consent of the House to move it to committee so quickly. I was very glad to have been able to initiate that. I was glad that the House agreed, that the transport committee decided to switch its focus from its other business to focus on the study, and that we had so many witnesses who spoke so clearly about the solutions that coastal communities have been advocating. They were in my legislation, Bill C-352, which was blocked by the Liberal-dominated procedure and House affairs committee, and then voted down by Liberal members. It was not even heard in the House. Nevertheless, I tried to transport the elements of that legislation into the minister's bill, Bill C-64.

Therefore, as a reminder on some of those pieces that I hope maybe the minister is considering now, it being the only explanation for why Bill C-64 would be so delayed, is the government now considering bringing into its bill a vessel turn-in program, modelled on the cash for clunkers program? Is it considering creating a dedicated fee to put a fund aside to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels, since Bill C-64 does not address that backlog? Is the government planning to legislate to formalize the Coast Guard's role in dealing with abandoned vessels? When that was in former MP Jean Crowder's legislation three years ago, in a previous parliament, all of the Liberal Party voted in support of it, including the now transport minister, fisheries minister, and the Prime Minister. Is the government delaying Bill C-64 so that it can incorporate those coastal solutions into the abandoned vessel legislation?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of Bill C-64. We are the first government to take concrete action to deal with the issue of abandoned and wrecked vessels. In fact, I went to British Columbia, to my colleague's riding of Ladysmith, if I am not mistaken, and announced that nine boats are going to be removed from the water there. We will be doing this on a regular basis.

We are also going to ratify the Nairobi convention, which is another powerful tool to deal with owners so they take responsibility for their vessels.

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

Mr. Speaker, marine plastic pollution needs action, not meetings.

As another busy boating season begins in B.C., the abandoned vessel problem remains unsolved. Coastal communities have been calling for a comprehensive solution for a decade. They are done waiting. Following the NDP's lead, Parliament agreed to fast-track Bill C-64 to committee. However, since it was sent back to the House on March 2, the government has dropped anchor on the bill. Will the minister commit to amending the bill to include what coastal communities actually want, and stop stalling?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

I'd be very happy to, Minister.

As people around this table know, Bill C-64 has now reached third reading stage. That bill forms part of a larger plan that fundamentally changes the situation around vessels of concern, primarily by creating liability for abandonment of vessels, which has never existed in the past, but also by squarely positioning that legislation in a risk-based approach. That's the segue to the answer to your question, Ms. Jordan.

Our approach to those larger vessels is risk-based. You've already noted that we're taking action on some of the larger vessels that pose a more immediate risk, like the Kathryn Spirit and the Manolis L. We expect, as announced in January, a long-term plan for the Manolis L will be out this year. Kathryn Spirit is already being dismantled, or “broken” as we say.

As for the other large vessels, we have ongoing technical assessments scheduled for many of them. For Corfu Island, for example, the technical assessment is ongoing. The order in which those will happen are risk-based. For example, we'll be undertaking technical assessments of the Matterhorn and the Petrel this year. We have Cormorant down for next year.

As we're able to get to vessels, we get to them, and that generally then leads to a funding decision. Where we are dealing with the situation with a smaller amount, say, in the hundreds of thousands, we'll generally take that out of our environmental response program. Where you're into the territory of, say, a Kathryn Spirit, which is over $10 million, almost in the tens of millions of dollars, then a larger funding decision is required because we don't have the program dollars.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Maybe just quickly, there is one issue I'd like to raise. Why I keep coming back to this issue of regulatory schemes versus a separate piece of legislation is that I think there's an opportunity to do something now, and I don't want that to pass me by.

Should we recommend as a committee that the government adopt a stand-alone piece of legislation from scratch, I fear that over the next number of months, despite what may be the best of intentions, things will take longer, as they always do. As a new member of Parliament, I will say that they take a lot longer than I would like them to. There is an opportunity to offer some protection today, recognizing that it may not be perfect. The one stumbling block I have is that perhaps the criminal component Mr. White referred to would likely be absent, but we've seen very serious penalties through a regulatory scheme—of an administrative monetary nature, for example—that are quite effective at serving as a deterrent.

I wasn't quite with you every step of the way when you described the fact that the vessels in service of the crown, because what can be.... Because essentially regulations hold the same force and effect of a piece of legislation for the purpose of the law being implemented, I still think there might be an opportunity—and if you disagree, please let me know—to classify ocean war graves as essentially a subcategory of a heritage wreck under the regulations for Bill C-64. That would give us the opportunity to remove the carrot, so to speak, that's provided for salvage operators and implement a stick of some kind through another kind of regulatory penalty scheme.

