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.

The Environment

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, as well as the Minister of Rural Economic Development and other Liberals who have advocated on this file.

We as a Liberal government recognized the importance of addressing this matter before it got any worse. That is why we came forward with Bill C-64, which is now law. It requires vessel owners to not only operate their vessels responsibly but to dispose of them at the end of their lives. We have listened to the communities that live along the coastlines and we have implemented this bill to address their concerns.

Royal Assent

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

February 28, 2019

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 28^th day of February, 2019, at 1632.

Yours sincerely,

Assunta Di Lorenzo

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bill assented to were Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations—Chapter 1, 2019; and Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act—Chapter 2, 2019.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. This is a very serious issue that we have heard of for many years in a variety of forms, particularly from our Pacific coast in British Columbia.

I was fortunate in the fact that there seemed to be general agreement in the House on the pith of the legislation itself. However, I wanted to take the opportunity to not just highlight the importance of the remembrance of those who had served Canada, but the great example of passionate advocates like Captain Bender, who I think is in his eighties.

Canadians can influence this place, because we are their representatives. This is a process with Bill C-64 where their passion has helped make the legislation better. Therefore, I have dedicated my remarks today really to showcase what they have done, alongside the Senate and members of this place, to ensure we amend this to fix the real public policy challenge we see on the west coast and also to show that passionate Canadians can make their changes to preserve our history.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have moved out of the building with the Peace Tower and Memorial Chamber that honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice to Canada, it is quite fitting that in my final speech of the week, during this first week in the new chamber in West Block, I am going to speak about something that is very important to military families, veterans and Canadians: preserving the legacy of those who died in the service of Canada.

Bill C-64 is a bill that deals with wrecked, abandoned and hazardous vessels, and there is a lot in it. At times, the abandoned, hazardous vessels that appear listless, to me, sounds like a description of the Liberal cabinet.

Regardless, this is a bill that deals with an important maritime safety piece. It is an example of how the Senate and the House of Commons, but most importantly Canadians, have worked to make sure Bill C-64 preserves something far greater than the maritime regulations for safety regarding abandoned vessels. It is going to preserve the remains of those who died on the sea in service of our country.

As a veteran and someone who spoke regularly in the old chamber on these issues, and now in this one, I am honoured to say a few words and to thank the Canadians who helped the Senate and the House make this legislation better and to preserve the legacy that we owe to our fallen.

This bill, as amended by the Senate, would allow the government to make regulations to protect and preserve Canada's war graves. I want to thank the patriotic Canadians who brought this to committee and to the Senate, and who pushed these amendments forward in collaboration with many members on both sides of this chamber.

Project Naval Distinction was behind this effort. I want to thank its leaders, and most importantly retired captain Paul Bender, a World War II veteran who has been fighting passionately on this issue for many years to protect the final resting place of our service men and women. It is going to be achieved by this legislation. Alongside him is retired vice-admiral Denis Rouleau and the hon. Ian Holloway, a naval veteran who is now the dean of law at the University of Calgary, as well as a good friend of mine, Richard Blackwolf, the head of the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association. These volunteers and passionate Canadians have been pushing for this.

I also want to add to that group a friend and former staff member of mine, Patrick White, a naval lieutenant in the reserves who is currently attending law school. He worked for me when I was parliamentary secretary and when I was minister of veterans affairs. He was one of the serving or veteran members of my office. I was so proud that as a law student, working alongside Captain Bender, he appeared before committee to ensure that we preserve this important testament to the people who gave their lives serving Canada.

This legislation would preserve the final resting place of our merchant marine and warships on which Canadian sailors and merchant mariners perished, and in particular, those from the longest single battle of the Second World War. While there are war graves from before that, many of the vessels that would get protection by regulations from this legislation are from the Battle of the Atlantic, which between 1939 and 1945 achieved victory in that conflict. It was the single longest battle of the Second World War.

This legislation would recognize and define the war graves of these shipwreck sites, provide regulations regarding their preservation and even attach penalties for violating these sacred areas. Thank you to the amazing Canadian veterans and volunteers, the passionate patriots who pushed to make this happen.

The U.K. has had similar legislation for about 20 years, which is the Protection of Military Remains Act. I want to also thank our our allies in France, whose government also has legislation preserving shipwrecks. Captain Bender and the volunteers of Project Naval Distinction have actually worked with the French to protect HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Guysborough, which lie in French territorial waters. These volunteers have been working not only to make sure our legislation is better but have been working with our allies.

I want to thank our ally, France.

Let us review how profound the Battle of the Atlantic was. Seventy-two merchant marine vessels supplying the war effort were lost as well as over 1,600 lives. In fact, Conservative MP Elsie Wayne fought for years to ensure our merchant marine veterans received better and appropriate recognition. Their loss and casualty rate was one in seven in the Second World War. I want to thank those veterans and their families, and let them know we will preserve those wrecks.

The Royal Canadian Navy lost 26 warships and seven torpedo boats. Over 2,000 lives from the Royal Canadian Navy were lost in the Battle of the Atlantic and 752 from the Royal Canadian Air Force, which was flying in conjunction with the anti-submarine warfare type missions to protect the convoys.

As a proud naval air veteran in the House, I am proud of the navy and air force's tradition of working on this. I am proud to have served on the HMCS St. John's as part of the air detachment. We continued that legacy of protecting the ships and lives at sea from the subsurface threat. There was incredible collaboration between the merchant marine, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and our allies to ensure the war effort was run.

Civilians can be recognized through this as well, because 136 lives were lost on SS Caribou, a ferry which was sunk in transit between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. You seem to be very aware of that, Mr. Speaker. This is part of Canada's remarkable contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic and to global peace and security. We should be proud of it, but we should fight to preserve it. The bill would do that.

When we talk about our military history and veterans and when we hear numbers like 2,000 in the navy, 752 in the air force and 1,600-plus in the merchant marine, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that those are not numbers. Each one is a family that was gripped by the loss of its son or daughter. We cannot lose sight of that. Therefore, I invite parliamentarians to think of that as we pass this and support it with these amendments, that we are thankful for all sides and Project Naval Distinction for making it happen.

In Westboro, there is a bench with a plaque dedicated to Lieutenant Leslie Ward, who died aboard HMCS Athabaskan on April 29, 1944.

Now, lives lost at sea are recognized in the naval monument in Point Pleasant Park in Halifax. I and many members have been there. We can hear the bell toll for each ship lost, and the many rings makes us realize how many ships were lost. However, the names are not there because we count them in ships.

Decades ago, Lieutenant Ward was honoured at the Point Pleasant monument. Fortunately, naval veterans and his family also honoured him in Westboro on Wellington Street just down the road. People can go have a seat on the bench in his honour and contemplate the thousands of Canadians who died serving us on the oceans.

To end my remarks on a Friday and to end my remarks with respect to those lives lost, I will say a a few words selected from the naval prayer:

Preserve us from the dangers of the sea, and from the violence of the enemy; that we may be a safeguard unto our most gracious Sovereign Lady...and her Dominions...that the inhabitants of our Commonwealth may in peace and quietness serve Thee...and that we may return in safety to enjoy the blessings of the land...

For those who did not return to enjoy the blessings of the land, this bill and its amendments, thanks to many Canadians, will preserve and protect their final resting place.

Lest we forget.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her speech.

I too presented amendments to the committee when it was studying Bill C-64. I am more satisfied with Bill C-64 than the NDP is. That may be because I am the MP for the Gulf Islands.

Derelict vessels and wrecks are a serious problem. They are also connected to another problem, which is that homeless people are taking shelter in these extremely dangerous vessels. This is a serious threat. That is why I am especially eager for this bill to come into force. We need more funding to address the threats posed by the vessels off the coast of British Columbia.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that my former colleague, Sheila Malcolmson, introduced Bill C-352, which proposed several solutions to the problem of wrecks in coastal areas. That bill never saw the light of day and could not be debated in the House of Commons because the Minister of Transport did not want the bill to be debated. My colleague was nevertheless very humble and wanted to work with the government and the Minister of Transport to make amendments to Bill C-64. The Liberals rejected 12 of the 13 amendments she proposed. When it comes to democracy, the Liberals say they want to do what is in the interest of the public and all Canadians, but we can see that they are not true to their word.

Several hundred vessels are rotting in Canadian waters, from British Columbia to Beauharnois-Salaberry to Newfoundland. In light of the melting of glaciers and the opening up of the Northwest Passage, a bill that protects our coastal communities and manages the dismantling of abandoned vessels is long overdue.

As members know, my riding has not been immune to this scourge. I am pleased to speak in the House, for what I hope is the last time, about the Kathryn Spirit, which, after seven years of hard work, has finally been dismantled. It risked compromising the drinking water supply for the people of Beauharnois and also for the people of the greater Montreal area, which is what galvanized everyone.

The Senate amended the bill, but it unfortunately did not talk about the amendments the NDP wanted to propose. The Senate essentially did the same thing as the government did with our amendments. It ignored the amendments that the Liberals had rejected.

However, Bill C-64 also contains some good measures. Any corporation that breaks the law can be prosecuted and ordered to pay a fine of $100,000 to $6 million. Those responsible could face additional fines or a maximum prison sentence of three years. Any vessels of 300 gross tonnage and above must have wreck insurance , which should seriously reduce the chances of another situation like that of the Kathryn Spirit from happening again.

I would like to remind members of what happened in the case of the Kathryn Spirit, an old bulk carrier that was 153 metres long and of 9,261 gross tonnage acquired by Groupe St-Pierre. That vessel was 30 times bigger than the limit set out in this bill. The bulk carrier contained thousands of litres of crude oil and hundreds of kilograms of asbestos, PCBs and other hazardous products.

Over the past seven years, I have spoken to the House on this subject more than 30 times. I have also sent letters and suggested solutions to the Ministers of Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment. I started while the Conservatives were in power and kept going when the Liberals took office. It took us seven years of hard work, but we finally won, thanks to the collaboration of local residents, the media, successive mayors and my team, which I am very proud of. We never gave up.

If the fines prove to be an effective deterrent, I hope the regulations will ensure that certain problems can be avoided. There was a lot of buck passing between Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. No one was sure who was responsible for this file. I hope the regulations will enable us to avoid taking action at the last minute and instead take action before disaster strikes. For instance, some work had to be done when the wreck started listing dangerously in 2016, leaning so heavily to one side that government officials thought it might fall all the way over. Four steel cables had to be installed. One even started to fray, causing sparks. There were fears that the ship could go up in flames in 2016.

It is important to ensure that all of the liquids have been pumped out and do not refill the hold. For example, halfway through the summer of 2016, it was discovered that thousands of litres of contaminated water had been left in the holds.

The last thing I want to mention, though not the least because the consequences are serious, is that we need to act according to the polluter pays principle. The Liberal government proclaims that it believes in this principle and hammers that point home when it talks about carbon pricing.

When it came time to choose companies to dismantle the ship, the government chose to give two contracts to the very company that abandoned the ship on the banks of Lake Saint-Louis, in Beauharnois. Groupe St-Pierre, the company that moored the ship, was granted two contracts worth a total of $20 million. What is wrong with this picture?

Would it be acceptable for the government to pay me to remove my own trash that I leave behind on my own property and in my neighbour's yard? I do not think so.

That is what the government did for Groupe St-Pierre. Jean-René Dufort did a fine job reporting on this on the show Infoman.

The irony of Bill C-64 is that the transport minister's program to dismantle abandoned ships will cost $1.5 million a year over five years. What a joke.

As I just said, the Kathryn Spirit alone cost Canadian taxpayers more than $24 million. The budget set out in Bill C-64 for all abandoned vessels in Canada was blown out of the water by a single ship. That is ridiculous. It is also completely irresponsible of the Liberal government when it knows that there are thousands of wrecks across Canada that must be removed and are waiting to be dismantled. This budget is a drop in the ocean.

It is too bad that the minister rejected almost all of the proposed amendments made by my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson in committee.

I can describe them after question period. I see that my time is up for now.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me state that the NDP will be supporting the Senate amendments, which call on the government to protect ocean graves of heritage value. There is really no opposition to this, unless it poses a threat to the environment or to navigation.

It is important for me to rise in the House to correct a few things about Bill C-64 because abandoned vessels are a nuisance all across the country. The problem has been around for many years and is costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars.

The NDP and civil society, especially British Columbia's coastal communities, have been pressuring the government for years now to introduce such a bill. I would like to thank my former colleagues Jean Crowder and Sheila Malcolmson, who was recently elected to her provincial legislature, for their tireless work. Since the last election in 2015, NDP members have delivered more than 80 speeches on Bill C-352.

Bill C-64 does not go far enough. It includes no measures to reduce the accumulation of abandoned ships, create a vessel registration system for accountability purposes, or implement a turn-in program for recycling vessels. All these measures were proposed in Bill C-352 by my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson.

Unfortunately, the Liberals were quick to prevent debate from happening. They called for a secret ballot to determine whether the House could debate that bill. I am not sure how many times that has happened, but it happened again this week. The Liberals get to decide when democracy suits them. In 2017—

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I also want to thank her for talking about veterans and all those working and making the ultimate sacrifice at sea. The NDP will support the Senate's amendments with regard to the protection of ocean war graves in Bill C-64.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Senate and the Liberals rejected 12 of the 13 amendments proposed by the NDP to improve Bill C-64. The amendments were put forward by my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson, who was denied the right to debate her own bill. She had the collaboration, support and consent of many coastal communities and chambers of commerce, especially in British Columbia. Her bill would have helped improve this bill, which has several flaws. For example, it would have dealt with the thousands of abandoned vessels still polluting our waterways and improved the vessel registration system, so that shipowners could be held liable for abandoned vessels. It would have shifted the financial burden off the shoulders of taxpayers by establishing a fee for vessel registration to cover the disposal cost of vessels.

I would like to give my colleague a sense of the situation. Seven years ago, the Kathryn Spirit was abandoned in my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, by a company that wanted to dismantle it. The company was unable to do that, so it cost Canadian taxpayers $24 million. Under this bill, that company would have had to pay a fine.

Unfortunately, since there is not enough money earmarked for this and the bill is lacking certain elements, we cannot be sure the federal government would have been able to take responsibility for the vessel.

Does my colleague think the federal government should improve its bill to ensure that the polluter pays principle applies to vessel recycling? That would save taxpayers having to pick up the tab for owners who abandon their vessels on our shorelines.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very thankful for the opportunity to speak to the government's response to the Senate amendments to Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations. I am very pleased that the government has agreed to accept these amendments and incorporate them into this bill.

The issue of ocean war graves is one that needs to be addressed. I will be discussing the amendments in more detail in a few minutes, but I would like to review how we have come to this place.

Being from Saskatchewan, I have to acknowledge that the issue of wrecked and abandoned vessels is not one I am overly familiar with. I meet with constituents all the time, respond to their letters and emails, and host town halls throughout my riding of Yorkton—Melville, and I can honestly say that not once has this issue ever been raised by one of my constituents. However, the issue of wrecked and abandoned vessels is an extremely important issue for many members of Parliament and their constituents who represent and live in coastal ridings, and it is important to all of Canada because of the lakes and rivers, as the member mentioned, across our country and the incredible privilege we all have of enjoying our coastlines.

The issue of wrecked and abandoned vessels is an important issue, and Bill C-64 was considered so important that it was expedited through second reading so that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities could immediately study it.

As a country, we need to protect our coasts from the harmful impact of wrecked or abandoned vessels, both large and small, as well as protect Canadian taxpayers from the negative impact and cost of wrecked, abandoned and derelict vessels. That said, at this time, I would like to discuss the amendments the Senate made to Bill C-64, which are the substance of the motion we are debating today.

During its study, the members of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee heard from two witnesses who raised the issue of ocean war graves and Canada's lack of protection for them. Ocean war graves are the final resting place of Canadian sailors and merchant mariners who were lost at sea. It was extremely disturbing to me to learn that the final resting place of soldiers and mariners do not have the same protection as land-based military graves. In fact, at present, it is not illegal for divers to enter these sunken vessels and remove artifacts, including human remains. I believe that this is a legislative and regulatory gap that Parliament and the government definitely need to fill.

The two witnesses I referenced were Patrick White, the executive director of Project Naval Distinction, and retired merchant navy captain and Second World War veteran Paul Bender. These witnesses estimated that the remains of approximately 1,200 Canadian sailors and merchant mariners were lying at rest in nine wrecks in Canadian, international and foreign waters and that none of them had been afforded the necessary protection to discourage salvaging and desecration.

Captain Bender and Mr. White made some specific recommendations at committee. The website states the following:

Project Naval Distinction calls on the government and Parliament of Canada to:

1. issue a policy statement affirming the government of Canada’s intention to provide legal protection for Canada’s ocean war graves and make a formal request to the government of the United Kingdom to protect Canadian ocean war graves in UK waters;

2. use any available legislative and executive powers to provide immediate protection for Canada’s ocean war graves, as an intermediate measure until stand-alone legislation can be enacted; and

3. enact stand-alone legislation to provide legal protection for Canada’s ocean war graves, ensuring the punishment for desecration is in line with the punishment for desecration of land-based war graves.

I am really pleased to bring to the attention of Canadians, serving members of our armed forces and our veterans community that the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, who serves them as the official opposition's shadow minister for transport, sought amendments to Bill C-64 at the House of Commons transport committee to protect war graves, in line with the witnesses' recommendations.

After learning about the legislative gap on this issue, following a study of Bill C-64, the TRAN committee undertook a short study specifically on the issue of ocean war graves. During the study, Mr. White and Captain Bender were able to provide further testimony on the issue of ocean war graves and the lack of protection for them.

Additionally, during the study, the committee heard from officials from the Departments of National Defence and Transport as well as the Parks Canada Agency on how the Government of Canada might fill this gap. From the study, the committee produced a report called, “Canada's Ocean War Graves”, which contained a number of recommendations for the government. I would like to highlight two of them.

Recommendation one states:

That the Government of Canada draft new legislation similar to the United Kingdom’s Protection of Military Remains Act to protect Canada's ocean war graves.

Recommendation two states:

That the Government of Canada explore all options for using existing legislative and regulatory powers to provide immediate legal protection for ocean war graves, on an interim basis until the bill is passed.

These recommendations, and the report as a whole, were supported by all members of the committee, which clearly demonstrates the broad support this initiative has across party lines, although it has not been mentioned much to this point this morning. In its response to the committee's report, the ministers responsible for national defence, transport and Parks Canada indicated that the government would be open to supporting an amendment to Bill C-64, which would allow for interim protection to be created. However, by the time the government's response was received by the committee, the bill had already passed the House and was under consideration by the Senate.

I am very relieved and pleased that the hon. senators took up this issue. In particular, the Hon. Fabian Manning of Newfoundland and Labrador drafted an amendment to the bill, which was adopted at Senate committee and subsequently supported by the Senate as a whole. This has brought us to the point where we are today.

While I have highlighted the work done on this issue by our colleagues on the House of Commons transport committee, members of the Senate, the government and advocates like Captain Bender and Patrick White, I would be remiss if I did not note the broad support for action on the issue by our public, by Canadians.

An e-petition as well as regular paper petitions generated hundreds of signatures from Canadians across the country who called on the government to act. While these ultimate desire of the petitioners was that stand-alone legislation be enacted to protect Canada's ocean war graves, they also recognized that interim protection was better than no protection at all.

I want to thank the many citizens who volunteered their time to circulate petitions and collect signatures in order to further highlight this issue to the government.

As official opposition deputy shadow minister for veterans affairs, I have many concerns and issues with the Liberal government's treatment of veterans and their issues. This Prime Minister won the hearts and minds of veterans during the last election by placing his hand over his heart and swearing that he would never take veterans to court and that he would provide them with lifelong pensions comparable to the old veterans charter.

The then minister of justice, who is now the Minister of Veterans Affairs, did revive the Equitas court case and reinstated the lawyer who had been removed at the request of the veteran plaintiffs, by the previous Conservative minister of Veterans of Affairs, the member of Parliament for Durham. Today, our veterans know that, in their words, “they were duped”. On top of the betrayal of a public and written promise, the Prime Minister responded to a question by a veteran at his Edmonton town hall, saying that they were asking for more than the government could give.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see Bill C-64 back before the House. I would only have wished that the government saw a way to accept all the Senate amendments, only for the reason that we want to make sure that this bill comes into force as soon as possible.

Residents throughout Saanich—Gulf Islands have had town hall meetings. We had a community meeting just last week. Representatives from Transport Canada were there. They said that they have the budget. They are raring to go. We have derelict vessels that need cleaning up. We have a lot more money.

I would have also rather seen some improvements in this bill, but I want it brought into force as soon as possible. It should have been before Christmas, but we are where we are now. My only question is whether we can make sure that in the regulation phase we seek to ensure that every single vessel carries insurance. That is one way to make sure that we know which vessels are in our waters and if there is money to clean them up.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be in our new House of Commons today. I used to sit to the left of the Speaker, but since this chamber is a little bigger, I now get to sit to his right.

I am excited to see the wooden mace here today, because it brings things full circle with respect to the old and the new within this place.

I am pleased to speak on the subject of Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, legislation that will help protect and preserve Canada's marine ecosystems and make our waterways safer.

A year ago, the proposed bill was carefully studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The committee heard from over 20 witnesses from the marine industry, indigenous groups, civil society, as well as other orders of government. The government has the goal of working in partnership with these key stakeholders to support the implementation of measures contained within the act.

I am delighted with the committee's work and collaboration in adopting six amendments, including an amendment put forward by a member of the opposition. Several important amendments were made to protect and preserve the rights of owners of found wrecks, as well as the rights of salvors. For example, one of the elements of Bill C-64 would require that a public notice be posted for a minimum of 30 days to indicate that a wreck has been reported. The receiver of wreck would have to wait out the notification period before taking any action on a wreck. Should other efforts to identify or contact the owner fail, the public notice increases the chance of finding the rightful owner and ensures the owner has an opportunity to come forward and claim his or her wreck.

I am also grateful for the work undertaken by the transport and communications committee in the other place. Before us today is the amendment proposed in the other place, which is meant to ensure that heritage wreck regulation-making powers extend to the wrecks of Canadian and foreign military vessels and aircraft, non-commercial governmental vessels and mineral rights exploration vessels. This was an important addition, and one that will add to the core reason for the bill's existence, namely, to protect and preserve Canada's marine ecosystems and make our waterways safer.

The bill underwent meticulous study by way of debate in both chambers. I would like to thank the members of each for their diligence and thoroughness.

While the vast majority of vessel owners in Canada act responsibly and dispose of their vessels properly, some owners see abandonment as a low-cost, low-risk option for dilapidated vessels. This creates a serious problem for our waterways, posing safety, environmental, economic and social risks.

Proper remediation of these vessels can be complex and costly. Up to now, the financial burden has often fallen to Canadian taxpayers. With this legislation, the federal government will have more authority to prevent the hazards caused by abandoned and wrecked vessels, rather than the job of dealing with the risks that these vessels pose after an incident has already occurred.

Bill C-64 addresses the issue of abandoned, wrecked and hazardous vessels in a comprehensive way and seeks to fill the gaps in the existing federal legislative framework.

The federal government has had limited authority to address problem vessels for far too long. Until now, authorities were limited in addressing many of the harmful impacts of problem vessels, such as pollution discharge and obstruction to navigation. The legislation addresses the vessel itself and would increase the government's ability to take proactive action. In short, the legislation actually has some teeth. The federal government will be able to direct owners to fix problems with their dilapidated or hazardous vessels. If they do not, the federal government will do so, making owners liable for costs and expenses.

The bill would prohibit not only abandonment but also leaving the vessel adrift for more than 48 hours without working to secure it, or leaving vessels in very poor condition in the same area for more than 60 consecutive days without consent.

Bill C-64 would put in place an enforcement framework, establishing strong regulatory offences and penalties to punish non-compliance.

Enforcement of this new legislation will be shared between the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard. To support the effective implementation of the legislation, the Canadian Coast Guard is developing a national inventory and a risk-assessment methodology to allow us to understand the extent of the issue nationally and to help prioritize a response to problem vessels based on the risks they pose. This builds on the strengths and distinct roles, mandates and capacities already existing within each department.

Bill C-64 also consolidates existing provisions that deal with wrecks and salvage into a single act by incorporating the existing Canada Shipping Act, 2001, provisions that pertain to the International Convention on Salvage in 1989 as well as the functional role of the receiver of wreck. Owners of vessels that are 300 gross tons or larger would also now be required to have wreck insurance or other financial banking to cover the cost related to their removal if they become a hazardous wreck.

Bill C-64 is but one piece of a national strategy to address abandoned and wrecked vessels. Other measures of this strategy include two short-term funding programs to support communities in assessing and removing abandoned or wrecked vessels, the establishment of long-term owner finance funds to address problem vessels, the enhancement of owner identification, as well as initiatives to increase awareness of the new legislation and of vessel recycling and design.

By ensuring that vessel owners are held liable for locating, marking and, if necessary, removing any wreck that poses a hazard resulting from a marine casualty, Canada would meet its obligations under the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, once it becomes a party to that convention. When a car reaches the end of its useful life, we do not accept owners leaving it by the side of the road for someone else to deal with, and so it should not be acceptable with vessels on water.

I will conclude by reiterating that the broader strategy aims to ensure that all causes and pathways of irresponsible vessel management are addressed. Our coasts and waterways are symbolic of Canadian life and culture, which is certainly no more true than in my province of Newfoundland. The measures contained within the proposed wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act would help prevent and reduce the number of abandoned, dilapidated and wrecked vessels in Canadian waters for the benefit of future generations.

Our waterways should not and cannot be treated as junkyards for vessels that have reached their end of life or have been abandoned by irresponsible owners. Our coasts and waterways are the common heritage of all Canadians, and they are crucially important to our environment, communities, economy and our way of life. Therefore, I encourage all members to support Bill C-64, which will go a long way in protecting these resources.

With respect to my own riding of St. John's East, I do have a number of small craft harbours and a number former ports within the riding. Certainly, this issue of abandoned vessels has been a problem. I receive complaints almost every winter about people leaving their vessels unattended in the small craft harbour of Tappers Cove in Torbay.

As well, our government has been instrumental in helping the small craft harbour in Bauline remove a number of dilapidated and abandoned vessels that accumulated on its slipway. This is extremely dangerous to the infrastructure. It is dangerous to people who also use the slipways in the small craft harbour port facilities for their own recreational or commercial use.

Also, it is expensive to the small craft harbours, which are often staffed in my end of the world by volunteers. These are people who give their time to make their communities safer and more economically vibrant. They do not necessarily have the wherewithal or financial means to address the port's problems regarding wrecked or abandoned vessels themselves. However, we are very encouraged by what has already been done. The small craft harbour port authorities in my riding are very happy with our taking this additional step.

I would like to thank and congratulate one of my colleagues from Nova Scotia who is now the Minister of Rural Economic Development. She has really been a champion on this issue, pushing to make sure that the issue of abandoned vessels is addressed not only in her neck of the woods in rural Nova Scotia but throughout the waterways of our country, because it has become a real and substantial problem.

In addition to the two ports that I mentioned, there are also issues in Flatrock, Pouch Cove, Portugal Cove—St. Philip's, and when it was within the framework of the federal review and federal authority, the small craft harbour Quidi Vidi. However, this proposed legislation would even help in situations like the small craft harbour in Quidi Vidi. Even though it is not a federally designated port, the vessels that are moored, tied and used there would still be governed by the legislation. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for the non-federally funded small craft harbours to help us in making sure that those ports are not burdened by derelict and abandoned vessels.

Again, I would encourage all members of the House to support the twice-amended bill and to see it enacted so that our waterways can be safer in the 2019 shipping, fishing and recreational use seasons.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, any move has challenges that come with it, but it has been great to be able to work together to overcome them, because it is a beautiful new space.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the NDP opposition day motion.

Tomorrow we will debate the Senate amendments to Bill C-64, the abandoned vessels act.

Next Monday and Tuesday will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-78, an act to amend the Divorce Act.

Rail Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will be seeking the consent of the House for a motion.

Because the abandoned vessel legislation, which would prevent oil spills and pollution on the coast, is ready to go, and because the amendments proposed by the Senate would add the additional protection of ensuring that any efforts to remove abandoned vessels would not disturb war graves of men and women who served this country, I am hopeful that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, be now read a second time and concurred in.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a quick question and I'll then toss it to my friend Mr. Badawey.

A lot of the provisions, as we heard from the last panel, have been consulted in the process of developing bills C-48, C-64, C-68 and C-55. Between this committee and the fisheries committee, we've done a deeper dive into it, clause-by-clause, recommendations, etc., but there was one example that helped me understand the nature of your concern. That was with respect to protecting the north Atlantic right whale. There was a slowdown and fishing bans in certain areas, and it was ultimately discovered that they had probably overreacted, that they could have taken a more refined approach to protecting that whale from ship collisions, in this case.

Based on what we've heard from you, would you be content if an interim order came down—as you mentioned, Ms. Simard, for a short period of time—that allowed for refinements to come forward that might mitigate what otherwise would be unnecessary impacts on your industry?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The complementary bills that are folded into this initiative—Bill C-48, the crude oil moratorium on the north coast, Bill C-64 regarding wrecked, abandoned and dilapidated vessels, and BillC-68 and Bill C-55, a couple that relate to the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act—are they basically all enclosed, if you will, in divisions 22 and 23, or do they comprise what's going forward in this budget implementation bill that's of concern to this committee?

The Environment

[Andrew Leslie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, addressing abandoned and wrecked vessels is a priority for the government, and we are very proud to be implementing a comprehensive national strategy on this issue.

Bill C-64 was introduced back in October 2017, has passed third reading in the House and has been introduced in the Senate. On coming into force, this new legislation would help reduce the flow of new abandoned boats. We know there are hundreds of abandoned boats that litter Canada's coasts and waterways. That is why our government announced, since the spring, more than $1.3 million in funding to assess and remove the boats that were a high priority for local communities. So far, 106 vessels have been either assessed or removed from Canadian waters. This is just the beginning, as funding remains available to address other priority boats across Canada, and we encourage all communities that want to remove problematic vessels to apply for this funding.

We are currently developing a national inventory of abandoned and wrecked vessels and a risk assessment methodology to prioritize these vessels based on the risks they pose, which will support evidence-based decision-making under Bill C-64.

We are working in partnership with provinces and territories, given their expertise in vehicle registration, to explore ways to enhance the pleasure craft licensing system to ensure boat owners are held responsible and accountable. At the same time, our government is studying options to enhance the commercial vessel registry system.

We are also working with provinces and territories to explore options for establishing sustainable funds in the longer term, financed by the boaters themselves. The burden of removing abandoned and wrecked vessels will eventually no longer fall on Canadian taxpayers. This is a long-overdue solution that our government is providing.

Our government also recognizes the importance of providing boaters with affordable and accessible boat disposal and recycling options. This is why we have invested in research and development into boat design and these recycling options.

New legislation, a national inventory and risk assessment methodology, funding programs and research, improving boat owner identification systems, and working with our provincial and territorial partners on areas of shared responsibility and expertise will, together, ensure we comprehensively address this issue for today and for generations to come.

(Bill C-21. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 9, 2018—Third reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act—The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

(Bill, as amended, read the third time and passed on division)

(Bill C-68: On the Order: Government orders:)

June 13, 2018—Third reading of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence—The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

(Motion for third reading deemed moved, bill read the third time and passed on division)

(Bill C-62. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 11, 2018—Consideration at report stage of C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities without amendment—The President of the Treasury Board.

(Bill concurred in, read the third time and passed on division)

(Bill C-64. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 19, 2018—Third reading of Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations—The Minister of Transport.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Motion No. 24. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 28, 2018—Ways and Means motion to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting.

(Motion agreed to on division)

(Bill C-82. On the Order: Introduction of Bills:)

May 28, 2018—First reading of Bill C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting—Minister of Finance

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(Bill C-46. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 14, 2018—Consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts—The Minister of Justice.

(Motion agreed to on division)

(Bill C-50. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 14, 2018—Consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing)—The Minister of Democratic Institutions.

(Motion agreed to on division)

June 4, 2018—That the 64th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, “Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment between Members”, presented to the House on Monday, June 4, 2018, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

June 19, 2018—Notice of Motion—That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Yves Giroux as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years—Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

(Motion agreed to on division)

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following routine proceedings on Wednesday, June 20, 2018:

(a) Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(b) Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts, be deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(c) Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, be deemed read a third time and passed;

(d) Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(e) Ways and Means No. 24 be deemed adopted on division, and that the Bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance entitled, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, be deemed read a first time;

(f) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, be deemed adopted on division;

(g) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, be deemed adopted on division;

(h) the 64th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment between Members, presented to the House on Monday June 4, 2018, be concurred in;

(i) the following motion be deemed adopted on division: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Yves Giroux as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years”; and

(j) the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2018, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 21 and Friday, June 22, 2018.

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-64.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Motions in amendment

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

Before I get started, I have to give a huge shout-out and thanks to my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her perseverance and commitment to this issue. Before she was in the House, she was the chair of the Islands Trust. She brought communities together on this issue, because it is so important. She followed the great work of Jean Crowder, who represented the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. These are Vancouver Islanders who understand these issues from the grassroots. They understand the impact abandoned and derelict vessels have on our coastal waters and the impact they have on the local economy, ecology, and way of life. I appreciate their efforts.

In my riding, there has been much support for Bill C-352 put forward by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Qualicum Beach and Parksville have been very strong advocates for this bill, as has the Regional District of Nanaimo.

There was an incredible accident in our riding in Deep Bay. Three boats had been listing for over a decade. They were abandoned derelict vessels. The former member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North, a Conservative colleague, promised for 10 years to remove those vessels, but they sat there right through until the 2015 election. That same member voted against the bill Ms. Crowder put forward in the last Parliament. He said that he wanted more of a Washington state model. He was the party whip for the Conservative government and a previous cabinet minister, so he could have asked his government to pursue legislation based on the Washington state model. Ms. Crowder would have welcomed an amendment to support that model, because we know it works. He sat idle.

A boat sank, and when the divers went down, they found two more boats at the bottom. The communities desperately wanted the Silver King and the Sir Wilfrid Laurier removed, because they were threatening 60 jobs adjacent to that listing boat. They were threatening the Deep Bay Marine Field Station of Vancouver Island University, which has a centre for shellfish research they have invested $9 million in. We raised this concern with the federal government, and the Liberals sat idle, despite major storms going through.

We then decided to collectively come together: me; the MLA; Chief Recalma, of Qualicum First Nation; Bill Veenhof, from the Regional District of Nanaimo; and the adjacent shellfish company that was going to be immediately impacted. In fact, it would have been shut down for a year if any of the bunker fuel had been released from those derelict and abandoned boats, and the VIU research facility would have been shut down.

We decided to collectively come together with community members and go out on a boat and invite the media. I want to thank CHEK 6 news, CTV News Vancouver Island, and the Parksville Qualicum Beach News, because they came out, and it was their reporting that made the difference, with our community standing in solidarity. The former minister of fisheries and oceans, my friend from Nunavut, responded at that point, when he saw the pressure, and the Silver King was removed. The Liberals were still hesitant to deal with the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This boat was a previous crown asset.

Again, my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith put forward amendments to strengthen the bill to protect our coasts. One of the amendments was to prevent crown assets and assets seized and resold by the government from becoming abandoned vessels by legislating terms and conditions of sale and disposal. It sounds reasonable, but the Liberals rejected it.

On the B.C. coast, there are abandoned vessels from all over the place that still bear a government logo, whether they are from BC Ferries or the Coast Guard, such as the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The Atlantic coast has a number of people with great intentions who are still purchasing surplus navy vessels, but they become great liabilities. The communities of Shelburne and Bridgewater wanted those conditions in the bill as well, and they were rejected. We raised awareness about the Silver King and the Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and we are grateful that the government responded at that point. I want to thank it for that, but it took a lot of pressure.

This could have been avoided. We could not even figure out who was responsible, because in this bill, the government still had not identified the Coast Guard as the sole receiver of wrecks. We were running around speaking to the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada. We were getting turned around, and no one was taking responsibility. That still has not been resolved in this legislation.

I will turn to some of the opportunities. When I was first elected, my colleagues from Vancouver Island and I banded together and went to the Minister of Infrastructure and asked that BC Ferries be eligible for the Building Canada fund, because under the previous Conservative government, it was not eligible. BC Ferries made that loud and clear. Despite the Conservative member from Vancouver Island North saying that it was eligible, it had been rejected on every application, because, it was told, it was not eligible.

We were grateful to the Minister of Infrastructure for changing the requirements and allowing BC Ferries to be eligible for the Building Canada fund. That has resulted in $62 million for BC Ferries, which Mark Collins, the CEO, told me when I ran into him in Vancouver. He was so grateful. He told me that he wanted to come to our riding and listen to my thoughts and concerns with respect to BC Ferries and the way he can support our communities. He also wanted to express his gratitude for our going to Ottawa and working with the government to create the eligibility that has supported all ferry users in British Columbia.

While he was there, I was able to talk to him and showcase Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley as a great opportunity for the BC Ferries experience program so that they can promote each other and work collectively to support the tourism economy.

We also talked about the incredible opportunity we have as the deepest port on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which is heavily underutilized. He clearly expressed to me that shipyards are coming close to capacity and that he wants to find ways we can work together. He wrote a letter of support after visiting the port. He wrote:

BC Ferries is planning to invest $3.5 - $4 billion over the next 12 years in infrastructure and new vessels in addition to our anticipated $150 million annual spend on ship repair. The biggest constraint we face supporting our fleet is the scarcity of dry docking in British Columbia. Currently, two-thirds of our fleet of 35 vessels can be docked at just two facilities. Those facilities are busy and the opportunity for increased dry dock capacity in BC will be of great interest to BC Ferries and other coastal marine customers.

He supports the Port Alberni Port Authority and its hope for a new floating dry dock. The reason I bring that up is that it is an economic opportunity for people on the west coast to create more shipbuilding and maybe a place where we can work with abandoned and derelict boats. We would like to see the government work with all levels of government, the federal government and the federal Liberals, so that we can create those jobs and support a dry dock in our community.

After years of advocacy, the New Democrats are proud that our pressure is finally paying off and that we are seeing some movement on this bill, although it misses the mark on many things. It does not support a vessel turn-in program modelled on the cash-for-clunkers program for vehicles, which has been successful in many provinces. Without a turn-in program, we will not be able to deal with the backlog, which is hundreds of boats. We could create a dedicated fee to help cover the cost of vessel disposal, based on the Washington state model, which is an owner-financed fund dedicated to vessel removal that successfully took the costs off taxpayers, which is what we want.

Where I live, it is clear that most of these abandoned derelict vessels cannot be traced back. We do not know who the owners are. They change hands repeatedly. There is a housing issue where we live, and many people are living on derelict boats, in terrible conditions. These boats are being sold within the community, and people do not know who owns these boats. They live on them literally until they sink. We do not want to see a situation like in Deep Bay, where a boat is listing and threatening the environment and the local economy, and then when it does sink and we go to the bottom, we find three more.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-64, which addresses the issue of the thousands of wrecks littering Canada. I want to commend my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all the work she has done. She has been working for years to stop the abandonment of wrecks on our coasts and to help free coastal communities from the burden of dealing with wrecks.

My colleague proposed several amendments in committee. She originally had a private member's bill that targeted all wrecks. Her parliamentary privilege to debate Bill C-352 was denied by the Liberal government, which forced her to go through the special process of a secret ballot vote. Each member got to deposit a ballot in a box at the back of the House of Commons to decide whether my colleague would be allowed to debate her bill. The outcome, as anyone could guess, given the government's majority, was that she was blocked from speaking on her own bill. The government simply refused to grant her time to debate the bill in the House, on the pretext that the government's bill covered all the same ground as her own. However, the two bills could have been complementary, as I will explain today.

My B.C. colleague's bill addressed a number of issues. Now, at report stage, she is moving an amendment that reads as follows: “That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 5”.

This amendment would remove the exemption for state-owned ships. Bill C-64 does not currently apply to state property.

We want all vessels owned by the government, by all the departments, including military vessels and other assets belonging to the Canadian Coast Guard, to be governed by this bill. The fact that they are not is ridiculous. Washington State has similar legislation that includes abandoned state-owned vessels.

We hope the government will support the amendment moved by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I rise in the House today because the Kathryn Spirit ran aground in Lake Saint-Louis, a drinking water reservoir, seven years ago, and the people of Beauharnois and the greater Montreal area have been trying to get something done about it ever since.

Groupe Saint-Pierre, a private company, acquired the vessel and towed it to the shores of Lake Saint-Louis at Beauharnois to dismantle it and sell the scrap metal. The people of Beauharnois and the mayor at the time were extremely concerned about that.

The current mayor continues to work to ensure that the ship is dismantled by the end of the year. Seven years later, we are beginning to feel some relief, but as long as the ship is still there then we are no further ahead.

Managing this ship has been very complicated from the start. It was not clear who to talk to about it. We had to juggle between Environment Canada, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Coast Guard under Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Every department under the Conservative government at the time passed the buck. In 2015, the Liberals took over the government, but it is still the same story, six of one and half a dozen of the other. The two successive governments were unable to grab the bull by the horns to ensure the safety of the drinking water reservoir. The population was scared because for the seven years that the ship has been there, there have been a number of freeze-thaw cycles. The ship has taken on some water through the pipes and as a result of being trapped in the ice over the winter.

What is more, there have a number of alarming situations that required last-minute interventions to patch up the ship to ensure that the water in the ballasts did not infiltrate the engine room, which contains oil. We asked many times for the list of pollutants remaining on the ship and up until very recently we still did not have it. Even the fire department of Beauharnois, Châteauguay, and surrounding areas still did not have that list on April 10, 2018, when a fire broke out and six fire departments were called to deal with it. Though somewhat ironic, it is mostly very stressful for all those who live near this wreck.

The bill before us does not meet all of the demands of Beauharnois and the surrounding coastal municipalities. That is why the NDP has been fighting for years to get a bill that better manages shipwrecks.

This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but there are still some problems that need to be addressed, particularly the backlog of thousands of wrecks abandoned off Canada's coastlines. On top of that, the bill fails to introduce a vessel registration system for accountability, nor does it establish a vessel turn-in and recycling program. I was very proud to support Bill C-352 introduced by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, which fills the gaps in the government legislation.

Getting back to the Kathryn Spirit, Groupe St-Pierre moved the vessel to the banks of Lac Saint-Louis in August 2011. Since the provincial and federal governments never authorized the company to dismantle the ship on the water for environmental reasons, it was never able to move forward, so it sold the wreck to a Mexican company a few months later.

Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada kept passing the buck back and forth between 2012 and 2015. The ministers responsible just wanted to wash their hands of the problem. Despite our repeated calls, the Mexican company was unable to answer our questions. There was a language barrier as well as the time difference. It eventually stopped answering our questions and our calls altogether.

Then there was dithering and continual delays in obtaining answers from the Ministers of Transport Canada and Environment Canada concerning hazardous substances still on board. It was never-ending. It took years to get answers even though such access to information requests usually take about two months. Then we asked that there be only one party responsible, the Canadian Coast Guard, but the Liberals refused.

Ultimately, we want to know the location and condition of all such ships in Canada. That is why we are asking that registration errors be corrected and, as my colleague proposed at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, that the administration do more than just the bare minimum. Companies must fully respect the law and its spirit to ensure the protection of citizens, waters, and our environment.

In the case of the Kathryn Spirit, the lack of registration prevented us from having clear information about the Mexican company that had taken over the vessel. A minimum of information was enough to have senior officials say that the vessel had not been abandoned and that the company was still responsible for it. This matter was bungled from start to finish.

In 2013, it seemed that contaminants were discharged and citizens were worried. In the end, it was a real shemozzle and the government said that most of the fuel had been removed. In 2016, the vessel was listing and cables were added. The government is taking a wait-and-see approach in this matter.

The government took action when there was a fire and finally realized that there had never been a response plan, even though the government had offered $24 million to the private company working on the boat. There were a number of shortcomings.

The bill does not allocate enough money to manage a single vessel like the Kathryn Spirit. The government is allocating $1.25 million over four years, which is completely ridiculous.

I hope that the government will review this bill and accept amendments, including the one proposed today by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, in order to get this right and manage abandoned vessels in Canada.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking to this bill on wrecks. There are some flaws in this bill. My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith tried to fix these flaws by proposing a number of amendments that were unfortunately rejected.

In Bill C-64, the Prime Minister committed to investing $260,000 to $300,000 to assess and remove shipwrecks in 2017, which is a completely ridiculous amount, and $1.25 million for the four following years.

However, in my riding alone, dismantling the Kathryn Spirit has cost taxpayers $24 million, and it is not yet complete. This bill proposes $1.25 million over four years for thousands of wrecks.

Is that not a ridiculous amount? This is one of the flaws in this bill, in addition to all the other ones my colleague pointed out. Can my colleague speak to that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to partake in today's debate, especially since I am speaking here today as a proud coastal member of Parliament who comes from a neck of the woods just south of the riding of the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. My riding, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and my colleague's riding together formed what was known as the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

This is a problem that coastal people have been dealing with for far too long, no matter what part of Canada they live in. Abandoned vessels not only pose threats to our environment, and in some cases threats to navigation, but they are an eyesore. They cause real harm to communities that are trying to build up an image of a sustainable community, a place tourists would want to visit.

I spent seven years working as a constituency assistant to former member of Parliament Jean Crowder in the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. As a constituency assistant, I was often on the phone with constituents who were outraged at the runaround they were getting and the jurisdictional finger pointing. They had gone to the municipality and to the regional district. They had gone to the port authority, to the province, and to the federal government. Every one of those agencies basically pointed at someone else, saying, “It's not our problem.” All those calls and the many years of problems building up prompted Jean Crowder to take action, and I will get to that in a moment.

I want to go over a bit of the history of how my particular community has experienced this problem. Right in the heart of my riding is lovely Cowichan Bay. I hope some members in the House get a chance to visit Cowichan Bay. It is a quaint, ideal little place on the coast. It has a great history of being a big industrial area that transformed itself into this great little community, which tourists come to every year by the droves.

We have had our ordeals with abandoned vessels. I will go back to the Dominion. The Dominion was a large Japanese fish-processing ship, which was towed to Cowichan Bay in 2007. The new owner of the vessel thought that he could buy it as an investment, sell it a few years later, and make a quick buck off it. Unfortunately, the Dominion stayed in Cowichan Bay from 2007 until 2013. It was filled with a variety of hazardous substances. It was subject to vandalism. There was the constant danger, whether from high tide or strong storms, of that gigantic ship coming loose off its mooring and plowing into other ships.

We had the SS Beaver, which was in such dilapidated condition that it sank in 2014. It still rests at the bottom of Cowichan Bay.

As a result of the lack of action, last year six derelict vessels were removed by the combined efforts of private companies. These companies were sick and tired of no government authority taking responsibility or having the resources to remove them. I want to recognize Western Forest Products, Western Stevedoring, and Pacific Industrial & Marine for taking on that initiative as responsible corporate citizens of the area. It affects their livelihoods, too, and they had the means to get it done. However, it should not have come to that.

I also want to give great recognition to Lori Iannidinardo. She serves as the area director for Cowichan Bay in the Cowichan Valley Regional District. A lot of individuals have been involved in this fight over the years, but as the area director, she has had the unique position locally of bringing so many stakeholders together, along with public and community forums, and pushing for action. Lori and Jean worked together hand in glove to try to address this problem.

Now let me turn to the efforts of Jean Crowder in the 41st Parliament. She introduced Bill C-231 in 2011. She saw a way to improve her bill, and it ultimately turned into Bill C-638, which had its opportunity for debate and a vote at second reading at the tail end of the 41st Parliament.

I will note that the Liberal Party at that time voted in favour of this bill, and among those members, there was the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and others. In fact, there are various ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and chairs of standing committees in the House today who back then supported this bill. We are happy to see Bill C-64 moving ahead, but as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has so clearly laid out, there are a lot of gaps that her private member's bill certainly could have filled.

I am happy to say that after years of advocacy, New Democrats and the coastal communities have really informed our work, and all that work is finally paying off. We are very proud that the action to clean up our coasts and waterways from abandoned vessels are finally under way.

I will now turn to the 42nd Parliament, the one we are in now, and the efforts of the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The first version of her Bill C-219 very much built on Bill C-638, which was introduced in the previous Parliament. However, after a lot of consultation with different coastal organizations and coastal communities, she really took their feedback, which is evidence-based decision-making and evidence-informed policy-making. She incorporated their suggestions, because these are the people who are on the front lines, and introduced Bill C-352.

One of the greatest privileges we have in this place as private members is our ability to bring forward legislation on behalf of our communities. What is really unfortunate about last year is that the Liberals denied her the ability through the procedure and House affairs committee, and then the secret ballot that we had here in the House of Commons, to effectively advocate on behalf of her constituents and various coastal organizations in this place. We know it was the Liberals, because that is where the majority of the votes are coming from, who denied her the ability to at least bring this bill forward for debate and a vote. They deemed it to be non-votable, and argued that Bill C-64 covered all the conditions. In fact, we can see that her bill was actually filling in the gaps that are very apparent in Bill C-64.