If in my work to follow I am confident that's the case, are there still going to be obstacles that prevent us from taking advantage of the opportunity that's staring us in the face today?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

On that issue, there's something technical in play. I apologize, because I'm thinking it through in response to your feedback. The regulatory authority you've referred to, which is currently in the Canada Shipping Act, essentially will be transferred pursuant to Bill C-64 into the new piece of legislation that deals with abandoned vessels, if my memory serves me correctly. I can't remember a provision, though—my memory is imperfect—that is limiting in the same way that the Canada Shipping Act is, as you correctly pointed out.

This would lead me to think, at least in the moment—and I will go back to do my homework on this before we land on specific recommendations—that the minister responsible would have the authority to designate a state vessel that could be essentially a heritage wreck, which I think would open the door to include in regulations a sub-definition of war vessels.

If I'm correct in my analysis, do you still have reservations about the regulatory authority? I recognize that Mr. White has raised separate issues, which I'll get to in a moment, time permitting, but if that limiting factor in the Canada Shipping Act is not present in the new Bill C-64, which we have just dealt with at this committee, would it be okay with you to offer protection through that scheme?

[Patrick White]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Sansoucy.

One of the things that becomes a problem when you group ocean war graves under general heritage designations is that you might end up with a situation where someone who desecrates an ocean war grave would only be committing a regulatory offence. They could find themselves in contravention of the Canada Shipping Act and could have a fine imposed on them, but the equivalent is that you're desecrating a cemetery. Human remains have been dumped in mass graves, as we've seen in the Java Sea off Indonesia as these salvagers have ripped these vessels apart. As Captain Bender has rightly said, the concern isn't for the metal or the ships. The concern is that these are metal tombs.

One of the things I remember, which Captain Bender has just mentioned, is Criminal Code provision 182. Essentially, you're looking at Criminal Code provisions that allow us to say that Canada's domestic laws will include criminal sanctions for those who desecrate ocean war graves. If you were to go the route of using just the Canada Shipping Act provisions and say that we'll add them under the heritage provisions—which under Bill C-64 would be section 131, currently section 163 of the act—it would mean that you're not capturing the spirit of what an ocean war grave really is: you're just lumping it in with some of the other heritage property, which I've mentioned. A stronger Criminal Code provision I think would be in line with the same kind of Criminal Code provisions that might apply to the desecration of a cemetery or any other war graves that Canada protects.

Even from just listening to what the officials were saying, as I think some members of the committee have picked up on, if you have to wait 50 years for something to be designated a heritage property, then the benefit of having legislation similar to that of the U.K. is that it's also forward-looking. God forbid that anything happens in the future, but the navy does take risks. I know, because I've also deployed. With separate legislation that doesn't classify naval wrecks or something to that effect as just heritage property, you could have protection that exists the minute those vessels or even aircraft go down. I think there was an issue in just the last few weeks when a United States Air Force plane went down with a pilot inside.

There are various elements, I think, as the committee has certainly picked up on. It is definitely appreciated in that regard—

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. White, the last time you appeared before the committee, you said that Bill C-64 must be amended to define and ensure the protection of military cemeteries in accordance with subsection 163(2) of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. I'm summarizing your remarks. You said that we must ensure that the penalties imposed on offenders are similar to those for grave robbers.

Could you please explain what the concrete effects of the amendment you've proposed would be? How can this amendment and your other recommendations be included in this bill, which you would like to see passed soon?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

Unlike my colleagues, I didn't have the opportunity to take part in the committee's work on Bill C-64. So I have to do a bit of catch-up today. However, your testimonies have really helped me to understand the importance of the matter, so thank you.

Mr. Bender, you said that you went to the United Kingdom, where three Canadian corvettes have sunk in British territorial waters. On your own initiative, you have asked the High Commission to submit a request for all three vessels to be protected by a special United Kingdom law, called the Protection of Military Remains Act. As I understand it, this law is strictly aimed at adding sanctions in international maritime law for vessels that sank in British waters. When the United Kingdom authorities examined your request, they asked if it was possible for a higher authority to present it. You told us about an email received in August 2016.

Am I to understand that you didn't get the support of the Naval Association of Canada to further your request?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Captain Bender, Mr. White, and Alex Bender—and Captain Bender's son, as well. Welcome.

Perhaps it's easiest to start by saying thank you for your work on this file. Speaking for myself, I'd like to do something to help you guys accomplish what you set out to do. The devil, of course, is in the details, and I don't want to do it halfway.