However, New Democrats do not give up when they face set backs, and so the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith tried to work at committee. She brought forward a series of amendments to Bill C-64 to actually strengthen the bill and make it reflect the conversations that she had had. We wanted to implement a vessel turn-in program, create a dedicated fee to help the cost of vessel disposal, and we wanted to formalize the Coast Guard's role. The Coast Guard's main role is to guard our coast, but I would argue it is not only to guard against smugglers but also to make sure that our coastal environment is safe, sound, and environmentally secure. She tried to make sure that we could copy Washington state's model, because we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We have many other jurisdictions, one right in Washington state, and we could basically borrow the best elements from its program and transpose them here in Canada. She also wanted to try and give the receiver of wrecks the responsibility and accountability to determine the owner.

Every single one of those amendments was defeated by the Liberals in spite of all of the testimony that we had heard at committee. That is the real shame of this. The Liberals in the previous Parliament were fine to go along with the provisions that were included in this bill, but once they got into government, and flying in the face of the evidence they heard, they refused to go ahead with that.

The bill from the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was endorsed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities, the City of Victoria, the City of Nanaimo, the Town of Ladysmith, over 20 more local governments, the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, Vancouver District Labour Council, and the BC Ferry & Marine Workers' Union. These are organizations and local governments that deal with this problem and confront it on a daily basis. To have those kinds of endorsements behind the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith really speaks to her perseverance, and it is sincerely unfortunate that the government did not allow those.

I will conclude by saying that we are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will support Bill C-64, but I hope the government will at least listen to us and accept our amendment at report stage so that we can at least have some accountability for federally owned vessels, because that is a major loophole that exists.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by echoing words that we just heard from the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso. He used the word “admiration” in reference to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Of course I want to shout out as well to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets. This truly is a coast-to-coast-to-coast problem, and it is lovely to see people working together on such an important issue. I live in a coastal community and I will have something to say about that in a moment.

The member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has been absolutely admirable, to use the member's words, in bringing this to the attention of government and in pushing this forward. We have had this issue, since at least 2005, on the front burner in our part of the world and, I am sure, longer in Atlantic Canada. Thankfully, we seem to be getting somewhere with it. I say, “somewhere”, and I indicate from the outset that we will be supporting Bill C-64. The amendment that my colleague has brought forward is something I would need to address as well because, while we support this bill, there is a real missed opportunity on so many bases here that it needs to be addressed in that spirit.

It never was brought to my attention, until quite recently, just how enormous this problem and challenge is. There are thousands of vessels, that is from the Canadian Coast Guard, that are derelict or abandoned from coast to coast. I have seen first-hand in my riding what that means. I have been with John Roe and gone through Cadboro Bay and again through the Selkirk Trestle area of the Inner Harbour of Victoria, and seen boats just sitting there, oozing pollution into the waterways; abandoned, in some cases, for years. For some reason, there seems to be this inertia, this inability to deal with an imminent danger that these boats have caused. Finally we have some tools that are on the table for our consideration.

One day, I had the opportunity to go with John Roe, who is the head of the Dead Boats Society, an admirably named organization, and, as well, the Veins of Life Watershed Society. He has been doing enormous work. He was appointed by the current government in a past life as a member of the chief review officer's people who do appeals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I got to know Mr. Roe and I admire him. His tenacity resembles that of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. They are quite a team.

I had the opportunity to go and see these boats one day. Because the government was doing nothing, citizens in the community stood up and, on their own, at great risk in terms of potential liability, took action in Cadboro Bay. I had the opportunity to go out one day with Mr. Roe; with Mr. Eric Dahli, who is the head of the Cadboro Bay Residents Association; with Ian Hinkle; and with Commodore Wilkinson of the Royal Victoria Yacht Club. I am very proud of the Ralmax Group of Companies, which donated its equipment and its people. Here were citizens on the beach, taking direct action to deal with this hazard, when the government would not come to the table and do anything after years of asking. I really salute the people with that spirit that has made Canada great, actually getting involved, getting their hands wet and dirty, and trying to deal with this problem. I had an opportunity to get a sense of what it means and that was just one of the many communities around Canada. Hence the bill and hence the need to address this. I want to start by saying that this problem is enormous.

Second, there is an enormous backlog of thousands of abandoned vessels that are polluting our waters. Just how is this particular bill addressing that backlog? There seems to be no effort, to do what the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith advocated in her private member's bill, to pilot some sort of turn-in program to safe recycling facilities, so we could deal with these issues. If there were a registration fee for boats, as in Washington state and other jurisdictions like Oregon, and elsewhere in Europe, that could fund the program.

The government likes to talk about how much this is costing, and it has made a pitifully small financial contribution. It should not have to spend money at all. In the long run, as the economists would say, the cost should be internalized to the people who created the problem in the first place.

If I buy a boat, I should pay a fee. There should be a disposal charge, as we do with so many other consumer products. Why the government has not reached out to the provinces to assist in this regard is really beyond me. It would save money. It would save our environment, and it would get these eyesores off our coastlines all across the country.

The government's model essentially is to fine and ultimately to use criminal sanction, penalties and offences for owners of vessels. The problem with that model is that it will be very difficult to enforce. What if we do not know who the owner is, as is often the case? The registration number is filed off. We do not know who the owner is, and the vessel has been there for many years. How are we going to use the criminal process?

The Liberals talk about imprisonment and penalties of up to $250,000 and so forth. This is the old story of legislation involving the environment. We have fabulously large fines and we pat ourselves on the back for all the great action we are taking, but here is the punchline: We never get around to enforcing that. We never put in the resources, and we do not have the political will. It is nice, and it might scare a few people into action, but it really does not address the problem.

This is the problem that my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith kept talking about in her private member's bill: the enormous backlog, the failure to have a vessel registration system for accountability purposes, the failure to establish a turn-in program to ensure recycling, and so forth.

I echo the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who spoke earlier. She used the phrase “legislative gaps”. There are so many legislative gaps in this program that I really wish the government had addressed them.

My colleague and the NDP made a number of amendments at the transport committee, almost all of which were defeated. One of them was about the vessel turn-in program that would deal with the backlog. The amendment about a dedicated fee to help cover the cost of vessel disposal, which Washington state has, was also defeated. There was also formalizing the role of the Coast Guard. It is like that Ghostbusters movie: “Who you gonna call?” Sometimes people can call the receiver of wreck, if they know who it is. People thought it would be simpler to just call the Coast Guard, but the Liberals seem to have abandoned that. They are committed to maybe doing something down the road.

The key “emperor has no clothes” issue here, which is addressed so clearly by my colleague's amendment, would be to deal with government vessels. I listened to the debate earlier today, and I was a bit confused because some people seemed to suggest that abandoned government vessels, such as old navy boats, ferries, and the like, would somehow be covered by the bill. I could not help noticing that the director general of environmental policy for the Department of Transport testified and said, “This legislation does not cover government vessels.” I am going to believe her, and I am going to say that there is a simple fix: deleting section 5 with the exclusions at issue. Let us make sure that we have a comprehensive bill to cover government and private vessels alike.

In conclusion, this is a good start. It has taken a long time. I am pleased it is here, and I will support it. It just could have been so much better.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of Bill C-64. As a matter of fact, I am not just happy, I am thrilled to see this legislation before the House at report stage. After years of zero action by successive governments on the issues of abandoned and wrecked vessels, I am particularly happy our government is taking steps to respond to the pleas of coastal communities and address the issue that has plagued our coastlines for years.

The problem of abandoned and derelict vessels is sadly not an unheard of issue in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. From Bridgewater to Shelburne, or from Feltzen South to Woods Harbour, people abandoning vessels is not unheard of. It is also an issue not uncommon across the country, as many of my colleagues from British Columbia, the Great Lakes region, and many other areas can attest to. That is why I was happy to introduce my motion, Motion No. 40, in February 2016, which called on the government to develop solutions for our communities dealing with this ongoing problem. I am thrilled that the legislation we see before us today incorporates all parts of my motion.

Our existing laws do not allow us to comprehensively address the risks posed by abandoned and derelict vessels or problem vessels. Bill C-64 would significantly strengthen our ability to address problem vessels by fixing existing legislative loopholes while also empowering the federal government to take measures to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate hazards. Bill C-64 would also finally make it illegal to abandon a vessel for someone else to have to deal with down the road. This is huge, particularly in rural communities.

One only has to look to the town of Shelburne in Nova Scotia to see the impact an abandoned vessel can have on a whole community. The Farley Mowat was brought into Shelburne harbour under the cover of darkness, tied up at the town's wharf, and left for three years. The town owns the wharf where the Farley Mowat was left, and had no recourse to deal with this rusting vessel taking up space. The Farley Mowat sank, was raised, flooded, had to be pumped out continually, took up to a quarter of the town's prime wharf space, and was an eyesore in an otherwise beautiful harbour. The day the government issued the removal order was a day of celebration in Shelburne. The crowds gathered, with bagpipes, media, and of course cake to celebrate the removal.

This bill would increase vessel owner responsibility and shift the burden away from Canadian taxpayers and toward a polluter pay approach. The wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act lays out a comprehensive legislative approach to addressing wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, from small pleasure crafts to large commercial ships, both foreign and domestic, in Canadian waters. In short, this bill would take us a big step toward ensuring the situation faced by the Town of Shelburne with the Farley Mowat is not repeated anywhere else in the country. Under our existing laws, the only two scenarios under which the government has the authority to take action on vessels are when a navigable waterway is obstructed or when the vessels present a pollution threat to the marine environment. That is it.

Our government knows that the majority of vessel owners are responsible vessel owners. In some cases, however, owners do not have the money to maintain, store, or dispose of their vessels. It is also not uncommon for individuals to take possession of a vessel thinking it has more residual value than it actually does, leaving them with an expensive piece of scrap. This bill would help us address the minority of owners in these kinds situations, as well as those who fail to properly care for and dispose of their vessels, so we can prevent them from becoming threats to our environment, local economies, and public health and safety.

Abandonment is seen by some as a low-cost means to deal with an unwanted vessel or the consequences of a wreck. It often comes as a shock to many Canadians to learn we have no laws to prevent this behaviour today. It is not illegal to abandon a vessel. I cannot emphasize that enough. Think about this: under the law, one cannot leave a transport truck at the side of the road, but one can leave a maritime vessel to rot at docks, beaches, or in harbours.

It is estimated there are hundreds of problem vessels in waterways all across the country. As some communities have learned first-hand, it can cost millions to clean up large vessels or wrecks. While these vessels pose particular risks to our coastal and shoreline communities, they are a cost to all Canadians. Taxpayers simply cannot continue to subsidize vessel owners whose irresponsible actions leave Canadians with a hefty cleanup bill. Costs to deal with these problem vessels are high, especially because we lack the authorities to proactively deal with them.

If we could intervene earlier, remedial costs would be less expensive compared to having to respond after an incident occurs. That is why Bill C-64 is so important. It would fill the voids I have just described by broadening the scope of hazards to include risks to the environment, the local economy, health and safety, and infrastructure. This would allow us to address risks beyond pollution threats or obstructions to navigation in order to better protect coastal and shoreline communities, the environment, and infrastructure, while placing liability squarely on the vessels owners so as to reduce the burden on taxpayers. In our historic oceans protection plan, our government committed to developing legislation to help prevent the problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels from happening and to take corrective action, at the expense of the vessel owners, if removal and disposal of a vessel is required.

One of the key aspects of this bill is that it would require large vessels to carry insurance or other financial security to cover costs related to the removal of a hazardous wreck. This is one of the proactive measures that would be taken to ensure that in the event of a vessel becoming a problem due to negligence, there is a measure already in place to protect communities and taxpayers from long-term financial damage. This proposed legislation would also provide ministerial powers to order an owner to remove and dispose of a dilapidated vessel left in the water or on any federal crown property without consent, such as a federally owned small craft harbour. It would also empower the federal government to determine whether a vessel or wreck poses, or may pose, a hazard. This would be done in collaboration with local communities and other stakeholders. Upon determination that a vessel or a wreck is hazardous, the government would have significantly more authority to take measures to address the situation than it does currently.

With new strict penalties for non-compliance, Bill C-64 would introduce new deterrents, helping to prevent problem vessels from endangering our waterways, costing taxpayers, and burdening our local communities. The effectiveness of this proposed legislation in holding vessel owners to account relies on the ability to identify them. That is why our government is taking action to strengthen vessel licensing systems so that Canadians can be confident in our ability to address any problems that arise.

In addition, we are working with our partners to address the costs of problem vessels over the longer term. This includes exploring options to ensure that future cleanup costs are addressed by way of vessel owner-financed funds modelled on domestic and international polluter pays approaches. These combined initiatives would reduce the burden on taxpayers while also enhancing protection of the environment, restoring trust for local communities, and ensuring the safety of the general public.

I was pleased to sit in on the meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities during the study of this legislation, and I was pleased to see that all parties are in agreement that the time has come for the government to address the plague of coastal communities that are abandoned vessels. I ask all members of the House to support this legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we live with the fairly constant problem of derelict vessels along our coastline. They are a hazard. They are an eyesore. They present real risks to life and limb.

I understand the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek thinks that we can always find the owners of these vessels and then get them to pay for the cleanup. I raised some of the problems with these abandoned vessels at committee. The hon. member will remember I attempted to put in an amendment for mandatory improvements to our registration system, and that vessel owners be required to have insurance. The response from the government members at the time was that we could probably deal with these issues through regulation. Therefore, I am going to vote for Bill C-64 with enthusiasm. I am pleased to see action finally happening on derelict vessels.

However, I share some concerns with my friend from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The bill is not perfect, particularly around the issue of being able to track the owners of the vessels and being able to go after those who abandon their vessels and make them pay for the cleanup. It tends to fall to the municipalities even to know where to take the vessels. We cannot recycle a fibreglass vessel. We are stuck with hauling it to the dump. There are very significant issues with this.

I ask my hon. colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek to consider how we might be able to go after the vessel owners when we do not know who they are.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

This is an important bill. In fact, it was considered so important that it was passed at second reading without any debate so the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee could study it expeditiously. Now that the bill has been reported back, I am pleased that the chamber is taking some time to discuss its merits.

Since we are currently at report stage, I will comment on the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member forNanaimo—Ladysmith, but first I will discuss the bill in general.

I will readily admit, being from Saskatchewan, that prior to Bill C-64 being introduced, the issue of wrecked and abandoned vessels was one with which I was not overly familiar. I can honestly say that not once during the many round tables, constituent meetings, and town halls I have held in my riding over the last nine years has this issue ever come up for my constituents. Having said that, I completely understand why the bill is so important to members of the House who represent ridings along our beautiful coast lines.

As the Conservative Party's shadow minister for transport, I enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to learn about the concerns of Canadians regarding transportation matters, regardless of where they live.

The transportation committee's study of Bill C-64 was very informative for me. I truly appreciated hearing from the many witnesses who provided their testimony and the many stakeholders who met with the members of the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee to impress upon us the need for legislation as there was currently a lack of legislative clarity around this issue. If given royal assent, the bill will create a new comprehensive act, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act.

If enacted, this new act will do a number of things First, it will give force of law to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007. Second, the act addresses irresponsible vessel management and enhances federal powers to take action by the federal government. Third, the new act will give force of law to the International Salvage Convention, 1989.

The last point that I want to touch on with respect to this new act is that it will create an administrative and enforcement regime for vessels wrecked and abandoned on Canada's coasts with accompanying offenses and punishments.

Stepping back a little, by way of solutions for the issue of wrecked, abandoned, or dilapidated vessels off Canada's coasts, there are two schools of thought.

The first is to make the federal government ultimately responsible for vessels that become wrecked or abandoned on our coasts. To pursue this solution would be at a tremendous cost to Canadian taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be the ones to bear the financial burden of someone else's irresponsibility. Also on this point, if the federal government were ultimately responsible for all wrecked and abandoned vessels, there would be the potential that Canada's coasts could become a dumping ground for vessels that would have reached the end of their life cycle.

The second school of thought proposes a solution that I much prefer. It puts the onus for the removal and/or clean up back onto the offending vessel's owner and makes he or she responsible for the cost to do so. This is a more conservative solution. Individuals should be responsible for their own actions and individual vessel owners should be responsible for their property. When someone abandons or causes his or her vessel to become wrecked, either through neglect or willful actions, that person should be responsible for the vessels removal or the cost of removing it.

Additionally, another benefit of this second solution is that it will discourage owners of aging and/or dilapidated vessels from considering abandoning a vessel in our waters. While we do not want vessels being abandoned or wrecked anywhere in the world, the responsibility of the Government of Canada is to Canadians, to our coastal waters, and to Canada's coastal residents.

I believe that the bill falls more in line with the second solution I just described. As a result, I believe that Bill C-64 would have a positive effect on our coastal waters by discouraging owners of aging and dilapidated vessels from considering abandoning their vessels in our waters while at the same time setting up a system whereby vessel owners can be held responsible.

The second solution which I have outlined requires some basic information in order to be a workable solution. That basic information includes knowing who the owners are of each individual wrecked or abandoned vessel. Presently here in Canada, we are lacking this vital information. In order for the bill to work, it will be necessary for the Government of Canada to know what vessels are currently abandoned in our waters and who owns them. While the bill would not automatically create that list, it would be a step in the right direction.

Building on that, the federal government will need to maintain a record of vessels entering our territorial waters. Once it does that, it will be able to hold vessel owners responsible either through vessel insurance or through legal proceedings. Therefore, it is critical that the Government of Canada have the necessary information on vessels for this strategy to work.

Our support for the bill should come as no surprise to the House. During the last Parliament, there were a number of attempts through private members' bills to change Canada's legislation with respect to abandoned vessels. However, most of those attempts fell more in line with the first solution which I outlined earlier in my remarks where the federal government would become responsible for the cost of cleaning up and removing abandoned vessels, meaning Canadian taxpayers would ultimately be on the hook.

Giving credit where credit is due, my former colleague, John Weston, saw the problem with these proposals but also heard from his constituents that the issue of wrecked, abandoned, and derelict vessels needed to be addressed. In June 2015, he introduced a private member's bill that would have made it a criminal offence to abandon a boat subject to jail time, with fines of up to $100,000, and authorized the minister to sell a vessel that is deemed abandoned. Mr. Weston's bill would have discouraged the behaviour of abandoning a vessel. Building on his private member's bill, the Conservative Party's platform in 2015 included the following commitment:

A re-elected Conservative Government will commit to supporting MP Weston’s bill, and also set aside [funds]...to cover one third of the cost of removing priority derelict vessels.

Additionally, the issue highlighted by Mr. Weston's private member's bill made its way into the Conservative Party's policy declaration statement. As amended at the May 2016 national convention, section 128 of our policy declaration statement says, “the Conservative Party stands by its commitment to facilitate rehabilitation or demolition of abandoned and derelict vessels.”

Earlier in this Parliament, my Conservative colleagues and I were pleased to join with all members of the House to vote in favour of Motion No. 40, presented by the member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

Finally, to address the report stage amendment that is currently before us, this amendment would remove clause 5 from the bill. I am concerned that removing this clause of the bill would unnecessarily contravene the principle of sovereign immunity which is recognized in Canadian legislation. For this reason, I do not support this amendment.

I want to indicate to all members of the House that my Conservative colleagues and I will be voting in favour of the bill. We need to protect our coasts and protect the Canadian taxpayer from the negative impact and cost of wrecked, abandoned, and derelict vessels.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a fascinating answer from the representative of the transport minister. The amendment that New Democrats are proposing would have the effect of making Bill C-64 apply to government-owned assets. Right now the Liberals have written themselves an exemption and a loophole that we are proposing to remove.

If my Liberal colleague really does want to see a comprehensive and whole of government approach, as she just said, why would the government not vote for my amendment to close that loophole and make this legislation apply to government-owned assets as well?

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

Madam Speaker, there are many arguments in favour of this bill.

However, the most convincing argument is the fact that Canadians are calling for the measures we are proposing in this important bill. Many petitions have been tabled in the House in this regard.

The vast majority of owners are responsible and dispose of their vessels properly, but even a small number of neglected or abandoned vessels can create hazards with detrimental and costly impacts on local communities. These vessels are not just eyesores. They can pollute the marine environment and damage shoreline infrastructure. They pose risks to navigation and public health and safety. They can also harm industries, such as fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism, local industries that are dependent upon clean waters and that contribute nearly $40 billion a year to the Canadian economy.

Especially frustrating for responsible vessel owners and marine facility owners is the fact that abandoned and dilapidated vessels can take up valuable mooring space, and this can lead to economic losses to both property owners and local communities. Of course, these vessels can be extremely costly to clean up, ranging from a few thousand dollars for small boats to millions of dollars for larger vessels. That is why Bill C-64 proposes aggressive measures to prevent irresponsible owners from abandoning or neglecting their vessels so that the costs and perils of cleanup are not left to the taxpayers and local communities. This legislation is the next critical step forward in our $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, our comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy to improve marine safety, promote responsible shipping, and protect Canada's marine environment.

Our existing laws do not allow us to comprehensively address all of the risks posed by wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, or problem vessels, including the ability to take direct action on such vessels. The wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act would significantly strengthen our ability to address problem vessels by fixing these legislative gaps. With this bill, the federal government would be able to take measures to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate hazards. Bill C-64 includes new measures to prohibit vessel abandonment, strengthen vessel owner responsibility and liability, and enhance federal powers on two vital fronts.

First, it would require that owners bear responsibility for their vessels. This includes prohibiting abandonment and not allowing vessels to become dilapidated or hazardous. Second and equally important, the proposed legislation would make owners liable for the cost of vessel cleanup and proper disposal.

Furthermore, in conjunction with this bill, the government has started developing a national inventory of problem vessels, so that decisions about removing these vessels can be made based on evidence. This measure will also include a risk assessment, to prioritize the problem vessels based on the risk they present.

As part of the oceans action plan, we are also helping communities deal with the vessels that are polluting our coastlines and waterways. Canadians whose economic and cultural well-being are dependent on our water have expressed their desire to be involved in the solution. However, especially in rural areas, communities often lack the financial resources required to address the problem.

In May 2017, we announced the five-year, $6.85-million abandoned boats program. The bulk of funding being offered through this program, $5.6 million, is dedicated to helping partners such as other levels of government, indigenous groups, ports, and community groups to remove and dispose of the highest-priority abandoned or wrecked small vessels. In September 2017, we launched a complementary five-year, $1.3-million abandoned and wrecked vessels removal program. This initiative offers funding to assist in the removal of priority vessels and wrecks currently abandoned in federally owned small craft harbours. This program will benefit local commercial fishing industries and affected coastal communities.

Another way we are helping affected communities is by supporting education efforts. Not all vessel owners understand their responsibilities or are aware of their disposal options. Through the abandoned boats program, we are funding activities that educate small vessel owners on how to responsibly manage their vessels and how to make them more aware of available disposal options at the local level.

We are also supporting research on vessel recycling and environmentally responsible vessel design, which has the potential to, for example, further benefit communities through new business opportunities and reduce pressures on landfills.

I have spoken about some of the measures we are already taking to address wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, but new legislation is needed. The critical way in which Bill C-64 would make a meaningful difference is through prevention.

The Government of Canada is determined to take action on vessels that cause hazards before they harm the environment and become a burden on taxpayers. By being proactive, we can avoid, reduce, contain or control problems before they become bigger problems and become even more costly to address. The bill proposes new authorities to prohibit owners from abandoning their vessels before the fact.

Federal officials would be empowered to order owners to take action on vessels that are dilapidated or may pose hazards and are therefore at risk of becoming abandoned or wrecked. They could also impose significant penalties for noncompliance. We will work with affected communities that best know their local environments to confirm whether and what hazards may exist with problem vessels or wrecks and to identify the most appropriate actions to be taken.

Every effort will be made to thwart problems before our waterways are put at risk. Under the proposed legislation, vessel owners will be responsible for addressing their vessels or wrecks. When they are unwilling or unable to take action, we will be able to respond proactively and comprehensively thanks to the new powers contained in Bill C-64.

Even when we intervene, the owner will continue to remain liable for all costs and expenses.

This proposed legislation to address wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels will increase the strength and capabilities of Canada's marine safety regime. It will promote responsible shipping on Canada's oceans and in our inland waterways. It will also reduce pressures on our local communities that in the past were forced to take owners of dilapidated vessels to court and incur costly legal bills or pay the clean-up costs themselves.

Bill C-64 proposes to provide a powerful new tool to go after vessel owners who act irresponsibly, those whose carelessness and neglect put the health and safety of Canadians, the environment and the welfare of local economies at risk. Coupled with other actions we are taking under the oceans protection plan to address wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, these proactive measures will go a long way in responding to the concerns raised by residents of coastal communities.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again.

At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, my colleague asked that the bill compel the Minister of Transport to intervene and take all the responsibility for wrecks, rather than giving him the discretionary power to choose not to intervene.

There are thousands of wrecks across Canada and they pose a risk of pollution and place a heavy burden on coastal communities. We therefore want the minister to be compelled to intervene, which is not the case under Bill C-64.

Could my colleague comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been fighting to have the Kathryn Spirit removed from a drinking water lake in her riding since the previous Parliament. It is now six years, at least. Seven years, my goodness. We are tenacious. New Democrats are tenacious on this subject.

At the transport committee, we heard testimony that making government vessels subject to the same legislation that is meant to deal with private abandoned vessels would be really important. In fact, the manager of the Washington state program for abandoned vessels said:

We do deal with larger vessels ourselves in Washington State. Just a couple of years ago we removed a 170-footer that was previously a military tug. We've done old scientific research vessels. We've actually done a couple of old Canadian Coast Guard vessels that were purchased by someone in Washington several years ago.

One of the amendments we proposed in committee that was voted down was to have the government take some responsibility when it is selling off a government asset, to make sure that the person purchasing it has the means to look after the vessel until the end of its life. That was also voted down by the Conservatives and Liberals at committee, although we had strong witness testimony saying that we should take that route.

This is our last opportunity to agree with my amendment to close the loophole that would make government vessels also subject to Bill C-64, to deal with abandoned vessels.

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

moved:

That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing once again in the House to talk about the imperative for federal action to deal with abandoned vessels. Because of fishermen being forced out of the commercial fishing fleets, because fibreglass is reaching the end of its lifetime, and because climate change is creating different types of storms, all coasts of Canada are littered with abandoned vessels.

For 15 years, it has been clear that there is a jurisdictional hole that no government has been able to fill. As a result, it has fallen to coastal communities, which have had to try to jerry-rig solutions. My predecessor, Jean Crowder, as the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, had legislation in the House that was supported by the Liberal Party when it was the third party, so we had real optimism that in this session of Parliament, we would find legislative solutions for abandoned vessels.

I think back to my start, when I was first elected chair of the Islands Trust Council, which is a regional government in the Salish Sea charged with a mandate of preservation and protection. We were approached by ratepayers on Parker Island, just off Galiano Island, in the Salish Sea. They had been trying for 10 years to get a government department to agree to help them with a wrecked barge from the early 1980s that had been sitting on their shore for 10 years. Every department gave them the runaround. They were told to talk to navigation, talk to environment, talk to land management, and talk to the Coast Guard. They were at the end of their rope, so on behalf of the Islands Trust Council, I went to the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities conference. There were five other resolutions, not just from the Islands Trust Council but from local governments from all over British Columbia, the Sunshine Coast, and the Vancouver Island area that were facing the same problem, and we were all at the end of our rope.

We were able to bring together solutions. We said, “Let us get together and design what would be a good fit.” We looked to Washington state, which has had a very successful abandoned vessel program operating since the early part of this century and lots of working experience. We passed resolutions. The AVICC did, as did the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It became a big election issue in my riding, because with a huge, 100-foot, hulking boat that the federal government towed into their harbour, residents wanted to vote on this. They were looking for an MP who would take the imperative to act to Ottawa. I was so honoured to be elected to do this work.

In the legislation I tabled in this House, I built on Jean Crowder's bill, and then I updated it a year and a bit later when my amazing staff team found a way to build all the solutions from coastal communities into my private member's bill. That was in April 2017. I was on the verge of bringing all those solutions to the House to debate in December, when, as we will remember, the Liberals used some unused tactics to block and then basically vote down my bill to prevent it from even being debated and voted on. It was not a possible outcome I could ever have imagined.

Because the transport minister said he was going to legislate on abandoned vessels, I really hoped he would just plagiarize my bill and bring my elements into his or at least recognize, when he tabled his own bill, on Halloween last year, that Bill C-64's proposed remedy of penalizing and fining for abandoned and wrecked vessels would not work unless he brought in the elements of my bill. They would deal with the backlog and also fix vessel registration. If we are going to fine an abandoned vessel, we need to know who the owners are to send them a fine or penalty. This has been said in the House before.

The two pieces of legislation would have worked well together. Members could probably recite the pieces I proposed along with me. They would deal with the backlog by putting in place a pilot program, a vessel turn-in program, as has been done with great success in Washington and Oregon. It would be kind of a boat amnesty. People who did not know how to deal with a boat at the end of its life could get it out of the water where it could be safely recycled. We could create incentives for fibreglass recycling and piggyback on the government's avowed innovation agenda. Let us do something to help us deal with marine plastics and waste fibreglass. Let us find new markets so we can recycle and work with local salvage companies to deal with this mess.

We need to fix vessel registration so boat owners can be more accountable and so the costs do not end up on the backs of taxpayers. And there is more.

I had all of those solutions from coastal communities and coastal governments in my legislation. When my private member's bill was killed by the government, I worked hard at transport committee to insert each of those solutions into Bill C-64.

To my great disappointment and despite the fact that so many witnesses said they wanted all those elements in the legislation, people on the ground like the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, West Coast Environmental Law, local governments, marina operators, people who all endorsed the solutions from coastal communities that I proposed to amend the bill, both Liberals and Conservatives voted all of those amendments down.

Here I stand with my final attempt to improve this legislation and to bring the solutions that would help coastal communities into the bill.

During the committee's study, we identified the fact that the government is not going to apply the fine and penalty system that is in Bill C-64 to government-owned property. We have a lot of examples on the B.C. coast and the Atlantic coast of government assets becoming abandoned vessels.

The member of Parliament for Courtenay—Alberni was involved in the removal of the vessel Laurier from Baynes Sound, which is a rich aquaculture shellfish area. A lot of jobs are dependent on it. Everybody was worried when the Laurier sank. It turned out that it was an old fisheries inspection vessel with many stories. It was also a Coast Guard vessel. It was a government asset that became an abandoned vessel.

On the east coast the Cormorant is an old Navy ship that has been languishing at the dock in Bridgeport for over 10 years. It too is an abandoned government vessel. A lot of my British Columbia colleagues will have seen the old wrecked BC Ferries vessel still with the logo on its side. It is a disaster. It looks like a ghost ship.

We have Coast Guard vessels, Navy vessels, the whole gamut on the coast of British Columbia. My amendment before the House proposed to close that loophole and make the fines and penalties equivalent, whether it is a government asset or a private vessel, in order to bring accountability and fairness as well.

From both a fairness perspective and an environmental perspective, this is our last chance to try to improve the transport minister's bill.

We take pride in the fact that this legislation is going to be voted on during the final days of this Parliament because of the tenacity of and pressure from the Nanaimo Port Authority, the mayor of Ladysmith, and Chief John Elliott of the Stz'uminus first nation. There has been a lot of co-operation and that has led to some success and has really put this issue on centre stage.

I am pleased to see the pan-partisan support for solutions on abandoned vessels. I remain discouraged that some of the solutions that were proposed by coastal communities, that would have dealt with the backlog, that would have worked with salvage companies to create jobs and innovate and recycle are not present in Bill C-64. None of those elements have any presence in the transport minister's bill. There still is a lot of work for us to do as a country to get this problem off the backs of coastal communities.

Voting yes to my report stage amendment to remove the clause that would exempt the government from the same penalties that it is putting on private boaters would be the one thing that we could do in these final hours of this Parliament.

For the sake of coastal communities, for small businesses, for tourism, for the coastal environment, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-64. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Abandoned Vessels

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

Petitioners from B.C.'s coast call on the government to take urgent action on the abandoned vessel problem. This could prevent oil spills and marine pollution, and could save marine jobs and tourism from the blight of abandoned vessels on our coast. Specifically, they call on the government to legislate to improve the vessel registration system, to create a fee to help with the cost of vessel disposal to get the cost off the backs off taxpayers, and to pilot a vessel turn-in program to deal with the backlog, which government Bill C-64 does not do.

These petitioners are from Parksville, West Vancouver, Ladysmith, Edmonton, Nanaimo, and Sydney, and they all call on the government to take action.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will finish debating the last opposition day motion in this supply cycle. Then, we will debate the main estimates.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-68 on fisheries.

Next week will be a a busy one. Priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-45 on cannabis, Bill C-59 on national security, Bill C-64 on abandoned vessels, Bill C-69 on environmental assessments, and Bill C-71 on firearms.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act.

Following this, we will turn to Bill C-75, the justice modernization act, and Bill C-59, the national security act.

If time permits, we shall start debate at report stage of Bill C-68, the fisheries act, and Bill C-64 on derelict vessels.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. Next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are allotted days. Also, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will be voting on the main estimates Thursday evening.

Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters; Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act; Bill C-68 on fisheries; and Bill C-69 on environmental assessments.

We also know, however, that the other place should soon be voting on Bill C-45, the cannabis act. If a message is received notifying us of amendments, that will be given priority.

The Environment

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of Bill C-64, which addresses a long-standing issue that has not been taken care of by previous governments; that is the question of abandoned and derelict vessels. We have come up with an excellent bill. In fact, it has been through the committee in which my colleague had the chance to participate.

We are very proud of this bill and we hope the NDP and the Harper Conservatives will support the bill as we move it through report stage, third reading, and then quickly on to the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, to stop oil spills and protect jobs, the BC Chamber of Commerce on Saturday endorsed the same abandoned vessels solutions that I brought to the House.

Thirty-six thousand businesses joined hundreds of coastal communities that urged the transport minister to include solutions in his fix, like vessel turn in and recycling. Despite years of coastal advocacy, the Liberals' Bill C-64 still does not include coastal solutions to deal with thousands of wrecks off our coast. They have dragged anchor on resuming the debate.

Why is the government leaving abandoned vessels on our coast for another season?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. This evening the House will consider, in committee of the whole, the votes in the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Tomorrow morning, we will debate the motion to extend the sitting hours. After question period, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. We will resume that debate on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-64, the abandoned vessels act.

Finally, should Bill C-74, the budget bill, or Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act, be reported back to the House, they shall take priority in the calendar.

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.

[Ellen Burack]

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

[Ellen Burack]

I think it's important to also remember that the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard has a role at the start of this process.

Bill C-64 and the activities around it clarify that the first point of contact when a wreck is identified is the Canadian Coast Guard. The Coast Guard would then be in touch with Parks Canada, which leads on heritage wrecks. If there is military involvement, then it is with DND, and certainly with Transport Canada.

It is important to note also that in the definition of “receiver of wreck”, wrecked aircraft in water are included, so the regulations that Parks Canada is talking about to deal with heritage wrecks and war graves would potentially include aircraft in the water.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for your kind words welcoming me back. I recognize that I was not here for the completion of our study on Bill C-64, but I want to thank you for considering the amendments that were put forward by the Conservative of the committee. Also, thank you very much for your response to those amendments and for agreeing to hold this study on this very important issue. I am very glad to be back to be able to take part in it.

I also want to note that as part of this study, I've been made aware—I'm learning as we go—that there are a number of acts that could relate to this study. As has been mentioned, there is some work being contemplated between a number of ministries.

I think you referenced the question that was in my mind before you gave your opening statement, but I am wondering if you could expand on what kind of legislative framework would make the most sense in providing protections to these ocean war graves.

Do you see it taking place in regulation, as I think I heard? Would you see amendments being made to the acts that might provide oversight to this issue, or would you see, perhaps, the creation of a new act toward this end?

[Ellen Bertrand, Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, it's a privilege to be here with you today to discuss the role of Parks Canada in the protection and management of heritage wrecks in the context of the study of ocean war graves.

Parks Canada protects and presents nationally significant examples of natural and cultural heritage, and we administer 47 national parks, four national marine conservation areas, and 171 national historic sites. The Parks Canada Agency Act established Parks Canada as the federal lead for federal archaeology and built heritage. Over the past 50 years Parks Canada has built an international reputation as a leader in the field of underwater archaeology through work on projects such as the excavation of a 16th-century Basque whaling ship in Red Bay, Labrador.

The agency is currently the only government entity that has the operational capacity for evaluating and managing heritage wrecks. This is expertise is led by a team that my colleague Marc-André heads up at Parks Canada. A high-profile example of this expertise is the work we did discovering, excavating, and documenting the wrecks of Sir John Franklin's ships, HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, in Nunavut.

Under the Canada Shipping Act, which is still in force, the Minister of Transport and the Minister responsible for Parks Canada Agency have joint authority for making regulations to protect and preserve wrecks with heritage value. These authorities came into force in 2007, but no such regulations have yet been introduced. Bill C-64 would transfer these authorities to section 131 of the new act.

Regulations, whether developed under the existing act or a new piece of legislation, would establish a definition of heritage wrecks that would be exempt from certain salvage provisions, for example, entitlement to a salvage award, which could include the wreck itself. These regulatory authorities would allow for the creation of an inventory of heritage wrecks and, importantly, a requirement to report new discoveries. They would also define activities directed at heritage wrecks that would require a permit. This might include searching for a wreck, excavating a wreck, and removal of artifacts.

Of the thousands of historic shipwrecks in Canada, a small but significant portion is military wrecks. In addition to the wrecks of vessels and airplanes belonging to the Canadian Forces, we estimate that at least 50 military wrecks belonging to foreign governments have been located in Canadian waters. We estimate that perhaps another 100 remain undiscovered. Approximately 90% of these foreign military wrecks in Canadian waters are the property of the governments of the U.K., France, and the United States of America.

In some cases, a foreign government has identified Parks Canada to act on its behalf to ensure the appropriate management of the wrecks. The management of the wrecks of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror is a good example. We have a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the U.K., but under future heritage wreck regulations, Canada would be able to protect these foreign military wrecks from unauthorized disturbance.

Wrecks are often the final resting place of those who perished on board. Almost all Royal Canadian Navy vessels that sank in Canadian waters have had at least one loss of life. However, human remains are found on other wrecks as well.

A poignant example is the wreck of RMS Empress of Ireland, an ocean liner that sank in the estuary of the St. Lawrence in 1914. Over 1,000 passengers and crew perished, making it the worst peacetime maritime disaster in Canadian history.

While the Province of Quebec put into place specific legal measures to protect this particular shipwreck in response to years of looting at the site, the proposed heritage wreck regulations would provide automatic protection of such underwater grave sites from unauthorized disturbances.

Heritage wreck regulations would also support Parks Canada's ratification of international agreements that would help to protect wreck sites at the international level, including sites that contain human remains.

In 2001, Canada and 85 other countries voted to support the language of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Member states agree to cooperate and work towards the protection of underwater cultural heritage within their jurisdiction and the high seas. To date, there are 58 state parties to the convention. Before ratifying the convention, Canada would need to demonstrate that adequate measures are in place to protect underwater cultural heritage, including heritage wrecks.

Similarly, Canada worked with the U.S.A, the U.K., and France on a draft agreement to protect the wreck of RMS Titanic, which rests at the edge of our continental shelf, beyond the exclusive economic zone.

Over 1,500 lives were lost, and after it was discovered in 1985, explorers penetrated the hull and removed over 5,900 artifacts. They removed them largely for commercial purpose and profit.

While the agreement is not yet in force, it does promote in situ preservation of the wreck as a memorial and a historic site. The proposed heritage wreck regulations could be extended extraterritorially to such an area to provide legal tools to regulate activities of Canadian nationals and Canadian vessels directed at the Titanic.

It is the view of the Government of Canada that the introduction of regulations would provide an effective solution to protect all heritage wrecks in Canadian waters under Canadian jurisdiction, including those that may be considered ocean war graves. To that end, Parks Canada has recently begun reviewing past work in this area and has had preliminary discussions with Transport Canada, the Department of National Defence, and Veterans Affairs to look at options to develop a regulatory regime for the protection of heritage wrecks under the existing joint regulatory authority in view of the new piece of legislation.

We would like to sum up by saying that if there is a clear framework and a management regime through regulations, the Government of Canada will be able to protect these important cultural sites.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in relation to Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

This bill was built on my Motion No. 40 and will address environmental and economic concerns that have plagued our coastal communities for years. I look forward to the final vote on this bill in the House, and hopefully the full support of all members.

[Robert Lamirande, Director General, Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I would also like to acknowledge our presence on the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples.

I would like to thank the chair, vice-chairs, and committee members for the invitation to speak to you today to support your study of Bill C-262 and for the opportunity to elaborate on the suite of programs, policies, and legislative initiatives under the purview of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard that have made and will continue to make advances toward reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of Canada.

I am Robert Lamirande, the director of indigenous affairs and reconciliation directorate at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I would like to introduce my colleague, Marc Sanderson, acting director general, national strategies of the Canadian Coast Guard.

My directorate is responsible for providing policy advice on indigenous fishing and other matters toward advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples; negotiating and implementing program, treaty, and other constructive agreements on Fisheries and Oceans management; promoting fisheries related economic opportunities through programming to support indigenous capacity to fish safely and effectively; and building relationships and partnerships with indigenous communities through effective engagements, which we do hand in hand with the national strategies directorate of the Canadian Coast Guard.

We do this work because the sustainable use of the fishery resource, the protection of fish and fish habitat, the conservation and management of our oceans, and the safety of those on the water are a priority for the department—a priority held in common with indigenous communities.

And because Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have presence in many coastal and rural communities across Canada, we have worked hard with indigenous communities and groups to collaborate and partner on all aspects of our operations. These relationships are comprehensive, complex and dynamic. They are adaptive to the capacity of each indigenous community or group to participate in economic opportunities and in co-management.

We are now on a clearer path to a renewed, nation-to-nation, crown-Inuit, and government-to-government relationship, one that builds on the relationships and partnerships developed over the past decades. These relationships with indigenous communities are the touchpoints through which we will collaborate to articulate what reconciliation means in the context of Minister LeBlanc's portfolio.

This includes those changes to programs, policies, and laws necessary to demonstrate that we are moving to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This commitment to reconciliation is guided by the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. These principles, as you know, are themselves guided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples.

I want to highlight for you how Fisheries and Oceans Canada has worked in collaboration and in partnership with many indigenous communities. Through the innovative and successful Atlantic and Pacific integrated commercial fisheries initiatives, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides commercial fisheries access, business management capacity, and training needed to build self-sustaining, indigenous-owned and operated commercial fishing enterprises.

Through the aboriginal fisheries strategy and the aboriginal aquatic resource and oceans management programs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada helps indigenous groups acquire the scientific and technical capacity, means, and training to meaningfully participate in fisheries, oceans, and habitat collaborative management, including employing aboriginal fisheries guardians.

Budget 2017, a year ago, has taken these programs a major step forward, investing over $250 million over five years and $62 million ongoing annually. This includes ongoing funding for the Atlantic and Pacific integrated fisheries initiatives and northern expansion through a new northern integrated commercial fisheries initiative.

As we embark on the renewal of these programs, we are also undertaking a review to see where and how these programs can be strengthened in collaboration with the National Indigenous Fisheries Institute, a technical organization established in May 2017 whose board is made up of experts from national and regional indigenous organizations. The institute is enabling the co-development, co-design, and co-delivery of our indigenous programs.

However, working collaboratively and in partnership with indigenous communities is not focused solely on fisheries.

The Oceans Protection Plan, for example, is enabling indigenous communities and groups to meaningfully participate and partner in Canada's marine safety system, from waterways management to emergency preparedness and response.

We are working with indigenous communities and partners to create a new indigenous chapter of the Coast Guard Auxiliary in British Columbia. And discussions with other indigenous communities are exploring opportunities to establish additional auxiliary units in the Arctic and in British Columbia to bolster responses to emergencies and pollution incidents.

A national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels will build an inventory of the problem vessels, and a risk assessment methodology. Indigenous communities will be invited to participate in these assessments and to help prioritize interventions.

Through engagement with indigenous communities in British Columbia, the Canadian Coast Guard has launched an environmental response officer recruitment program. We are also nearing completion of a process to recruit Inuit students for a new rescue boat station in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut.

Ongoing training programs across the country will provide participants with the knowledge, skills, and hands-on experience to enable them to play a greater role in marine safety in their communities in a safe and effective manner.

As you know, reconciliation also means self-determination of indigenous communities often but not exclusively through negotiation and implementation of treaties. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is participating in over 40 active rights reconciliation self-government negotiations with indigenous communities on fisheries and oceans matters.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is also making systemic changes to better enable collaborative partnerships with indigenous peoples, and we have done so through important proposed legislative changes: Bill C-55, An act to amend the Oceans Act ; Bill C-64, An act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels; and Bill C-68, An act to amend the Fisheries Act. Proposed amendments to the Oceans Act will strengthen, among other things, the ability to designate marine protected areas on an interim basis and, as with all marine protected area designations, partnering with indigenous communities is the foundation for the successful protection of these unique aquatic ecosystems.

The proposed Wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act, under the Minister of Transport, with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, would enable, among other things, agreements with a government, council, or other entity authorized to act on behalf of an indigenous group to exercise the powers and perform certain duties or functions of the minister.

The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act and the programs enabled by these changes include certain amendments specifically aimed at advancing reconciliation, including new tools to enhance opportunities for partnering with indigenous peoples in the conservation and protection of fish, fish habitats, and shorelines; and amended provisions to enable agreements with indigenous governing bodies and any body, including a co-management body, established under a land claims agreement, to further the purpose of the act. Such agreements could enable the declaration of the law of an indigenous governing body, including a bylaw, to be equivalent in effect to a regulation under the Fisheries Act.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have advanced and will continue to advance reconciliation through concrete changes to programs, operational practices, and legislative frameworks that give voice to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As we move forward we will seize on the relationships and partnerships we have with indigenous communities to articulate renewed nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples within the mandates of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Thank you.

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

This proposal is reflecting on a great number of witnesses who described the vessel registry as being full of errors, not current, and not accurate, and the licensing database as being out of date and of very little use in tracking down owners, in many cases. Everybody is agreeing that polluter pays is a good principle, understanding that the intention of the minister's legislation here, Bill C-64, is to send fines and penalties to those who abandon their vessels, but without being able to actually find the owner, there's no way to send them a bill.

This amendment is intended to fix that vessel registration, to ask the Canadian registrar of vessels to have a reporting function, which has never been done. We weren't able to find any evidence of it. Although that person is in that position, he's never actually issued a public report. It's not only vessel registration but also pleasure craft licensing. At a minimum, it's to report on the number of vessels that are registered. If we don't get this kind of reporting to Parliament and this kind of transparency, I'm not sure we will really have a good handle on the backlog of abandoned vessels and the current legitimate and responsible owners who are out there doing the right thing with their vessels. Without this, we may not get a sense of whether we're really tackling the problem.

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

The previous one was about trying to keep the asset in good shape so that the worst-case scenario doesn't then happen, around disposal of crown assets. I did partly speak to this when I was introducing amendment NDP-10. The intention is that we don't have irresponsible owners take on crown assets that then deteriorate some of our highest-profile abandoned vessels in this country, which were originally government assets.

My question to the witnesses is, given that Treasury Board is already able to put limits on the sale, what's the remedy? How will we, as representatives of this government, not continue to be embarrassed by seeing Coast Guard and navy vessels, or as in the case of the Farley Mowat, a vessel that had been in the possession of government that they then sold to a third party that did not take care of it, and it became ruinously expensive for the taxpayer to address? Bill C-64 does not regulate or cover government vessels. How can we prevent this major source of high-profile abandonment?

[Ellen Burack]

Elsewhere in Bill C-64 is a requirement for a five-year review by one or more parliamentary committees. That would of course include all political parties in the review. The view is that this would be redundant as a result to have another five-year review, five years after the legislation is in place. Certainly, the act can be reviewed when that's necessary over its lifetime.

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

This is a piece imported from my private member's bill, Bill C-352, which was stopped in the House back in the fall. It would require the minister, every five years, to review the operation of this bill, Bill C-64, and report to the House about the efficacy of the act, and the resulting review that had happened.

We had a number of witnesses talk about the serious backlog. Andrew Kendrick, from Vard Marine, for example, talked about “starting from a bad place.” We need to address the backlog of abandoned vessels. They are a growing number. Having some transparency and accountability, and reporting to Parliament on how well this legislation worked, would certainly help with future amendments or regulatory changes as we modify.

There's very good precedent for this. The Aeronautics Act has a requirement “within two years after the day on which this subsection comes into force and every five years thereafter, commence a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this section”. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has an “every five year” review, and then several acts in this Parliament require periodic re-evaluations. That includes the Employment Equity Act, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, the Lobbying Act, the Canada Small Business Financing Act, the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, the Export Development Act, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act. Washington state again has a very good legislative model, and we heard directly from.... Their legislation has been in place for 15 years and they use this period review.

I urge my fellow committee members, for the sake of transparency and accountability, to vote yes to requiring a five-year reporting and review.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

In discussion, there seemed to be some confusion on whether or not this topic would fit in with Bill C-64, or if it would actually be better as a stand-alone piece of legislation because of the different areas it actually implicates. That's why we thought if we could do a separate study on it, that might give us a chance to really focus and shine a light on this particular issue in such a way as to give it the appropriate attention it properly deserves. Hopefully it will be tabled in the House, I understand, and from that tabling we will see some legislation come forward, either from the government or through a private member's bill that would take up this cause.