I'm curious on the issue. My gut reaction was similar to Ms. Block's. There might be a need, in my mind, to distinguish ocean war graves from heritage wrecks. Captain Bender, you suggested that there may be adequate authority in the regulations today under the Canada Shipping Act, which are being shifted to Bill C-64, which we just dealt with. Do you think it would be necessary, or even helpful perhaps—if this were done by way of the regulations you referred to—to distinguish ocean war graves as a particular type of heritage wreck? To the point Mr. White made, would this be helpful to families or those interested in seeing that respect is given to our seamen at the same level that it is given to our army and our air force? Do you think that a distinction in the regulations would satisfy that need?

[Patrick White, Founder and Executive Director, Project Naval Distinction]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear on the topic of protection for Canada's ocean war graves.

Before I begin my remarks, I must acknowledge the presence of merchant navy Captain Paul Bender, whom I'm honoured to be sitting with today. As the committee already knows, Captain Bender has led the call for protection of Canada's ocean war graves, demonstrating tireless perseverance in his work.

Captain, sir, thank you for your service to Canada. It's a privilege to be supporting you on this initiative.

I would like to offer my thanks to all members of the committee for agreeing to hold this meeting today and for your comments during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64. It's truly appreciated to hear that our request for assistance did not fall on deaf ears and that all parties are interested in working together to ensure that the remains of our sailors are given the same respect as those of our soldiers and aviators.

I would also like to particularly thank the clerk and the analysts of the committee for their work behind the scenes to gather information for protection of ocean war graves and for their support in keeping the torch carried by Captain Bender burning bright.

With the report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on protection for Canada's ocean war graves, I am optimistic that we are one step closer to providing the critically needed protection that the final resting places of Canada's sailors rightly deserve.

In my previous remarks before the committee I spoke of the importance and urgency of safeguarding Canada's ocean war graves. Today, I would like to offer some insight with regard to the problems that arise when involving multiple government departments in an issue, and to provide some specific recommendations for possible legislation to provide protection for Canada's ocean war graves.

In leading Project Naval Distinction and calling for Royal Canadian Navy recognition of Canada's greatest ship, HMCS Haida, I have gained some familiarity with multi-departmental issues. In these files, once one government department learns that an issue may partially fall under the scope of another, the collective response appears to be paralysis and the creation of a of leadership vacuum. I believe this is what has happened with the ocean war graves file, which has led to a long fight to act on something that no one seems to disagree with. Filling that leadership vacuum between departments is an incredibly difficult task for the Government of Canada, but one that can and must be solved at the political level. Therefore, it is critical that one minister in the Government of Canada be assigned to lead in protecting Canada's ocean war graves.

I would respectfully ask the members of this committee to assist in finding that minister and not to table a report in the House of Commons only to then leave it to gather dust. I would further ask members of this committee to request that that minister or even a fellow member of Parliament put forward a bill on this issue as soon as possible.

In terms of recommendations the committee might include in their report, I respectfully offer the following six points.

First is that a bill be drafted similar to the United Kingdom's Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 to provide protection for Canada's ocean war graves, including punishments in line with those of desecration of land-based war graves.

Second is to ensure the definition of an ocean war grave is enshrined in legislation to distinguish such graves from other wrecks or property of general heritage value.

Third is to request that cabinet examine all options to use existing legislative powers to provide immediate protection for Canada's ocean war graves as an intermediate measure until a bill has time to pass through Parliament and receive royal assent.

Fourth is that with the co-operation of all parties, speedy passage be given to a bill to provide protection for Canada's ocean war graves with the goal of achieving royal assent before Parliament rises this summer.

Fifth is that the Government of Canada make a formal request to the Government of the United Kingdom to add Canadian ocean war graves in U.K. waters to their list of protected places and controlled sites under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. They have already offered to do this and are waiting on that formal request.

Finally, sixth is that any Canadian bill drafted to provide protection for Canada's ocean war graves be given an informal title of the “Captain Paul Bender Act” in honour of the man and veteran who has proudly carried the torch on this important issue.

Thank you.

I look forward to answering any questions.

[Ellen Burack]

There are important changes that Bill C-64 introduces when a wreck is identified. In the past a salvor could get in there already before notifying the receiver of wreck. Now they cannot touch the wreck before going to the receiver of wreck and getting the okay to do so. We have built into the new legislation a slowed-down approach that would help assess whether or not there's an issue here that needs to be addressed.