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

I'm going to encourage the committee members if you're not there already. This is on page 30 of C-64. This is extremely limited to really urgent situations if you read the wording. I'm proposing the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans “must”, but all the other wording continues as it is. The vessel or wreck has to pose a grave and imminent hazard. That's one. And that's if the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that it...so great discretion is already built in to the legislation as it is. Then on the declaration of the minister about the emergency zone, he or she gets to make up their own determination about the size that is reasonable with regard to the seriousness of the situation. So there's total discretion in here. And then it indicates a number of remedies, many of which could still include passage of fishing vessels, for example, through that area but just under certain circumstances.

With all of that, all that discretion built in and having this remedy aimed directly at a grave and imminent hazard, I urge my fellow members to recall that we had a government in Ottawa for 10 years that despite legislation and rules available to them, chose not to act and enforce them. Those of us who represent the coast remember that this government with good intentions on abandoned vessels will not always be in power, and if we say that there must be a declaration around an emergency zone, then that gives all of us as potential opposition MPs in the future to hold the minister accountable to uphold this part of the bill.

[Ellen Burack]

I guess I'd say a few things. Two years was selected in part because in the Navigation Protection Act, there was a two-year presumption as well. The very important difference in this case is that never before Bill C-64 would there have been an actual prohibition on abandonment. That was more of a process question, to be able to act on the vessel, whereas now there's the prohibition associated with it.

The 90 days was considered to be not long enough given that it's quite normal for vessel owners to leave their vessel unattended but not abandoned for at least a season. The length of a boating season varies across the country, so the choice was made to stick with the two years. Of course, there's the possibility over time to adjust that, if evidence suggests that's too long.

It doesn't change the fact that if there's evidence of abandonment, you don't have to wait two years. When there's evidence that a vessel has been abandoned, that can be dealt with immediately. It's also important to remember that the prohibition on abandonment is only one of the ways in which this legislation enables action. There's also the prohibition on a dilapidated vessel being in the same location for more than 60 days without the approval of the owner or operator of the site, or on a vessel being adrift for more than 48 hours. There are other things that allow you to act quickly in specific circumstances and, more generally, if there's evidence of abandonment, it can happen at any time. The two years was chosen as the starting point for the presumption of abandonment.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the 42nd Parliament, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels, and salvage operations.

From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Froozan Housany, senior policy analyst; Kathy Nghiem, acting director, preparedness and response; Marc Sanderson, acting director general, national strategies; and Yvette-Marie Kieran, legal counsel, legal services.

From the Department of Justice, we have Jaime Bishop, legal counsel.

From the Department of Transport, we have Marc-Yves Bertin, director general, marine policy; Ellen Burack, director general, environmental policy; Jeffrey Johnson, manager, clean water policy; and Michelle Sanders, director, clean water policy.

You are all here to answer questions from the committee, to comment on the various amendments, and to provide the committee with that information. Thank you all for being here.

We will move right into the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title is postponed.

The chair calls clause 2.

If I have the support of the committee, when there are no amendments, I would like to group the clauses so that we can move along swiftly. Otherwise, we could be here until eight o'clock, and we do have a vote.

Do I have unanimous consent to group them when there are no amendments?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

You are telling me that a funding program would be part of the solution.

It would indeed be a step in the right direction, but that alone would not be enough. We also have to take certain measures and make rules in order to actually prevent the problem. We are cleaning up our waterways which are essentially contaminated by wrecks, but we also have to find a way of preventing these situations.

I think we need more than money. We need to take measures, enact legislation and give certain powers to the municipal authorities, provinces or the federal government. I am therefore of the opinion that bill C-64 does not go far enough. I am no expert, but I wish to do my duty as a member of Parliament. I would like the people who are directly confronted with the problem to propose some solutions.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, madam Chair.

My next question is for all three of you.

I am going to read to you the purpose of the act: The purpose of this Act is to promote the protection of the public, the environment, including coasts lines and shorelines, and of infrastructure by, among other things, regulating wrecks and vessels posing hazards, prohibiting vessel abandonment, and recognizing the responsibility and liability of owners for their vessels.

Mr. Smith, a little while ago, you showed us photos of scenes that were rather depressing.

I am not a regular member of this committee, but I have a question.

You showed us photos that paint a bleak landscape. I am sorry. You deserve more, as do all Canadian waterways.

We want to find solutions to the problem caused by these existing wrecks, but does bill C-64 have enough teeth to fulfill its purpose?

Mr. Smith, I would ask you to respond first.

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

The amount of the B.C. coastline that has a municipal authority within it is a tiny fraction, right? The chief would know that too.

I was really happy to hear encouragement from the Ladysmith Maritime Society for including in the legislation some of the models that we've seen in the Washington state abandoned vessel program, legislating that some of the fees from vessel registration go into an abandoned vessel response fund. In terms of legislating that we have a vessel turn-in program, which has been successfully done in Washington and Oregon, I think I heard you say you'd like to see that in Bill C-64 so that we're sure it goes forward. Is that fair to say?

[Rod Smith]

Technically under Bill C-64, they would be called dilapidated. Some in fact are hanging on by a thread, so to speak.

This is a picture of the Ladysmith Community Marina. Our marina is in the front, and the town is in the back.

Here are couple of pictures just to show you what we have.

There's our welcome centre, which is federally and provincially funded.

Here's the approach from the town onto our marina.

We do a number of free festival events for communities. This was an event with marine biologists and divers bringing up specimens under a special licence, for kids to get a glimpse of what's under the water.

We run a program called Dine on the Dock, for which we bring in guest chefs to let people sample their wares. We are a non-profit society, so any money raised goes to the chefs, for example.

This was from Kids' Day. It's actually called Kids' Pirate Day, but we're looking for a new name for that. About 6,000 come down. It's a wonderful family event. Everything is free, and there's a fishing derby to help the Kinsmen.

Next door is water lot 651. This is an early morning shot I took. You can see the smoke over the water. Those are illegal wood stoves. This was about a week ago. It was a strangely cold day in British Colombia, and the wood stoves were fired up. This shows about 15% of what's there.

In this shot with the post in the middle, just at the bottom, you can see some logs in the water. That's the dividing line between our water lots. To the left is our marina, and to the right are the illegally moored boats. There are three tied together, which is typical of rafting by squatters. One will be a living quarter; one might be a sleeping quarter, and one is a storage area.

That's a 90-foot 100-tonne landing craft, a barge, on which a gentleman brings in metal vessels on a regular basis and cuts them up for salvage. Once he's done with them, they seem to disappear in the night. You can see the three rafted boats off to the left as well.

This is an example. In this particular one, there are nine boats rafted together, with two people living on them. When one sinks, they step to another. On the right-hand side, you can see a turquoise sloping vessel. It's actually just held there by the bow rope. It sank.

Here's another example of a typical live-aboard vessel by a squatter. You can see they're just getting onto their boat.

This is another typical example of three rafted together. This is the Viki Lyne II when it had 33,000 litres of oil onboard it. It took the community four years to get rid of it. The boat to the right of it burned. The one to the left of it sank about two months ago.

Here are three. You can see one in the foreground that burnt earlier in the year. One sank beside it, and there's one that's just burned behind it.

Captain Wootton said they had removed seven or so vessels over 18 months. I've seen six burn. I've had too many calls in the middle of the night. I've had too many people who have been threatened by squatters. You can imagine what this does when you have a marina full of visitors and that is what's going on next door.

So to your question, most are pleasure craft, but almost all are dilapidated. I doubt that there's a vessel or two that could safely navigate the waters.

[Vice-Chief Terry Teegee, Regional Chief, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, Co-chair, National Fisheries Committee, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to acknowledge that right now I'm in Vancouver on Coast Salish territory of the Musqueam Coast Salish people, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh.

I am the elected chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. I have recently been appointed to the national fisheries committee that I co-chair with Regional Chief Roger Augustine. I've been in Vancouver for the last couple of days to talk about all the national fisheries issues, which include many of our coastlines. I've been asked here to speak on this issue with regard to Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

Out here on the coast of British Columbia we've experienced many issues with abandoned and other vessels that have become derelict and are spilling deleterious materials, such as oil, diesel, or gas into the ocean along the coast of British Columbia. They are threatening the fish and other sea life that we've been dependent upon for many generations since time immemorial.

The AFN executive committee that I represent has 10 regional chiefs. Each chief is elected by their community and the many other communities they represent in each province. I think this is the first time we've been allowed to present to the standing committee. I'm quite surprised by that, considering that many first nations depend on many of the alliances from coast to coast to coast. Over the 151 years of colonization, we have had many agreements with the provincial and federal governments, whether treaties or other types of agreements, whereby we have been trying to create a relationship that respects both our laws and governance. Right now, when we're talking about these different bills that affect our way of life, we're considered an afterthought. Meanwhile, we're having different agreements that should have mutual respect and recognition of our rights and title and interest and treaty rights.

As an engagement process, I look forward and hope that those who are presenting today and in the future can create a space for our first nations who depend on the coasts of this country, and also have input into how best to deal with derelict vessels along the coasts of this country we call Canada. Especially during the Trudeau Liberal government, we're living in a time of reconciliation. We need to include the many issues that affect many of our people, whether social or resource-based. We need to be involved in those decisions, especially when it comes to governance as it relates to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its tenets of free, prior, and informed consent.

What really concerns me here is that there have been a number of issues from coast to coast to coast that have affected the resources we depend on. One of the situations out here, for example, was the Nathan E. Stewart that went derelict and sank in the Pacific coastal waters where a lot of its diesel fuel and oil spread along the coast of the Heiltsuk people, the coastal people there.

[Rod Smith, Executive Director, Ladysmith Maritime Society]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you to comment on Bill C-64 and the issue of abandoned vessels. Let me start by complimenting Minister Garneau and his team at Transport Canada for drafting Bill C-64. I also think I should recognize MPs Bernadette Jordan and Sheila Malcolmson for their tireless work on this issue of abandoned vessels.

Ladysmith on Vancouver Island is a community of about 8,600 people. Tourism is one of our key economic drivers in the community. In 2010, visionary leaders in the community set the Ladysmith Maritime Society on a path to attract large-scale international marine tourism. In 2012, with $1.5 million of federal support, half a million dollars from Island Coastal Economic Trust, and strong support from the local Stz'uminus First Nations, we opened our welcome centre and began work on a visitor dock extension.

Prior to these enhancements, about 2,000 marine visitors a year tied up at our marina. This past year, we welcomed 6,300 marine visitors, 60% of whom were from the United States. These visitors inject over $1.5 million per year into the local economy and become our best ambassadors. Recently, the Ladysmith Community Marina was recognized as one of the top 10 marinas out of 400 or so in the Canadian and U.S. Pacific northwest and had been branded by our visitors as the friendliest marina on the west coast, a testament to the efforts of our 200-plus volunteers.

Sadly, all of this is at risk. A simple Google search of Ladysmith harbour results in a disturbing number of headlines about derelict and wrecked vessels, derelict Viki Lyne II, “Boat goes up in flames in Ladysmith harbour”, and about a boat sinking in the harbour and leaking oil. We're now hearing comments from our boating visitors like, “Great marina. I love the food and the people, but we won't be back. The noise and the smells from those boats next door are just too much.”

The 50 or so abandoned, dilapidated, and wrecked vessels adjacent to our marina are a serious threat to our growing tourism industry and an environmental, health and safety, and economic risk to the people of the harbour, including Stz'uminus First Nation, who rely on a 150,000-pound annual oyster licence in the area, as well as other local shellfish producers and processors.

There are some important new tools contained in Bill C-64. Clearly designating the Coast Guard as the lead agency, as I heard Minister Garneau say on February 5, is a big step. Hopefully, this will put an end to the jurisdictional complexity that communities have had to deal with. It should not have taken from June 2012 to October 2016 to remove a vessel that had already been identified in a marine survey commissioned by the Coast Guard as being in imminent danger of sinking and spilling 33,000 litres of oil into the waters of Ladysmith harbour, as was the case of the Viki Lyne II. I have the greatest respect for the Coast Guard, and I'm sure they welcome this change as well.

I do, however, have some concerns about Bill C-64, or perhaps more correctly, what's missing from it for us to effectively address the reality of what is happening on the B.C. coast. I have two examples. First, the recently introduced abandoned boats program falls short in its application. The cost-sharing formula with local communities is unfair, and, as recognized by Minister Garneau on February 5 before this committee, the funding for the program is inadequate. There's a huge gap between the cap of the abandoned boats program at $50,000 and the reality of dealing with the most prevalent vessels of concern on the coast, ex-fishing vessels and tugs, which made up over 70% of the problem vessels dealt with, using the ship-source oil pollution fund, between 2005 and 2015.

Second, on February 5, I heard Minister Garneau answer a question about live-aboards by saying it was an issue to be dealt with at the community and provincial level. Unfortunately, his response and the inability of Bill C-64 to clearly address the issue of squatters living on dilapidated vessels creates a large grey area for those of us in coastal communities and ignores the life-cycle reality of a vessel, resulting in Bill C-64 not being as comprehensive as I think it was intended to be.

Abandoned dilapidated vessels with no apparent ownership commonly serve as free temporary accommodation for squatters, who often take little interest in sewage disposal, stewardship of hazardous fluids, or vessel upkeep. Without the opportunity to identify a vessel as dilapidated and initiate a repair or removal regime, even if there is someone temporarily living on the vessel, there can only be one outcome: the eventual sinking or burning of that vessel, and the release of pollutants into the harbour, as was recently the case with the 85-tonne Anapaya in Ladysmith harbour.

[Bonnie Gee, Vice-President, Chamber of Shipping]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to provide the Chamber of Shipping's perspective on Bill C-64, an act that will take measured steps to address concerns with wrecks, abandoned and hazardous vessels.

The Chamber of Shipping represents the interests of international cargo and passenger vessels calling in the ports in Canada and, to a lesser extent the domestic ferry tug and barge operators. The west coast serves as Canada's busiest gateway for Canadian trade and tourism, and the members of the Chamber of Shipping support efforts towards a healthy and vibrant marine ecosystem.

Overall, we are supportive of Bill C-64 and would like to acknowledge Transport Canada for its approach and work on this important matter. While the bill as proposed will not resolve all the associated challenges in the short term, it does establish a strong legislative framework to build upon. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of many members of Parliament, including Ms. Sheila Malcolmson and Ms. Bernadette Jordan, in advancing the concerns of local communities.

We agree with the many witnesses who have already appeared before this committee that Bill C-64 is a positive step forward in demanding greater accountability from vessel owners, establishing the appropriate authorities and processes to deal with hazardous vessels, and outlining consequences for non-compliance. Given the expanse of Canada's coastline, the challenge will be ensuring that the legislation is fair, effective, and enforceable.

Bill C-64 falls in line with the various commitments made by the Government of Canada under the oceans protection plan to keep Canadian waters and coasts safe and clean for today's use while protecting them for future generations.

Bill C-64 seeks to implement the international convention that provides for uniform international rules and procedures to ensure the prompt and effective removal of wrecks and fair compensation for the costs. The Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, adopted in 2017 by the International Maritime Organization, entered into force on April 14, 2015, one year after ten nations signed the convention without reservation. We welcome Canada's accession to the Nairobi Convention, as it provides communities with added protection against vessels of concern and the potential costs associated with wreck removal in a manner that adheres to international regimes.

Global operators seek certainty in the regulatory environment and general consistency of applications supports a higher level of awareness and compliance. Canada continues to be a strong contributor to the development of good policy at the International Maritime Organization. We applaud Transport Canada's commitment to the important work of this United Nations agency.

International shipping requires a regulatory framework that is consistent, effective and implemented globally. As a founding member, Canada celebrates its 70th year of membership in the IMO this year. To date, 41 countries have ratified the convention, representing 75% of the world's tonnage. These countries include significant flag states and coastal nations such as China, Singapore, Panama, Liberia and Germany. Almost all vessels over 300 tonnes engaged in international trade will already have the appropriate insurance in place as required under article 10 of the Nairobi Convention.

A wreck as defined in the convention includes any object that is lost at sea from a ship. Under Bill C-64 the definition is expanded to include the following:

equipment, stores, cargo or any other thing that is or was on board a vessel and that is sunk, partially sunk, adrift, stranded or grounded, including on the shore.

Earlier this week, Gord Johns, the member of Parliament for Courtenay—Alberni, again raised concerns and expressed his frustration with government inaction following an incident involving 35 containers that were lost at sea just eight nautical miles off the west coast in November 2016. Several containers ended up on the shorelines along the coast. Unfortunately, in this case the carrier responsible was in receivership, leaving communities to deal with the mess, because the provisions offered in Bill C-64 with respect to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' authority to direct, dismantle, or dispose of a vessel or wreck were non-existent. This will be addressed once Bill C-64 passes through Parliament and receives royal assent.

Ratification of this convention through Bill C-64 will also provide communities and many indigenous peoples with the mechanism to realize a broader assessment on the impact of ship-related debris in a timely manner and an opportunity to fully recover any costs associated to the assessment of hazardous debris removal operation.

All of the above are important and positive attributes of Bill C-64 , which, as mentioned at the outset of my comments, the Chamber of Shipping supports.

Thank you very much for your time and attention and for inviting the Chamber of Shipping to appear today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We continue our study on Bill C-64.

Our witnesses for this panel are from the Assembly of First Nations, Terry Teegee, chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, by teleconference; from the Chamber of Shipping, we have Bonnie Gee, vice-president, by video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia; and from the Ladysmith Maritime Society, we have Rod Smith, the executive director. Welcome to all of you.

We will turn it over to Chief Teegee for five minutes, if you would like to start.

We're still waiting, so how about we go to Bonnie Gee, since you're ready, for five minutes, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today and for being flexible, given the circumstances we face today.

I do want to thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for your comments regarding the fact that this is a non-partisan issue and has support from all members of all parties in this House.

I do want to keep my questions very brief because I do want to hear from all of you, so perhaps you'll answer my questions in the order you presented just so, for those who are on the telephone, you will know when you may want to provide your response.

Quite simply, do you have any concerns about Bill C-64? If so, I'm imagining that you might have some amendments, and I would like to know what they might be.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of this 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2017, we are resuming our consideration of Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

Welcome to you all.

Witnesses, I apologize for starting late, but that's Ottawa and Parliament. We're never quite sure.

Recognizing that it's also Valentine's Day this evening and that people possibly have some other plans, we'll try to put this into two 45-minute sessions. We'll have five minutes for each of our witnesses and then we'll have the remaining time in that block for a round of questions. Then we can go on to the next one, and hopefully we can be completed by 6 p.m.

In the first panel of witnesses, from the Town of Bridgewater, we have David Mitchell, the mayor. Welcome.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has heard the concerns of Canadians, asking for a more robust and comprehensive approach to address the issue of wrecked, abandoned, or hazardous vessels.

On October 30, we did introduce the wrecked abandoned or hazardous vessels act, or Bill C-64. The proposed legislation is intended to protect coastal and shoreline communities, the environment, and infrastructure.

The proposed legislation will fill gaps within our legislative system by making owners legally responsible for their vessels that reach end of life. Ultimately, it is about prevention, helping to reduce future occurrences of wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels and the impacts of those that do occur.

We invite all members to support this innovative and important bill as it goes through the parliamentary process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think maybe my friend opposite did not hear the first four minutes of my speech.

There is a lot to support in the transport minister's Bill C-64, but it is missing the entire program I have just described. I have not heard any rationale from the government about why it is leaving it out. It was described by the Washington State derelict vessel removal program, which has been in operation 15 years, as now an integral part of its prevention program.

Knowing there is nothing in the transport minister's bill to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels, will the government accept the amendment I am going to propose in committee to introduce a voluntary turn-in program for abandoned vessels to deal with the backlog?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her concern for her and many other coastal communities.

I am proud to be here today to talk about the actions this government has taken to address the important issue of abandoned and wrecked vessels, an issue affecting many communities across Canada.

Our government has been looking at the best practices on the issue of abandoned and wrecked vessels. We have considered these carefully and have adopted the elements that make the most sense for Canada into a national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels. This strategy was announced as part of our unprecedented $1.5 billion oceans protection plan in November 2016.

In May and September 2017, two funding programs for the removal and disposal of small priority boats were launched, including one with a public education component and a vessel recycling and design research component.

We worked with other levels of government to identify options to improve vessel ownership identification systems and initiated a study on identifying gaps in our vessel registration systems for large vessels.

We have worked with the Canadian Coast Guard to develop a national inventory of abandoned and wrecked vessels and a methodology to assess the risks associated with these vessels.

We have also been engaging Canadians in discussions on options to create a robust polluter-pay approach for future vessel clean up with owner financed funds.

Very important is the fact that on October 30, 2017, our government tabled Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act, the key legislative component of our plan.

Bill C-64 is extremely comprehensive in its approach to tackling the issue of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels. The proposed legislation will bring the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks into Canadian law and strengthen vessel owner liability. It will address irresponsible vessel management, including a prohibition on abandonment. It will enhance federal powers to take proactive action on problem vessels.

We will continue to collaborate with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments; indigenous groups; and coastal communities to implement our comprehensive national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels. We look forward to all members' support of Bill C-64 as it goes through the parliamentary process to implement this important legislation that will help protect our coasts and shores.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to describe the abandoned vessel that sank in Ladysmith Harbour, the 90-foot, 100-year-old Anapaya. It has been on Transport Canada's vessel inventory of concern since 2014. It had been identified as a risk to sink. When it went down, after being overwhelmed by rain and the bilge pumps could not keep it up, the Coast Guard, bless it, took action. It boomed the wreck and contained the oil spill. That was so important for Ladysmith Harbour, because there are shellfish jobs at risk from even the smallest oil spill. The Coast Guard acted, which we are very grateful for. It lifted this 90-foot-long, beautiful old wooden boat from the bottom of the harbour, with everyone saying the whole way along that it would have been much easier to have prevented the boat from sinking in the first place.

A significant take-away for me afterward was that the previous owners, in fact the people who had been living on the Anapaya, knew that she was nearing the end of her life. She was an abandoned boat by the time she sank. The previous owners said they did not have the economic means to prevent her from sinking, but if there had been a vessel turn-in program, the same that Oregon and Washington states have very successfully used to get at the backlog of abandoned vessels, it would have prevented it from sinking and becoming a problem in the first place. This was a significant element of my abandoned vessel legislation, Bill C-352, which was famously blocked in the House. It was the first time that had ever happened to a bill. I went through all the appeals and was told that it was the Liberal majority that squashed it in the end.

The interesting thing is that now that we are studying the transport minister's bill, Bill C-64, at committee, I have been able to ask all kinds of witnesses if they wish that a vessel turn-in program were still part of the legislative offer for Canadians. It makes sense. It has been proposed by local governments in British Columbia for many years, and it was on that basis that I included it in my legislation, Bill C-352.

In the last few days, there has been testimony from Troy Wood, the manager of the derelict vessel removal program in Washington state, saying that the vessel turn-in program was the prevention arm of their very successful derelict vessel removal program. Sara Anghel, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, said there is no place to take boats before they become a hazard for her industry, which is significantly made up of vessel manufacturers and marine operators. She said they would welcome the opportunity to create a viable recycling program and there needs to be a place to take them.

The committee also heard from Kyle Murphy from Washington state, Peter Luckham, chair of Islands Trust Council, and Anna Johnston from West Coast Environmental Law. Georgia Strait Alliance said very clearly that in the transport minister's bill, it is left wondering about the absence of a voluntary turn-in program that could deal with this backlog and help vessel owners, who do not have the means to dispose of them responsibly and do the right thing.

I ask the government why it did not include a vessel turn-in program in its legislation to resolve abandoned vessels.

Fisheries Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets has also championed another bill we are working on in the House right now, Bill C-64, which deals with derelict vessels, and I thank her for that.

She happened to mention that we had a good fishery in 2012 and we will have a good fishery again. I think of the historical nature of the Fisheries Act, which came into being in 1868. Let us consider what we have lost. We had an abundant fishery, when we consider the Atlantic coast and the great Newfoundland cod fishery, which maintained communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and much of Atlantic Canada for generations. By the early 1990s, that fishery was destroyed.

Rebuilding fisheries is one of the things I am pleased about with respect to this legislation. It changed the focus to restoration of fisheries. I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on that aspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to all our witnesses. It was very informative.

For the information of committee, any amendments that anyone is considering for Bill C-64 should be in by February 22. We have one more meeting on Wednesday on Bill C-64, and when we come back after the constituency week, we will be dealing with it on Monday, February 26.

Thank you all very much. The meeting is adjourned.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome all of our witnesses here. Thank you so much for joining us.

It is interesting to note that this is not the first bill tabled in the House and then referred to this committee on which first nations witnesses have indicated that they have not been consulted.

I guess I would pose my first question to you, Mr. Ken Paul, and I only say Ken Paul because we have Chief Paul sitting at the table as well.

In other bills, there are provisions that require that when making a decision under an act, the minister must consider “any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada”. Can you tell me if you are aware of any such provision in Bill C-64? If not, what might be your recommendation with regard to this bill, and what might be any amendments that need to be made to this bill in order to satisfy some of the concerns that you raised in your testimony?

[Anna Johnston, Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association]

Thank you very much, and thank you for this invitation to appear before you on unceded Algonquin territory.

My name is Anna Johnston. I'm a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law.

West Coast has been a non-profit for 40 years now, helping British Columbians protect their environment through law. We work with coastal communities, local governments, and first nations to strengthen environmental laws protecting their lands and waters, and I am truly honoured to be before you today.

I'd like to commend this government for taking action on the issue of wrecked, abandoned, dilapidated vessels, and for all of you, it's really been great to see the parties come together to move this bill forward and strengthen it together.

Abandoned vessels cause significant environmental, safety, economic, and aesthetic concern to coastal communities in British Columbia. I believe the same 2014 inventory that my friend here just referred to identified 245 vessels of concern in British Columbia, and those are only the ones that were reported by local governments. Of these, 165 were pleasure craft or sailboats, so the majority of the problem that is faced in British Columbia is not from large commercial vessels. They tend to be smaller pleasure craft spilling fuel and decaying in local harbours and waters.

Bill C-64 is a good start toward helping with this issue. I have a few suggestions that, if implemented, I believe will help strengthen the bill and allow it to fulfill the government's goal of more effectively dealing with derelict, abandoned, and wrecked vessels.

My first suggestion is to better ensure that the goal of dealing with these vessels is met by strengthening the discretionary nature of the act and actually requiring ministers and receivers of wreck to take action.

The second recommendation I have is related to the first. To the degree that discretion remains under the act, in my experience, when the government doesn't take action on an issue, the public wants to see why. Therefore, I would recommend that there be an amendment to explicitly enable the public to request ministers or receivers of wreck to deal with, or authorize them to deal with, abandoned, derelict, and wrecked vessels, and to combine that ability to request with a mandatory response that is made publicly available within a prescribed period of time.

My third recommendation is to better enable the tracking down of vessel owners, as has been mentioned here before, by requiring registration of pleasure craft.

Do I have a couple of minutes? Can I elaborate on those points?

[Peter Luckham, Chair, Islands Trust Council, Islands Trust]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the important work you are doing for Canada.

I would like to acknowledge our meeting on Algonquin Anishinabe territory, and also recognize the Coast Salish territory where I live and which I am mandated by the Province of British Columbia to preserve and protect.

I represent the 26 elected trustees of the Islands Trust, who represent 35,000 residents and property owners of British Columbia's Gulf Islands. The Islands Trust is a federation of 13 special-purpose local government bodies, established in 1974 by the Province of British Columbia through the Islands Trust Act.

Through the act, we are mandated to preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment, in co-operation with others, for all British Columbians.

The Gulf Islands are an ecologically rich and internationally renowned tourism destination. As a professional scuba diver and a mariner, I have seen many a sunken or scuttled boat, as well as numerous derelict or abandoned vessels along our shores.

I would like to acknowledge member of Parliament Sheila Malcolmson for her years of tireless work on this issue, and would like to thank this government for creating Bill C-64.

Three and a half million people live in the area surrounding the Islands Trust. There are hundreds of thousands of pleasure craft in the region. Many of them are lovingly maintained older vessels, but others are beyond hope.

A 2014 Transport Canada study identified our region as a hot spot in Canada for abandoned vessels. We are very concerned about small fibreglass and concrete boats that are reaching the end of their service life.

What is the underlying cause for abandoned and derelict vessels? I would suggest the lure of the sea. This powerful attraction for adventure and exploration draws the bold and the foolhardy. All too often, many of those drawn to the siren's song seem to not have the awareness, the skills, the experience, and the resources to properly care for an old boat. A lack of clear regulation does not help.

It is a regular occurrence in the bays and harbours of our islands to witness a known at-risk vessel sink at its moorings after the winter storms, leaking fuel and oil and taking batteries, garbage, paint, and other toxins to the nurseries of our sensitive marine environment.

One of the 450 islands within the Islands Trust federation, the municipality of Bowen Island, has dedicated 400 hours of staff time and more than $75,000 since 2014 to removing more than four tonnes of debris related to boats, wrecks, and mooring buoys. This is a significant and unsustainable cost to a small local government.

These vessels have little or no value and are readily transferred to those drawn to the sea. Circumstances force these vessels to go to a mooring or to set anchor. Ultimately, they are abandoned or blown onto a beach in a storm, or worse, scuttled in the dead of night.

The lack of vessel registration and mooring buoy management promotes abandonment. We need to put an end to this lack of accountability of irresponsible boat owners.

The Islands Trust has been advocating for long-term solutions to abandoned vessels since 2010. We and others have suggested the following strategies: create a funding mechanism, such as a fee on vessel registration; enhance licensing and registration for all vessels and validate the existing data; create a vessel turn-in program; establish public education programs and vessel product stewardship programs; and confirm the responsibilities of the agencies having authority over derelict and abandoned vessels.

I ask you to strengthen Bill C-64 with actions that focus on preventing abandonment. For example, establish a program of review and approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for private mooring buoy registration, and actively conduct enforcement; perform regular mooring buoy sweeps with other agencies; inventory and monitor vessels at risk; provide opportunities for appropriate disposal of old boats; and establish a permanent program beyond the 2017-2022 funding.

We appreciate the intent of the work behind Bill C-64. This is a big step in the right direction and responds to many of our concerns. We're glad to see that charges have been laid recently in British Columbia against offenders who deliberately scuttled their vessels. Successfully getting the message out that the government is serious about penalizing offenders and helping those who ask for help will, I believe, reduce the occurrence of abandonment.

Transport Canada's plans for improving pleasure boat registration and developing an ongoing revenue stream for removals is crucial to long-term success in preventing abandonment, just as the Washington State derelict vessel removal program has greatly assisted San Juan County in managing abandoned boats.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and thank you for inviting me here today.

[Ken Paul, Director, Fisheries and Integrated Resources, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat]

First, I'd like to acknowledge that we are on Algonquin traditional lands, and that we want to respect their sovereignty.

I also want to mention that I'm replacing Chief Bob Gloade, who had a medical emergency yesterday. He was supposed to appear on our behalf as one of our co-chairs, and I hope that we can send prayers for a speedy recovery to him and his family.

Chief Terry mentioned our treaties. I would like to read an excerpt from the treaty of 1752, the Peace and Friendship Treaty, between His Majesty the King and Jean Baptiste Cope. Article 7 specifically says:

That the Indians shall use their best Endeavours to save the lives and goods of any People Shipwrecked on this Coast, where they resort, and shall Conduct the People saved to Halifax with their Goods, & a Reward adequate to the Salvadge shall be given them.

This actual treaty and this passage itself can be found on the Indigenous and Northern Affairs website.

We understand that with Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, the Government of Canada seeks to strengthen liabilities of owners, prohibit abandonment, enhance federal powers to undertake assessments, introduce compliance and enforcement regimes, and clarify the roles of Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Coast Guard.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities must consider the points that follow.

The Mi'kmaq and Maliseet are signatories of the treaties of peace and friendship with the crown. The treaties are pre-Confederation nation-to-nation agreements, and Canada has officially recognized the treaties of 1752 and 1760-1761 through court cases.

The Mi'kmaq and Maliseet have never ceded any territorial lands or waters to the crown or Canada. As original inhabitants of territory spanning Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Newfoundland, and Quebec, Mi'kmaq and Maliseet enjoy aboriginal treaty rights that originate from our inherent rights.

According to Canadian law, the crown has the fiduciary duty to consult with first nations chiefs on any legislation that may impact aboriginal and treaty rights, and this includes Bill C-64.

The treaty of 1752 identifies and acknowledges a critical role of Mi'kmaq people in rescue and salvage operations of shipwrecks on the Atlantic coast.

Bill C-64 proposes new authorities to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard with respect to wrecks and abandoned vessels for salvage and environmental damage. This includes fees and penalties. These authorities and the roles of first nations must be discussed in full consultation with Mi'kmaq and Maliseet.

Bill C-64 proposes new registries for vessel owners, along with associated fees. Any new regulations, policies, administration, or costs must be discussed in full consultation with Mi'kmaq and Maliseet.

Economic opportunities to perform vessel deconstruction, recovery, salvage, and transport must give special consideration and preference to Mi'kmaq and Maliseet enterprises.

Environmental and economic impacts of shipwrecks and abandoned vessels in unceded traditional territories must also take into consideration the social and cultural impacts to Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people. This must include, but not be limited to, indigenous traditional knowledge, which has been expressed in Canada's proposed Bill C-69, the impact assessment act.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Chief Terrance Paul]

Thank you for inviting me to take part in today's discussion. I am pleased to be here on behalf of both the Atlantic Policy Congress and my community of Membertou to speak to Bill C-64.

As the original caretakers of our lands and waters, we, the Mi'kmaq, know that we have both rights and expertise to share that take into account the appropriate methods and the impacts that decommissioning and removal have on our environment.

For your information, according to our treaties, the Mi'kmaq have first rights to salvage operations. However, over time that has not been the process that has taken place in many cases.

This is why meeting with you today is so important for us and the Mi'kmaq population of more than 22,000 people across Nova Scotia and the indigenous people across Canada. We recognize the great opportunity in economic development for first nations regarding the decommissioned, abandoned, and hazardous vessels in our waters. Because the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq have extensive experience and history in the fisheries, we see working with you, our government, as an open and ongoing dialogue about the advancement of Bill C-64 and an opportunity to learn how we can be instrumental in gaining this opportunity.

The economic and employment opportunities that it would and could provide for us would be incredibly beneficial.

I would recommend a serious consideration of the tendering process itself. While I am not suggesting that we would always have the capacity to take on these large-scale projects all on our own, I do ask that you put forth requirements for indigenous participation and partnerships. Here in Cape Breton, for example, the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq and Membertou have land on the Sydney waterfront. Recently we've seen organizations come in under massive contracts to facilitate these operations, and we haven't even been consulted, let alone been a part of the project. This cannot continue.

I ask today that you take away from our conversations the consideration of creating an inclusive procurement process and of ensuring that indigenous people are involved in the tendering process through Bill C-64. We recognize the importance of this bill, which will further provide guidance and protection for the future.

We want to make recommendations to you to move this bill forward. We would welcome the opportunity to be a part of your further discussions, but also to play a pivotal role in helping to achieve the goals of the bill in a safe and efficient manner, all while being included from the beginning.

Our people have long since used these waters for survival and to make a living for our families. I encourage you to consider having us at the table for further discussions, and when the time comes to properly take care of these operations, I hope you will consider having indigenous people working to protect our waters as we've done since time immemorial.

Thank you.

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

I'm going to ask you another question about another element of your program. You also have penalties in place for the failure to register a vessel, and we're very concerned that this program in Bill C-64 might fail if we can't actually send fines and penalties to the actual boat because the vessel registration system has kind of fallen into disrepair. That was also part of my legislation. Can you tell us a little bit more about the benefits of having fines for failing to register?

[John Weston]

Well, this could be a little bit controversial for some people.

Obviously, boat owners may not want to pay a fee, but the whole underlying principle of Bill C-64 is accountability. That's what has gotten the bill this far, I believe. Part of accountability would be dealing with the problem before it ever becomes one. Those who own vessels are more likely to be in the position of abandoning a vessel than those who don't own vessels. It makes sense that part of the purse from which the cost would be drawn to deal with these problems would be the vessel owners themselves. Perhaps that would be on a going-forward basis. That isn't in the bill, and that's something I would recommend to improve it.

[John Weston, Lawyer, Pan Pacific Law Corporation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since there's some reference to private members' bills in our discussion today, I would be remiss if I did not draw members' attention to Bill S-211, which was passed in 2014, thus creating National Health and Fitness Day, which unleashed, among other things, ski day on the Hill, which will be held this Wednesday. At noon on that day, Nancy Greene Raine will be there, as will the Governor General. You're all invited, no matter what your level of skiing ability is.

When I first came to Parliament as a member in 2008, I thought law-making was about passing bills. I've learned through processes like today's that law-making is so much more than that. Thank you for honouring me with your invitation to testify. For four reasons, it means much, as today's protests reflect important values and positive aspects of our democracy that often get overlooked. I'm going to cover those reasons and then touch on one or two of the refinements that could make Bill C-64 move from good to great.

First, the law you're reviewing is not only the brainchild of legislators or bureaucrats; it's also the results of earnest pleas by people of this great country, people who saw their treasured oceans desecrated by the litter of irresponsible boat owners who could abandon their boats with impunity.

Second, it reflects the influence of individual legislators in our system. With the author of the reform act on your committee—Michael Chong—you may be more mindful than other committees of the importance of the role of individual legislators. Though Bill C-64 is a government bill, it stands on the shoulders of private members' bills the House considered and passed, such as that of Ms. Malcolmson. As detailed more thoroughly in my written submission, which you should have received, two NDP members, including Ms. Malcolmson, engaged the House with their bills, as did I with my Bill C-695.

Third, the bill you consider today reflects an amalgam of cross-party views, not just those of the party in power. At a time when Canadians bemoan hyperpartisanship in Canada and the U.S., you should take pride in promoting the open-mindedness demonstrated here.

Fourth, and most important, the bill promotes responsibility. It's a key value often lost in the cut and thrust of policy-making. We speak often about freedom. I'm no exception. I spoke in these hallowed halls frequently about freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and I joined the legal profession motivated by my interest in constitutional freedoms, but as Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl said, freedom without responsibility is dangerous.

The book I published last year touches on stories with which many of you are familiar. Above all, it's a focus on values, including responsibility. The book exhorts political and non-political leaders to be “on”. In fact, On! is the book's title. To be really on, we must cultivate our sense of responsibility.

The core of this bill is an emphasis on accountability. As far as I know, my bill was the first-ever legislative instrument that contemplated the imposition of jail time and fines for people who abandoned vessels. Bill C-64 expands upon that principle and increases the consequences. Thank you, Liberal Party friends, for seizing on such an important part of Conservative philosophy: personal accountability.

By now you know that I support Bill C-64. It's a happy moment when a person associated with one party supports a bill proposed by another. At the risk of tarnishing this happy moment, I have to point out that it took the Liberals 52 pages of text to accomplish what I sought to achieve with one page, a decline in efficiency of some 5,000%. I'm just saying.

Beyond my general support for the bill, I do have 16 recommendations that might improve it, which are listed on pages 5 through 7 of the written submission that you received. There are three general ones and 13 others that arose in my section-by-section review of the bill.

A couple of the key ones are that, first, it would be much easier to identify boat ownership if Canada consolidates and improves our boat registry databases and, second, that abandoned vessels are more a Transport than a Fisheries issue, and the Coast Guard is more a Transport arm of government than an aspect of Fisheries.

The Canadian Coast Guard ought to reside within the Transport Canada ministry where it used to be, not with Fisheries and Oceans. If you're unsure about this, just consider which committee is reviewing Bill C-64 as we speak today: it's your committee, Transport, not Fisheries. While a reorganization to achieve a more streamlined Coast Guard lies beyond the ambit of Bill C-64, I do recommend that such a change be considered.

I see that my time is almost up, but if this committee desires, I can, in under two minutes, later run through 14 more recommendations to help move Bill C-64 from good to great.

I believe that positive values have motivated those who have contributed to this bill, not partisan self-promotion. It is not in self-promotion but because I really believe what I say that I will close with a quote from my own book: “For the good of society, let's pray for leaders who model these values, for people who pursue the community's interest over their own, who seek leadership for the good of the people they serve.”

In supporting this bill, you're doing just that. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I will call the meeting to order as the vice-chair on behalf of the chair. I know that she is going to be here momentarily.

I'm calling to order meeting number 90, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2017.

We are studying Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

We have a number of witnesses with us for this first hour of our meeting.

We have, from the Pan Pacific Law Corporation, John Weston.

Representing Sunshine Coast Regional District Board is Frank Mauro, who is director of Area A, Pender Harbour and Egmont. That is by video conference. We also have Ian Winn, director of Area F, West Howe Sound, also by video conference.

Joining us representing Washington State Department of Natural Resources, we have Kyle C. Murphy, assistant division manager of the aquatic resources division, by video conference. We also have Troy Wood, manager of the derelict vessel removal program, by video conference as well.

We will start this portion of the meeting with Mr. Weston.

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

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

You have some really good reporting in there about the times that you as a fund were not able to recover the money, because 25% of the boat owners were unfound, unknown, or did not respond; 51% lacked financial assets, and 2% were out of the country or had fled or were away.

Those numbers—because you're one of the single agencies that have really documented this—make me concerned that the main mechanism of Bill C-64, which is to levy fines and penalties, may in fact not achieve its final goal in this case since either the owners do not have the means to pay or they cannot be found at all.

Do you share my concern?

[Andrew Kendrick, Vice-President, Operations, Vard Marine Inc.]

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the invitation to appear before this committee.

As noted, I'm Vice-President, Operations, for Vard Marine's Ottawa office. Vard is a Canadian company that designs ships. We also undertake a range of consulting activities to do with marine issues for private and public sector clients. Our clients range from oil majors to environmental NGOs. We take that as an endorsement of our ability to provide objective advice to whoever our client may be.

On a personal level, I'm myself a keen boater, particularly for sail and human-powered craft; and I am a lake steward for a small lake outside Ottawa. I have a keen, personal interest in all issues associated with water quality and water safety. I will try to maintain a difference between my corporate and my personal opinions.

In 2015, Vard undertook a project on behalf of Transport Canada, which was referenced, I noted, by the previous witnesses. We were supposed to be analyzing ship breaking and recycling capacity in Canada, but it actually became a much broader project, looking at advice on vessels of concern. What causes them? What are the potential means of dealing with them? This brought home to us the general legislative uncertainty surrounding the disposal of wrecked and abandoned vessels of various sizes, and best and worst practices in Canada and around the world for handling this.

Canada certainly needs a better framework to handle this problem. We consider that Bill C-64 is a valuable part of this. We do have some concerns with the bill because it's trying to address a very broad range of issues in a single package. While you may be able to gloss over this in the act itself, it will make it difficult, in our opinion, to formulate effective regulations for all the types of vessels that are under consideration. We're already seeing some signs of this in a recent DFO/PSPC request for information, which I'll talk a little more about in a minute.

The summary of the act refers explicitly to the Nairobi Convention and to requirements that will be imposed on vessels of 300 gross tonnes and above, but the general coverage of the act is to all Canadian vessels that are registered, listed, recorded, or licensed under the Canada Shipping Act.

There are only 1,500 Canadian vessels that are over the 300-gross-tonne limit. A thousand of those are barges and 200 are owned by the federal government, provincial governments, and crown corporations. On the other hand, there are roughly 40,000 vessels that are registered and several million that are either licensed or are supposed to be licensed. We followed in our work the NMMA study from 2012, which put the number of recreational vessels in Canada as 4.3 million.

Licensing applies to all vessels with more than 7.5 kilowatts, 10 horsepower, of engine power. That's a fairly low threshold. Bill C-64 lowers this still more by applying to all vessels other than unpowered vessels below 5.5 metres in length. Finally, I've been caught, because my 14-foot sailboat actually has an electric trolling motor. I'm not sure what the interpretation of the act will be in a condition like this.

As the coverage expands, the quality of the databases available for monitoring and enforcement drops rapidly. There are three different databases for Canadian-registered vessels, and they are by no means current or accurate. We're doing a study of that at the moment on another project for Transport Canada, and the registry is full of errors. We don't have access to the record for licensed vessels, but our experience suggests that the records are incomplete and highly inaccurate, and the process of licensing is poorly understood even by some of the more reputable boaters. Licences have to be renewed every 10 years, but most recreational boaters are not aware of that. We strongly suspect the licensing database is sadly out of date and would be of very little use in tracking down owners in many cases.

Enforcement of the requirements is very inconsistent. I'm not aware of any fines having been levied recently on people who didn't have a licence but were supposed to.

Applying the act to large vessels should be relatively simple and uncontroversial, except in the case of orphaned vessels. There, hard cases make bad law. But generally the large vessels are few in number, highly visible, and relatively well documented.

For smaller craft, there's certainly the potential to create a new, costly, and intrusive bureaucracy and considerable potential for mischievous or malicious application.

It appears to us to be possible to designate many vessels as abandoned, dilapidated, or derelict at quite a low threshold of proof, and if intrusive neighbours consider a boat to be an eyesore, they can initiate a process for removal that may be difficult or costly to stop.

This Friday, I'm going to an information session on the DFO initiative to create a risk assessment methodology and inventory management system for vessels of concern. This appears to envisage a very complex, multi-phased system that will deal with many abandoned and derelict vessels actually very slowly and with a maximum amount of paperwork. We're all in favour of the government creating lots of opportunities for consultants, but we are also taxpayers and boat owners. We trust regulation standards and internal processes developed to support the act will focus on actual problems and not create new ones.

I'd be happy to answer any questions either on our report or on any of our statements.

Thank you.

[Anne Legars, Administrator, Office of the Administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund]

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today as part of your study of Bill C-64.

Let me start by saying a few words about the compensation fund. It was created in 1989 under the Marine Liability Act. It is a special account in the accounts of Canada and into which monthly interest is paid by the Minister of Finance. Today, its capital stands at more than $400 million.

The fund is therefore fully capitalized, but the money must be used strictly for the purposes for which it was constituted. Those purposes are to provide compensation for damages caused by ship-source oil pollution, as well as to pay Canada's annual contribution to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. So the administrator of the fund is the only person able to authorize payments from the fund. The administrator is appointed by the Governor in Council and is totally independent. Only the Federal Court can review his or her decisions.

The notion of “polluter pays“ is the program's key principle. This is the context in which the compensation fund provides claimants with access to an additional form of justice by avoiding the need for them to go before the courts, and by providing them with compensation of up to $172 million per accident. After that, the fund sues the polluter.

What is our experience with vessels and wrecks of concern? First, I have to underline that the fund seldom has to pay for oil pollution damages caused by vessels of over 1,000 tonnes. These incidents will normally be indemnified directly by the ship's insurer, as insurance is compulsory for such ships.

The vast majority of the fund's claims portfolio is linked to incidents involving vessels and wrecks of concern. These incidents represent two-thirds of the claims received by the fund and 80% of the final settlement cost paid by the fund over the past decade. This was actually documented in this report, which is on our website. We can leave a sample with the committee as well.

Only 2.2% of the amount settled with claimants over the period of the incidents involving these ships was recovered from the responsible party. The pollution costs of these vessels are escalating. These vessels are essentially vessels under 300 tonnes, such as fishing vessels or ex-fishing vessels, tugs, barges, and pleasure crafts.

Many claims we receive are linked to wreck removal. When the wreck removal operation is triggered by an oil spill incident or imminent risk of spill, we may pay the reasonable costs of preventing oil pollution damages or cleaning up oil pollution damages that are incidental to wreck removal operations. We will not pay for the actual removal or dismantling of the wreck unless the ship itself has become an oily waste, typically an old wooden vessel that has become impregnated with oil, becoming a kind of oil sponge.

What are the potential impacts of Bill C-64 on the fund's claims portfolio? When in force, Bill C-64 should help limit the number of claims brought to the fund, especially with respect to oil damages caused by wreck removals. The benefits should be felt for ships between 300 and 1,000 tonnes, for which the costs of dealing with the oil pollution risk incidental to a wreck removal operation will be borne by the wreck removal insurance. As mentioned, ships over 1,000 tonnes must already be covered by insurance for bunker fuel pollution.

However, in and by itself, Bill C-64 will likely have a marginal impact on our claims portfolio for the following reasons. First, the act will apply only to future occurrences and not to the existing inventory. Second, most of the ships that cause claims to the fund are below 300 tonnes, with no mandatory insurance. Third, many claims are caused by ships that are abandoned or dilapidated vessels, not “wrecks” within the meaning of the convention. Fourth, small vessels and pleasure crafts are the least regulated segments of the Canadian fleet. They are an important and uninsured source of vessels of concern and of oil pollution, and they are an important source of claims with the fund. Fifth, the polluter pays principle is difficult to uphold in circumstances where the owner cannot be identified.

Pending the implementation of other initiatives complementary to Bill C-64—and we know that a number of such initiatives are in the process of being developed or implemented—the fund expects to keep receiving a steady flow of claims linked to ships and wrecks of concern.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I will bring the meeting back to order. Could everybody please take their seat? If you need to have some conversations, please take them outside the room so the committee can commence its work.

Hello, Ms. May. It's nice to see you.

Our meeting is back to order. This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We're doing a study, as you know, of Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

Thank you to our panel that's here. We have from the District of Squamish, Patricia Heintzman, who is the Mayor. From the Office of the Administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, we have Anne Legars, the Administrator. From Vard Marine Incorporated, we have Andrew Kendrick, Vice-President of Operations.

We also have joining us at the table today our colleague Pam Goldsmith-Jones. Elizabeth May has also joined us today.

Welcome, everyone. I'm going to open it up.

Madam Mayor, would you like to go first?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair,

We recognize that it is important for all sections of the Canadian Armed Forces to be correctly recognized everywhere in Canada.

Nevertheless, I believe that protecting Canada's ocean military graves needs enhanced collaboration among several departments.

My question goes to Mr. Rouleau.

Bill C-64 excludes wrecks considered as having heritage value under an act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province. How many military wrecks meet those conditions today?

[Patrick White]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to contribute to the committee's study on Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned and hazardous vessels act, with a specific focus on the need to provide protection for Canada's ocean war graves.

Before I begin my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the incredible work of retired merchant navy Captain Paul Bender, who has led the charge to bring protection to Canada's ocean war graves. Captain Bender's efforts on this issue come after a remarkable lifetime of service to Canada, which includes his service during the Second World War, post-war service in the Royal Canadian Navy, and now at the age of 90, fighting to ensure the final resting places of Canada's sailors and merchant mariners are given the protection they unquestionably require. It is truly an honour to add our support to Captain Bender's work.

My name is Patrick White. I am the Founder and Executive Director of Project Naval Distinction.

Project Naval Distinction is an independent citizen initiative working to ensure all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces are given proper recognition across Canada. As the Royal Canadian Navy faces a natural challenge in connecting with Canadians beyond Canada's coastal communities, known as maritime blindness, our work has focused on ensuring the sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy are given recognition alongside the soldiers and aviators of the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.

We were made aware of Captain Bender's efforts to provide protection for Canada's ocean war graves from a Twitter exchange between Ian Holloway, dean of the University of Calgary's faculty of law and the minister responsible for Parks Canada. On January 1, in response to Dean Holloway's tweet about Joseph Brean's National Post article about ocean war graves, Minister McKenna confirmed she was looking into it. We contributed our suggestion for amending Bill C-64, an ideal vehicle through which to enact legislative protection for Canada's ocean war graves.

In the same National Post article, Captain Bender outlines numerous important reasons why Canada's ocean war graves need to be given protection immediately. On a fundamental level, we are drawn to his final comment that protection of Canada's ocean war graves is more than just symbolic recognition, it would “put the loss of sailors on the same plane as the loss of soldiers and airmen.”

There are clear and concrete reasons why this issue must be addressed with a sincere sense of urgency. As Captain Bender notes, he has, “the latitude and longitude position of every one of the Royal Canadian Navy ships that were lost during the Second World War". This information is readily available to salvagers and treasure hunters. The question is not whether these graves might be disturbed. The question, if we do not act, is when. In November, blood-stained canvas hammocks, used by Canadian soldiers on the ocean liner RMS Hesperian were found off the coast of Ireland indicating the ocean war grave had recently been disturbed. The same grave-robbing could be happening right now to other Canadian ocean war graves as we sit in this meeting.

In light of this information, I ask the committee to amend Bill C-64 to provide protection for all Canadian ocean war graves in Canadian waters under section 163(2) of the Canada Shipping Act, and ensure the punishments for those who commit an offence are in line with those of grave-robbing.

Further, and in their roles as individual Members of Parliament, I ask committee members to, first, request that the Minister of Transport, the minister responsible for Parks Canada, and the Minister of National Defence provide immediate protection to all of Canada's ocean war graves under the existing powers of the Canada Shipping Act. Second, I ask committee members to request that the Minister of Foreign Affairs ask the government of the United Kingdom to add Canadian ocean war graves to the list of protected places and controlled sites under the U.K. Protection of Military Remains Act, 1986, and third, given the urgency with which protection for ocean war graves is needed, request the Speaker of the House of Commons to hold an emergency debate on protection for Canada's ocean war graves.

The men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives for Canada deserve to remain undisturbed in their places of final rest. Whether on the battlefields or in the cemeteries of Europe, or in HMC ships at the bottom of the ocean, Canada's soldiers, aviators, and sailors deserve the same protection that any Canadian would expect for themselves and their families.

Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions.

[Sara Anghel]

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the entire recreational boating industry and community, thank you for the opportunity to be here before you today on Bill C-64.

The National Marine Manufacturers Association, known as NMMA, is the leading association representing the recreational boating industry at the national level across Canada and the United States. Our member companies produce more than 80% of the boats, engines, trailers, accessories, and gear used by North American boaters.

NMMA, through regional efforts, also represents marina operators, dealers, and finance and insurance companies. In Canada, the recreational boating industry generates $10 billion in revenues, contributes $5.6 billion to the national GDP, and employs more than 75,000 people across the country. More than 4,000 businesses serve approximately 12.4 million adult Canadians who enjoy boating each year on our waters.

We place great importance on ensuring marine safety, preserving marine ecosystems, and promoting improvements to environmental stewardship. Therefore, NMMA is largely supportive of the proposed legislation and of the oceans protection plan.

As an indication of our commitments to these causes over the last 20 years, marine manufacturers across North America have invested billions of dollars to develop cleaner, quieter, more efficient engines that reduce emissions by 75% to 90% and increase fuel efficiency by more than 40%. In 2010, NMMA stepped up in a big way and worked on a voluntary basis with Environment Canada to develop new regulations requiring that engines sold in Canada meet U.S. EPA standards.

Each year, we publish statistics on the total number of boats sold, and for the committee's interest, in 2017 there were 39,000 new boats and 61,000 pre-owned boats sold across Canada. We estimate there are approximately 8.6 million recreational boats in use today, with over 50% of those being human powered with no engines.

NMMA is committed to a strong and enforceable licensing program and welcomes the opportunity to see an expanded and enhanced registration process. Having accurate data will help address the abandoned vessels issue and safety, while also providing valuable data for the boating industry.

Should Transport Canada enlist provincial assistance to deliver a new licensing program, we recommend that every effort be made to ensure a seamless delivery framework that includes consistent pricing regardless of province or territory. As a side note, I believe there are representatives from the insurance industry who may have good insight into this topic, and I would be pleased to facilitate an opportunity to enlist their expertise.

While NMMA is supportive overall of the provisions of the bill, we do have one fundamental concern. We appreciate that the legislation was written to encompass all vessels, and we appreciate that many of the boats needing cleanup are recreational. I do stress the importance of ensuring that, as regulations are developed, commercial vessels are treated differently from recreational boats. Disposing of a commercial vessel is a more complicated and expensive task than it is for a recreational boat.

Our industry wants to ensure the burden of cost is not disproportionately placed on recreational boats. Should any levies or taxes be imposed on recreational boats through licensing, these funds should be used to support disposal of recreational boats specifically.

Our association will continue helping identify solutions on this topic. We have applied for funding under Transport Canada's abandoned boats program, and our goal would be to reach across the nation to identify the size of the problem and then consider recycling options. Part of this solution may exist outside of Canada.

NMMA has taken a leadership role on the international stage on this and many other boating issues, much of this facilitated through the International Council of Marine Industry Associations, on whose executive committee I serve as Canada's representative. This global organization brings together recreational marine industry associations under one international umbrella, engaging proactively on the topic of end-of-life of boats and how best to expand recycling options by sharing best practices.

There are some sound recycling solutions in places like France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan, just to name a few. I'd be pleased to share these learnings with Transport Canada and the committee, so that we don't work in a silo in Canada on this global topic.

We applaud the government for introducing Bill C-64, and we will continue to provide assistance and support as the bill moves forward.

Thank you for the time today and for the invitation to be here.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 89, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated, or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

We have a variety of witnesses on our panels today. I'd like to ask you if you would take a moment to introduce yourselves.

I'll start with Mr. White.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I recognize that the United States has not ratified the Nairobi convention. From our point of view, if a vessel becomes derelict or abandoned or a wreck in our Canadian waters, Bill C-64 will apply regardless of the country the vessel comes from. We will have to make other countries aware that these rules will apply even though they may just be transiting.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to welcome the minister as well as all who are here supporting him as we begin to study Bill C-64.

Before I begin, I recognize that Ms. Jordan and Ms. Malcolmson have a vested interest in this study, but would it be appropriate to invite our colleagues who normally sit on this committee to also to join us at the table? There's probably no reason that they can't be here if they want to be. I would welcome them to the table if they choose.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's always a pleasure to be in front of this committee, which works very efficiently. I know I've kept it busy over the past two years passing quite a bit of transport-related legislation, so I thank it for its very efficient operations.

I'm pleased to speak about Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act, legislation that will help us protect and preserve the health of Canada's marine ecosystems and the safety of the waterways on which our economy depends.

This is the result of a joint effort. The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc and I are supported by officials from Transport Canada and Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard. I'm glad that many of the officials are with me today.

Abandoned and wrecked vessels left in our waterways are a serious problem. They can pose safety, environmental, economic, and social risks, and they certainly are a long-standing and growing source of frustration for many shoreline communities.

Proper remediation of these problem vessels can be complex and costly, and up to now the financial burden has often fallen on Canadian taxpayers. It is estimated there are hundreds of these vessels in Canadian waters, ranging from small pleasure craft to large commercial vessels. Some are very problematic; others are less so. We must take action with a risk-based approach, or the challenge will only increase.

The vast majority of vessel owners act responsibly and dispose of their vessels properly; however, some owners see abandonment as a low-cost, low-risk option. This legislation will change that.

The legislation before you addresses the issue in a holistic way and fills the gaps in the existing federal legislative framework.

Up to now, the federal government has only had the authority to address some of the negative effects of abandoned or wrecked vessels, but not the vessel itself. The government has generally also lacked the ability to take proactive action in those situations to avoid placing a burden on taxpayers.

There are other gaps, as well. There is nothing in law today that generally prohibits an owner from abandoning their vessel. There are no requirements for vessel owners to carry wreck removal insurance, and insufficient authorities to order vessel owners to address their hazardous vessels or wrecks.

When a car reaches the end of its useful life, we don't accept owners leaving it by the side of the road for someone else to deal with. This should not be acceptable with vessels either. Our waterways should not, and cannot, be treated as disposal sites for junk vessels.

This is why we have introduced Bill C-64. Let me explain how it will work.

The proposed legislation would make vessel owners clearly liable for any costs incurred in the course of removing or remediating a wreck. This is critical to ensuring that accountability lies with the owner and not the general public. In 2007, the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks established such a regime, and this bill gives the Nairobi convention force of law in Canada. On September 21, 2017, the Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled the convention in the House of Commons.

The convention sets international rules on the rights and obligations of vessel owners, coastal states, and flag states with respect to wrecks. It also provides state parties with a global regime governing liability, compulsory insurance, and direct action against insurers. By acceding to and implementing this convention, Canada would ensure that vessel owners would be held liable for locating, marking, and, if necessary, removing any wreck resulting from a maritime accident and that would pose a hazard.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation would also extend these requirements to all Canadian waters. Owners of vessels that are of 300 gross tonnage or more would be required to have insurance or other financial security to cover the costs related to their removal if they become wrecked.

This legislation will also address irresponsible vessel management in a number of ways. It will prohibit abandonment, allowing vessels to become wrecks, leaving a vessel adrift for more than 48 hours without working to secure it, or leaving vessels in very poor condition in the same area for more than 60 days without consent. These are the kinds of vessels most at risk of becoming abandoned or wrecked.

Another important aspect of the bill is that it enables the federal government to address problem vessels before they become even greater problems with higher costs, including by providing the ability to direct owners to take actions. When owners don't act, the federal government would be authorized to take any measures deemed necessary to address all types of hazards posed by abandoned, dilapidated or wrecked vessels, and the owner would be liable for costs. This part would be led by the Canadian Coast Guard.

The proposed legislation also consolidates existing provisions that deal with wrecks and salvage in one place by incorporating existing Canada Shipping Act, 2001 provisions that pertain to the International Convention on Salvage, 1989, as well as the receiver of wreck. Several important amendments have been made to the long-established and critical function of the receiver of wreck to continue to protect and preserve the rights of owners of found wrecks, as well as the rights of salvors.

This bill has teeth. It would establish an enforcement regime that authorizes the issuing of administrative monetary penalties, establishes regulatory offences and sets out a penalty regime that is intended to deter non-compliance. The penalties are higher than in other marine legislation, to provide a deterrent that reflects the high costs of addressing these vessels. Enforcement of this new legislation will be shared between my department, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. This sharing of responsibilities takes advantage of the distinct roles, mandates and capacities of both departments.

I want to stress that this proposed legislation is one element of a comprehensive national strategy to address abandoned and wrecked vessels that this government announced as part of the larger oceans protection plan in November 2016. The strategy includes a suite of measures to both prevent these problem vessels in the future and address those that litter our waterways now.

We are developing a national inventory of abandoned, dilapidated, and wrecked vessels, along with a risk assessment methodology to rank these vessels according to the risks that they pose. This will allow for decision-making based on evidence.

In 2017, the government launched two funding programs to support the cleanup and removal of smaller high-priority legacy abandoned vessels and wrecks. These programs will help get these boats out of the water, provide funding for educating vessel owners about their responsibilities and disposal options, and support research that will help improve boat recycling and design.

To address the costs of abandoned and wrecked vessels, large and small, in a sustainable way over the longer term, we're also looking at options to establish owner-financed remediation funds.

Our comprehensive strategy also includes improving vessel owner identification. We are currently working on improvements to large vessel registration, and working with provinces and territories to improve pleasure craft licensing.

We will continue to collaborate with provinces, territorial and municipal governments, indigenous groups, local and coastal communities, and stakeholders to implement the national strategy and the proposed legislation effectively.

Our coasts and waterways are the common heritage of all Canadians. They are crucially important to our environment, our communities, our economy, and our way of life.

To conclude, I would remind committee members of the unanimous adoption by the House of private member's motion M-40, which was tabled by my colleague the honourable member for South Shore—St. Margarets in the fall of 2016. It called for a comprehensive approach to dealing with the problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels. With this bill and the oceans protection plan's comprehensive national strategy, we are delivering on these commitments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2017, we are studying Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

I welcome to the committee Minister Garneau. Thank you very much for coming to this session with your officials.

I'll turn the floor over to you.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the question still remains. Of the very specific elements I mentioned, how will they be accommodated into the government's legislation? There is nothing in Bill C-64 that contains any of the elements I just mentioned. They are integral to its success. Dealing with the backlog is necessary for dealing with the overall problem, as opposed to the more forward-looking approach of the government's bill. Fixing vessel registration is vital. The government will not be able to send a penalty or a ticket to an irresponsible owner if it cannot find out who that owner is. They have to work together.

I ask again. The government's offer of $260,000 and $300,000 this year is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of boats that need to be removed. I would like to hear some specifics from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to reiterate our government's commitment to address the serious problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels that are negatively affecting our coastal and shoreline communities. We know and understand the issues these problem vessels represent. We have made numerous announcements and launched several initiatives that clearly demonstrate our commitment to addressing these long-standing issues.

I would remind the House that when we launched the oceans protection plan, just over a year ago, we said we would deliver a national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels. We are delivering. Let me explain how.

First, I would like to remind members that in the past year our government has launched two short-term funding programs designed to support the cleanup and removal of legacy abandoned vessels and wrecks. This includes Transport Canada's abandoned boats program, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans abandoned and wrecked vessels removal program, which collectively cover all waters in Canada.

These two programs recognize that local communities, ports, and harbours, particularly those that are small and remote, often do not have the resources to cover the costs of removing and disposing of smaller abandoned and wrecked vessels. These programs will deliver tangible results. They will get smaller problem vessels out of the water, and indeed, this has already started under these programs.

The abandoned boats program also includes two additional sub-components. One is focused on education and outreach to help inform vessel owners of their responsibilities. The other is focused on research into options to improve vessel recycling and design.

Our government also committed to ensuring vessel owners can be held accountable. We are delivering on this commitment as well, with the introduction of the wrecked, abandoned, or hazardous vessels act, or Bill C-64, on October 30. Drawing upon best international practices, this piece of legislation is more robust and comprehensive than anything ever seen previously in Canada.

As the key preventative component of the national strategy, it will strengthen vessel owner responsibility and liability, address irresponsible vessel management, and enhance federal powers to take more proactive action on problem vessels, before they become bigger problems.

Simply put, our government is delivering on the commitments we have made to resolve the long-standing abandoned vessels challenge. We have short-term and long-term preventative and removal measures in place, or being put in place. Everything will not get done overnight, but progress will be made continuously as part of an overall, comprehensive strategy. We look forward to the committee's study of Bill C-64.

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening's debate is following on the eve of the Union of BC Municipalities convention in Vancouver, in September, where my legislation on the issue of a solution for abandoned vessels was finally, after decades of pushing, especially by coastal communities, on the convention floor. Eighteen-hundred delegates endorsed my legislation, Bill C-352, which I had built in co-operation with coastal communities. It included all the solutions they had asked for over 15 years of advocating both to the B.C. Liberal government and federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative.

As we know, two weeks ago, a number of Liberal majority manoeuvres killed the bill, sank it, so to speak. It did not even come to the floor for a debate and a vote, which is quite unusual. My question now to the government is how it will incorporate into its legislation, Bill C-64, the transport minister's bill, all that advice from coastal communities.

As a reminder, fixing vessel registration was a major part of my bill. Piloting a vessel turn-in program, kind of like what we have done successfully in many provinces with old abandoned automobiles by finding incentives and programs to encourage people to turn them in so they can be recycled and dealt with responsibly, would be a good way to deal with the backlog. Second would be creating good green jobs by supporting local marine salvage industries and co-operating with recycling organizations to find new markets for fibreglass and other difficult to recycle material. That links to the previous idea as well. A vessel turn-in program or a boat amnesty would help create the critical mass that might cause some economies of scale to deal with abandoned vessels.

Finally, to end the jurisdictional runaround, would be making one agency the go-to on dealing with abandoned vessels. What we proposed was the Coast Guard. The government's bill continues to have responsibility apportioned out over a number of different ministries, so one would need to have an org chart to figure out who was responsible. That is not tenable for coastal communities.

Since we last talked about this, I have had dozens of endorsements from local governments. I very much want to know how the Liberal government, having sunk my legislation, will still recycle and use the material in it in a way that reflects the multitude of asks from local governments. The Islands Trust Council, the City of Nanaimo, the Town of Ladysmith, the City of Campbell River, and the Regional District of Nanaimo all endorsed my bill. There was the City of Parksville; the City of Victoria; the Village of Queen Charlotte, in Haida Gwaii; the District of Tofino; the District of Oak Bay; the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District; the Powell River Regional District; the Village of Tahsis; the District of Ucluelet; Sooke; Sechelt; Metchosin; the City of Powell River; the Township of Esquimalt; the District of Kitimat; the District of Fort St. James; the town of Burlington, in Newfoundland; the Township of Nipigon, in Ontario; the Town of View Royal; the District of North Saanich; and the list goes on.

The call is clear. Local governments need their solutions inserted into this bill. How will the government respond?

Fisheries and Oceans

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her support in helping to move legislation forward. We look forward to seeing the results of the committee's work on this important issue.

On October 30, our government introduced new legislation, Bill C-64, Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels act that is more robust, and comprehensive than anything that has ever been seen previously in Canada, drawing on international best practices. The bill would strengthen vessel owner responsibility and liability, address irresponsible vessel management, and enhance federal powers to take more proactive action on problem vessels.

This is a core prevention measure under the national strategy on abandoned vessels and wrecks that was announced as part of the oceans protection plan last year. To complement the legislation, we are working with other levels of government to improve federal vessel ownership identification systems. This is needed to ensure owners can be held accountable.

I want to be clear that our national strategy goes above and beyond legislation. We recognized right from the start that we cannot wait for the legislation to kick in before addressing some of the most problematic vessels that are currently affecting our communities.

That is why the government launched two funding programs this year to support the clean-up and removal of legacy abandoned vessels and wrecks. One is transport's abandoned boats program, and another one is a separate funding initiative from Fisheries and Oceans, the abandoned and wrecked vessels removal program, to address vessels in federally owned small craft harbours. These two programs recognize that local communities, ports, and harbours, particularly those that are small and remote, often do not have the resources to cover the costs of removing and disposing of abandoned and wrecked boats. These programs will deliver tangible results. They will get boats out of the water. Indeed, work has already started under these programs.

However, this is not all these funding programs do, they also support education and research. Owners do not always have a clear understanding of their responsibilities when their vessel reaches its end of life. Some are unaware of disposal options or the impacts of abandonment. The abandoned boats program will provide funding support to other levels of government, indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, and other eligible groups for activities that educate vessel owners about their responsibilities.

Another challenge is that some vessels are made of materials that are difficult to dismantle and dispose of. For this reason, the abandoned boats program is supporting research into processes and materials that will help improve boat recycling and design. The goal is to improve recycling options for boats, and prevent further unnecessary pollution.

We are proud of the actions that we have taken to date to address this important issue. We will continue to collaborate with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, indigenous groups, and coastal communities, to implement our comprehensive national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels, and we look forward to all members supporting Bill C-64.

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

Madam Speaker, last month a 90-foot vessel, the Anapaya, sank in Ladysmith Harbour while leaking fuel into the ocean. In 2014, Transport Canada had identified this 100-year old boat as a vessel of concern. The government knew it posed a threat, but took no action until it sank. We are grateful for the Coast Guard's swift action. However, this is yet another example of the failed Liberal boat-by-boat approach to abandoned vessels.

For too long, jurisdictional gaps have left coastal communities with nowhere to turn when an abandoned vessel presents an emergency situation in their communities. Oil spills and marine debris from thousands of abandoned vessels pollute our waterways and put local fishing and tourism jobs at risk. We have raised this in Parliament, I think now, 86 times since the 2015 election.

I built 15 years of coastal community solutions into my legislation, Bill C-352, to fix vessel registration, to pilot a vessel turn-in program, to support good green jobs and vessel recycling, and to end the run-around by making the Coast Guard the first-responder and the receiver of wrecks, with a one-stop shopping approach for coastal communities.

Over 50 coastal organizations across the country supported my bill, from Tofino, B.C. to Fogo Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the City of Victoria, the Town of Ladysmith, and the BC Ferry and Marine Workers Union. There has been so much support from all sectors.

On November 9, the Liberal majority on the procedure and House affairs committee blocked my bill, which was an unprecedented interference. The government's new legislation, Bill C-64, tabled on October 30, complemented my bill. However, I do not believe the transport minister's bill will succeed without mine. For example, how can a penalty be imposed on an abandoned vessel owner, as the minister proposes in his legislation, without his being able to find the owner? That is where the element in my bill to fix vessel registration was so vital. Moreover, the transport minister's bill does not deal with the backlog or specifically support vessel recycling.

With the help of members of Parliament, both of the bills could have proceeded. No one had used the appeal tool before that we used in the House to have a secret ballot vote, in this case on the question of whether my bill should be deemed votable. It was a really historic moment and I am grateful to the Conservative, Bloc, Green, and New Democrat caucuses for saying that they planned to support making my bill votable.

Had the majority of members voted yes, it would have meant yes to over 50 coastal organizations who had endorsed the bill, yes to the 27,000 letters that were sent from Canadians to Liberal MPs that week, yes to standing with local governments and having their solutions brought into this House, yes to filling gaps in the transport minister's bill, yes to cooperation across party lines to solve intractable problems like the oil spill risks that come from abandoned vessels, and yes to restoring the one chance I had as an MP to have my community's legislation heard in this House.

Why would the transport representative not support hearing my bill?

Canada Shipping Act, 2001

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-352 on abandoned vessels. I would like to thank the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for tabling this very important bill and proving she is a strong steward and champion for our environment. It follows the work she has been doing in our coastal communities for decades, and in one of her many roles as the chair of the Islands Trust

I would also like to thank the former New Democrat member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Cowichen, Jean Crowder, for her work in Parliament for more than a decade on this issue. There is no doubt that the NDP and our coastal community MPs have led the charge for healthy oceans and federal leadership in addressing abandoned and derelict vessels.

Bill C-352 is important for the environment and the economy in coastal communities for several reasons. It would end the run-around and finger-pointing by designating the Coast Guard as the agency responsible for directing the removal and recycling of abandoned vessels. This is fundamental when dealing with abandoned and derelict vessels. It would get taxpayers off the hook, by fixing vessel registration and creating a fee to help cover the cost of vessel disposal, like in Washington State. It would prevent vessels from becoming hazards by piloting a turn-in program at safe recycling facilities. It would be great for the economy and green jobs by supporting local marine salvage businesses. Most important, it would build a coast-wide strategy, in co-operation with local and provincial governments, in service of our constituents as coastal people.

These key points, and they are all key to the bill, were derived from more than 15 years of work and advocacy by local stakeholders in coastal communities in British Columbia, and I cited the former MP Jean Crowder and the current member from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, working with individuals, organizations, and local mayors and councils from my riding, from Tofino to Qualicum Beach through the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, and a resolution that was supported by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. This bill reflects their concerns and priorities.

However, the government's response to Bill C-352 has been inadequate and undemocratic. In fact, it shut out coastal voices. Instead of thoughtfully examining the bill, offering amendments, and allowing a free vote, the government has chosen another path, deciding to table Bill C-64, which is significantly different in that does not take the advice of local and regional stakeholders, who have been engaged in this issue for 15 years. It is not without merit, but has some gaping holes.

For instance, Bill C-64 would not create nor define a national strategy to deal with abandoned vessels. It has no turn-in program or a cash for clunkers incentive for owners who may be at risk of losing or considering abandoning their vessels at sea.

Finally, while Transport Canada admits there may be thousands of abandoned and derelict vessels along our coastlines today, there is no mechanism or plan to clear this backlog.

Unlike the government bill, BillC-352 directly deals with each of these glaring weaknesses. In spite of this, the government made an effort to defeat Bill C-352 before it could even be debated.

Again, I want to thank my colleague and neighbour from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for bringing this issue forward and for working and co-operating with other parliamentarians. My thanks for her good nature and commitment to progressive co-operation and getting results for her constituents and coastal communities. She has urged all MPs to give their unanimous consent to move the government's along to help our coastal constituents as quickly as possible.

My colleague has done incredible work in bringing coastal communities together, in bringing this forward and in demonstrating that she and the NDP members are leaders in defending coast communities on the environment and the protection of our coast.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, to the point of order, that is definitely a point of debate. I know my constituents know exactly how Liberals voted. We just have to take direction from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but that is beside the point.

The point is that this House, with its Liberal majority, decided that coastal voices were not going to get their turn. The Liberals denied my colleague her chance to bring forward legislation in this House and have it debated. It shows bully tactics and extreme lack of courage, and it is absolutely shameful behaviour on the part of a government that came in with a mandate to give more respect to Parliament and parliamentarians.

In fact, I remember the speech by the Prime Minister when I was at the orientation session for new members of Parliament. He kept going on about how important our role as private members was in this place, our ability to bring forward legislation, bring forward those ideas, put them in a bill, and have it debated and voted on so we could actually have recorded votes on where individual members of Parliament stand.

We will never get to know that now with Bill C-352. We will not know where B.C. Liberal MPs stand on that bill because they decided to make it non-votable. Those are the facts. I could go on and on, but I just want to end with this. No matter what their tactics, it will not stop us from speaking up strongly.

Again, I want to salute my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the incredible work she has done on this file. Even with the criticisms I have just levelled at the Liberal government, I can assure members that when it comes to Bill C-64, we will do our due diligence on it. We have given agreement in principle, but I believe there are important amendments. I look forward to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith working on that bill and making sure it actually is the right fit for our important coastal communities.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to start by stating into the record what an absolute pleasure it is to have such a dedicated colleague like the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. We are fortunate enough to be neighbours on beautiful Vancouver Island. We share a coastline. We both have a connection to Jean Crowder, the former member of Parliament Nanaimo—Cowichan. We often like to joke that it took two of us to replace Jean, because that is how good she was.

I want to set the stage for my constituents back home who may be watching this. We are here debating, and we have been given one hour for my colleague's Bill C-352. We are here because the Liberal government has used its majority, and has used bully tactics to silence her voice, to silence her right to take forward legislation in this House on behalf of her constituents.

The procedure and House affairs committee deemed this bill non-votable. The member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith appealed to this House and, for the first time ever, we had a historic secret ballot vote. We lobbied Liberal members of Parliament. We sent almost 30,000 emails to them from strong voices in coastal communities. However, still, the Liberals decided they were going to quash the member's voice and not let her stand in this place to bring forward legislation, as is the right of every member of Parliament in this place. That is why we are here today.

My riding has a long history with abandoned vessels. I could write a whole book just on Cowichan Bay and what it has gone through. In fact, we still have the SS Beaver below water, waiting for action to happen.

I have had a long history with abandoned vessels. The biggest problem with abandoned vessels has been the jurisdictional finger pointing. If it was laying on the seabed, it was the jurisdiction of the province, unless it was a municipality that had that particular foreshore; if it was an obstacle to navigation, the Coast Guard was called, which more likely than not would just tow it to the nearest sandbar and leave it there. In other instances, the port authorities could be involved. The main point is that constituents, when they found an abandoned vessel, had no idea who to turn to, and would just completely get the runaround.

I appreciate the government's efforts on Bill C-64. I am very glad that the House gave unanimous consent to move that important piece of legislation to committee. The argument that my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has made is that her bill fills in some important gaps, and the two bills complement each other. It comes down to coastal voices. We have worked so long on this legislation, for many years. We have had the backing of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and many different organizations that are involved in protecting our coast.

For the Liberals to use their majority just to silence us, and to not even bring forward this bill for a vote shows an extreme lack of courage on their part. I would have loved to have seen coastal British Columbia members of Parliament—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to stand before the House to talk to the private member's bill from our colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Bill C-352. It is unfortunate that we are speaking at a time when really the government has pretty much scuttled her bill, as we get jeers across the way, and really did everything in its power at every step of the way for the member of Parliament and her advocacy for the issue.

We cannot have a debate or a speech on abandoned vessels without first giving due to our hon. former colleague, John Weston, who also brought forth a bill very similar to this. It was in June 2015 in the 41st Parliament that Conservative MP John Weston introduced Bill C-695, which would have dealt with very similar issues or similar points that Bill C-64 and Bill C-352 have. One of the things that I will agree with our colleague across the way from South Shore—St. Margarets about is the responsibility. Whether it is somebody who is polluting or somebody who is abandoning a vessel, Conservatives also agree that there has to be some onus and responsibility on that person, the owner of that vessel or the person or organization that is doing the polluting.

One of the things that I will take a bit of deference to in terms of our hon. colleague who just spoke before us from South Shore—St. Margarets, whom I respect greatly, is the fact that her motion, Motion No. 40, really precipitated BillC-64. I would offer that it probably helped along the way, bringing the awareness to the government, but I would also then say that those who walked before us, including our hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith and our hon. former colleague, Mr. John Weston, and the work that he did in the previous Parliament, set the ground for where we are today.

We have heard examples. While our hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith did name the Expo 86 barge, it was affectionately known on the Pacific coast as the McBarge. I believe that is the one she was referring to. It was a floating McDonald's during Expo 86 and it had been towed out to Ladysmith. Some entrepreneur had some grand ideas as to what he or she was going to do with it. However, as with many of our small businesses, with all the whims and whimsies and “fail to plan” and “plan to fail” it sat there and collected rust.

In doing research for this speech today, I looked quickly in the news articles. Just recently, at the beginning of November, the Town of Ladysmith applied for federal funding to remove nine derelict vessels. That is unacceptable. Whether it is a small municipality on the Pacific coast or on the Atlantic coast, this is unacceptable and that is what the challenge has been in terms of abandoned vessels. Whose responsibility is it? There is a lot of finger pointing when there are abandoned and derelict vessels as to whose responsibility it is, who is going to take control of and mitigate the situation. What I felt was compelling in our hon. colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-352, was something that I was not aware of. I have to say that when I was tasked to talk to this, I actually reached out to our hon. colleague and wanted to find out a bit more about the issue. I am from British Columbia. I can read the headlines and know that there are challenges and issues there, but I confess I am in a landlocked area. Outside of maybe a rowboat, there are not a lot of the huge derelict vessels that we will see in some of our coastal communities.

Therefore, I want to know what the difference is between Bill C-64, and our hon. colleague's bill in the previous Parliament, Bill C-695, and our hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith's bill, Bill C-352. She said that the fundamental difference is it assigns responsibility to the Coast Guard. I will touch on that quickly when I get a chance.

The overwhelming issue that we have, and I think our hon. colleague said it very articulately, is that when we are trying to track down the owner of a vessel that has perhaps changed hands three, four, or five times, how do we assign a fine to somebody who does not own that vessel anymore? The federal registration process for marine vessels is and has been flawed. I thought that Bill C-352 identified this issue, which I was unaware of. I look forward to Bill C-64 coming to committee and working with my colleague across the way from South Shore—St. Margarets to make some amendments to it, because I think there are some strong points that will allow us to finally put this issue to rest.

One of the things I want to talk about is the responsibility of the Coast Guard. Our hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets made a great point. The responsibility, as it sits with Bill C-352, would go squarely on that of the Coast Guard. Somebody ultimately needs to take responsibility for that. Whether with respect to enforcement, or mitigating the issue and removing it from the waters, somebody should be responsible. There should be a singular group or organization that one can call when one has a ship that is rusting in one's area, whichever that is, the Coast Guard or Transport Canada. There is no finger pointing. The challenge is that we have a Coast Guard today, and I think my hon. colleague knows where I am going with this, that is challenged for resources. My hon. colleague across the way from South Shore—St. Margarets knows that this is something that as the shadow minister for this file I am deeply aware of. We have 27 marine vessels in our Coast Guard fleet with 75% to 148% of their notional lifespan. We have perhaps the oldest marine vessel fleet in the world.

Canada has the largest coastline in the world, yet we are asking our brave men and women in our Canadian Coast Guard to brave the waters, to enforce our Arctic sovereignty, and because 90% of all of Canada's trade goes by marine and waterways, to make sure that our seaways and waterways are free of ice so that our ports and communities can remain viable, and our mariners, fishermen, and those coastal communities can receive the services they require from our Canadian Coast Guard, with a fleet and resources from a federal organization that I believe requires some attention.

I understand I have about a minute left. I do not know if there is much more that needs to be said.

I congratulate our hon. colleague for her tireless efforts in seeing this through, and working with our former colleague, Mr. Weston, in supporting his bill also, Bill C-695. I know Mr. Weston supports Bill C-352. I look forward to perhaps having our hon. colleague at committee, and working with our colleague across the way from South Shore—St. Margarets, to do some great work, as we usually do at the fisheries committee, and come up with a piece of legislation that will protect our harbours and our coastal communities, and make sure that those who require the resources are getting it, like our Canadian Coast Guard.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-352. Before I speak to the bill, I want to sincerely thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her commitment to and her advocacy for coastal communities and the issue of abandoned and derelict vessels. We both agree that something has to be done about this ongoing problem.

I often use the example of a truck when I talk about abandoned vessels. If truckers are through with their rigs, they cannot leave them at the side of the road and expect someone else to look after them, so why should we expect anything different from people who own vessels.

During the election in 2015, I heard over and over again about the problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels and the problems they cause in our coastal communities. Living in Nova Scotia and representing a large coastal riding, this was not an issue that was uncommon to me. That was why I was happy to bring forward Motion M-40 to the House in February 2016.

My private member's motion helped put the issue of abandoned and wrecked vessels on the government's radar and set the wheels in motion, leading up to this fall, when the Minister of Transport introduced the government's bill C-64. This is comprehensive legislation that will deal with the ongoing problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels. We need to be proactive, not reactive.

I am proud of the fact that this legislation was based on a motion I put forward that was unanimously adopted in the House. Coastal communities have had a problem with these vessels, and those problems have been punted between federal, provincial, and municipal governments, because nobody wanted to deal with the issue. I am so happy that we have taken the initiative and are moving to provide long-term solutions to deal with this problem. Bill C-64 is a comprehensive plan that would address the problem of abandoned vessels and put the onus squarely on the owners, where the liability belongs.

Bill C-64 has many objectives that would be met to ensure a long-term solution to this issue. The bill aims to strengthen owner liability, including the cost of cleanup. It would address irresponsible vessel management, including by prohibiting vessel abandonment. It would enhance federal powers to take proactive action on problem vessels. It would introduce a compliance and enforcement regime, with offences and penalties, and it would clarify the roles and responsibilities of Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Coast Guard. In short, it would make it illegal to abandon a vessel and would close loopholes that have made abandonment possible without recourse.

A key difference between Bill C-64 and Bill C-352 is the involvement of the Coast Guard as the receiver of all wrecks. On this difference, I believe that the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and I have very different opinions.

In my opinion, our Coast Guard is there to serve our coastal communities with search and rescue operations and to conduct vital scientific research. To designate it a salvage organization would be inappropriate for these men and women and the role they provide in our coastal communities.

Currently, lobster fishers in my riding are braving the Atlantic Ocean at times that are trying and in weather that can turn on a dime. I would hate to think that at a time when they may be needed off our coast in an emergency situation, resources for the Coast Guard might be tied up dealing with an abandoned vessel that someone has dumped.

I believe that the responsibility for vessels belongs squarely with the people who own them, not with the Coast Guard, and ultimately the taxpayers of Canada. A significantly stronger regulatory regime to make sure we can identify who owns vessels and that owners have a proper way of disposal would be a more comprehensive and better way of dealing with this issue.

There are times when the government has to step in to help with removal, as was the case this summer with the removal of the Farley Mowat, in my riding. The town of Shelburne had done everything possible to have the Farley removed, but unfortunately, it was met with resistance at every turn. The federal government recognized that the town could no longer face the impending environmental disaster this ship posed and stepped in to have it removed. The people of the town of Shelburne were ecstatic to get rid of that rusting hulk of garbage after three years of trying everything. However, we need to deal with these vessels before they become the kind of problem the Farley Mowat did, and Bill C-64 would accomplish just that.

In closing, I again want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her advocacy and her support of Bill C-64. I note that there are some differences between Bill C-352 and Bill C-64, but we all want the best solution to address this long-standing issue. I look forward to working together to make sure we get this right. Like my colleague, I want us to be able to deal with the issue of abandoned and derelict vessels so that our coastal communities do not have to.

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

moved that Bill C-352, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to provide for the development of a national strategy (abandonment of vessels), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, oil spills and marine debris from thousands of abandoned vessels across the country pollute our waterways and put local fishing and tourism jobs at risk. For too long, jurisdictional gaps have left coastal communities with nowhere to turn when they need help with abandoned vessels.

I first encountered this on Parker Island, a small island off Galiano. Constituents came to me saying that for 10 years they had been trying to get an enormous abandoned barge off of their white sand beach. They had asked every single department, provincially and federally, and got the runaround for 10 years. Someone had had a big dream of turning one of the old Expo 86 barges into a floating bed and breakfast, or something like that, but by the time it beached on the shore, it was rotting. My constituents would phone the Coast Guard, which would say it was a hazzard to navigation and that maybe they would have a look at it. The Coast Guard would then simply tie on the rotting pieces of rebar or the chunks of concrete or asbestos insulation that had fallen onto the beach. Children could not play there and the fisheries were harmed. It was a total mess, and no one would help.

I was chair of the Islands Trust Council at the time. We did not have any authority to deal with this, but we tried to find out whether this really was a result of a hole in jurisdiction and if other communities were having the same problem. We went to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities, the local government association for the Sunshine Coast on Vancouver Island. We took past resolutions, asking for action, to the Union of BC Municipalities, representing 180 municipal and rural governments all bound together.

One time, I led a delegation of 19 different local governments to meet with the Liberal B.C. minister of forests, lands and natural resource operations. There were 19 different local governments all in one room asking for help, saying that the minister should get it fixed or implore Ottawa to assume its responsibilities, that this was a marine issue, that it was about the oceans and vessel registration, and that the minister should be acting. Other countries act in regard to such vessels, but Canada fails to act.

For 10 years, we were completely ignored. That is one of the reasons I wanted to get elected as a member of Parliament: to bring the solutions here and to fix this once and for all.

During the course of the election campaign, the Viki Lyne II came into prominence in the riding I was hoping to represent. In Ladysmith Harbour, four years earlier, Transport Canada had found a beautiful old 100-foot fishing trawler adrift, the Viki Lyne II. She had been built in 1961 and had met a bad end. Transport Canada towed her into Ladysmith Harbour, which was viewed as a safe harbour, and there she sat for four years at anchor. Ladysmith had put an awful lot of effort into waterfront beautification, tourism promotion, and yet this horrific rusting hulk was sitting there, a hull that the Coast Guard, in a marine survey in year one, had said was maybe only being held together by the rust, yet it was a vessel with 125,000 litres of contaminants on board.

Ladysmith has jobs invested in aquaculture, tourism, and fisheries. All of them were threatened if the worst-case scenario happened to Viki Lyne II, and still we could not get action. A huge rally during the election campaign was organized by Take 5, one of the great local newspapers. Former MP Jean Crowder had been very active, trying to bring solutions to this. The former mayor of Ladysmith, Rob Hutchins, and then his successor, Aaron Stone, had a very strong alliance with the Stz'uminus First Nation. Here I raise my hands to Chief John Elliott, who was a very strong partner, he and his council. They repeatedly wrote letters to the federal government asking for help.

The Ladysmith Maritime Society, a community-owned marina, pushed as hard as it could for solutions. Finally, having been loud about this in question period, which some members might remember, a former fisheries minister, now the member for Nunavut, said that he would find a way to fund the removal of the Viki Lyne II. A little more than a year ago, there was a huge community celebration when, five years after was had first asked, the Viki Lyne II was finally towed away. In our effort, the Ladysmith Chronicle, a great local newspaper, had really helped us keep the pressure on and tell the story.

After the Viki Lyne II was towed away, every person who had been involved in her removal recommitted to a comprehensive coast-wide solution. The one off approach of dealing with the problem on a boat-by-boat basis, and not dealing with it until it became an emergency, had not been tenable. All them said that no community should have to work as hard as Ladysmith had to get that one boat removed.

Therefore, I brought to the House legislation based on all of the years of advice from coastal communities to fix vessel registration; to pilot a vessel turn-in program; to create good, green jobs by working with local salvage companies and innovating with recycling. Maybe we can find some markets for fibreglass, which has just not been done yet. Finally, my legislation aimed to end the jurisdictional runaround by making the Coast Guard the first point of contact. If someone finds an abandoned vessel, they contact the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard works it out between other federal agencies who should take the first action.

From Tofino, B.C., to Fogo Island, Newfoundland, my legislation has been broadly endorsed. Fifty coastal communities; businesses; harbour authorities; marinas; and labour groups, such as the the BC Ferry and Marine Workers' Union, Vancouver District Labour Council, and the Union of BC Municipalities all endorsed my legislation.

This summer I went to Nova Scotia and met with local leaders from all over who are facing the same problem, and they all agreed that this legislation would meet their needs and that we needed to accelerate it. We kept raising the pressure, along with many of my other Vancouver Island colleagues, some whom are sitting with me here today. We raised the issue of abandoned vessels 80 times in the House just in this Parliament alone.

The government kept promising that action was imminent. It did announce some funding back in the spring, which was better than a kick in the head, but, honestly, a drop in the bucket, with $260,000 this year for small craft harbours and $300,000 for removal from anywhere else in the rest of the country. The bill for removing the Silver King from my colleague's riding of Courtenay—Alberni was $300,000. This one vessel would have blown the whole budget for the entire year. The capital regional district, which my colleague, the MP for Victoria, represents in part, has applied to the federal government for $1 million to remove the backlog of abandoned vessels. Therefore, $300,000 is not going to go very far.

Then, on October 22, another vessel sunk in Ladysmith Harbour, the Anapaya, which had already been on Transport Canada's inventory of vessels of concern for three years. It certainly was a lot more expensive to recover, and more damaging to local jobs and the environment once it was sitting on the bottom of Ladysmith Harbour leaking oil than if, proactively, we had been able to remove it before it sank. I am very grateful to the Coast Guard, as it has so many times risen to the call for action without really having the proper resources, and without a super-clear authority. Those good men and women of the Coast Guard have acted. However, we need to support and resource their work and give them clear responsibility.

On October 30, just eight days after the Anapaya sank, the transport minister introduced Bill C-64. The bill is compatible with my legislation, as there is no overlap. When I saw that the minister had finally acted, I thought, great, my bill would really fill the gaps in his bill, and both pieces of legislation could move forward together. The transport minister's bill does not legislate on the most pressing issues with abandoned vessels. It does not deal with the backlog and does not fix vessel registration. The transport minister wants to be able send fines and penalties to the owners of vessels, but if there is no proper vessel registry, how will he ever know where to mail the bill?

Therefore, these two pieces of legislation should have been able to go forward together. Again, because the government's bill did not deal with the backlog, part of my bill suggested a vessel turn-in program, kind of like the successful cash for clunkers program for vehicles, which many provinces have worked on. Without that kind of turn-in program, we will just not be able to deal with the backlog.

We have heard of all the procedural games the Liberals used. They blocked my bill at the procedure and House affairs committee. I went to an appeal and showed them exactly all of the ways the bills were compatible and not in conflict, but they used their majority on committee to vote me down. We then used an unprecedented tool that had never been used in the history of the House of Commons, a secret ballot vote.

Even under the cover of the secrecy of the ballot box, I had an awful lot of Liberal colleagues say they were sorry but were voting with the government on this one. I wish they had voted with coastal communities, voted to have the solutions from all of those coastal mayors, brought to this House, and at least had the courage to have these debated in committee. To me, it felt like a real betrayal of the Liberal commitment to work across the aisle co-operatively, and to work with local communities to find solutions. I am disappointed. None of the B.C. coastal voices are included in this legislation, and I do not believe there are any B.C. Liberals on the speaking list today who are willing to speak about why they did not want to support this bill. In contrast, in the previous Parliament, when the Liberals were the third party, they voted for former MP Jean Crowder's version of this bill. That included the fisheries minister, transport minister, and the prime minister. Anyway, times have changed.

Tonight is the end of the road for Bill C-352. It is what coastal communities have been asking for for decades, but this is our consolation prize final hour of debate. Because of the Liberal push, this will not go to committee or a vote, which almost never happens. However, here we are making history again.

Yesterday, I was very pleased to have the support of all parties of the House to fast-track the transport minister's bill, Bill C-64, to committee immediately. Our communities are so hungry for solutions, and I am really glad there was agreement to move that quickly. The minister's bill will go to committee and I will do my best, along with my colleagues, to insert as many of those coastal solutions that remain from my blocked bill within the minister's bill.

I will finish by saying that I continue to be awed by the power and innovation of coastal communities. These are people who take matters into their own hands, find fixes, and use the system to advocate for them. Honestly, they should not have had to work this hard. This should have been solved 15 years ago, as every other maritime country has pretty much done.

I will not forget that the Liberal government tried to stifle coastal voices. However, my resolve to include the innovation and problem-solving nature of coastal community leaderships into the government's bill continues so that we can finally solve the abandoned vessels problem and get it off the backs of coastal communities. For ecology, the economy, and local jobs, let us respect that coastal wisdom. Let us honour the advice of these elected local leaders and bring their abandoned vessels solutions to this House and into Canada's legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Great idea. Okay.

The clerk is asking, though, that we use the extra time to think about the witness list, since we're not going to be meeting next week or Thursday, and submit them to the clerk by January 15.

How many meetings are we going to have on Bill C-64? Can we not wait until we see what it looks like? Okay. Does anybody have any idea of the number of meetings? I don't know how big the bill is. I haven't seen it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The bill has carried. Thank you all very much for that.

Now, one other piece of business that the clerk is insisting we talk about is Bill C-64. Since it was officially sent to us, according to the clerk, she would like us to be thinking about the witnesses for Bill C-64, which we will at some point have to deal with.

Mr. Chong.

Abandoned Vessels

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

Madam Speaker, I rise again in the House to present petitions signed by coastal people who are urging the House to adopt my Bill C-352, which would solve the problem of abandoned vessels. These signatories are from Port Saunders and Corner Brook, Newfoundland, and on the west coast, Nanaimo and Ladysmith.

The petitioners urge that the bill and its remedies for fixing vessel registration in order to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels and with recycling and green jobs all be advanced. All of these are pieces that would fill holes in the government's Bill C-64.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, after the Liberals blocked my bill on abandoned vessels, I launched a historic appeal allowing MPs to decide themselves if it should be debated. It should, because it is built on solutions proposed by coastal communities, which will fill gaps in the government's Bill C-64. We have hundreds of signatures in support of my bill and this week the mayor of Ladysmith wrote directly to the Prime Minister urging him to allow debate.

Why is the government blocking my legislation? Why is it stifling coastal voices?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, for too long, administrative shortfalls have left shoreline communities struggling unaided to dispose of abandoned vessels.

In Beauharnois, many environmental concerns have been expressed about the Kathryn Spirit. We are talking about tens of tonnes of hazardous materials and contaminated water.

The Liberals' Bill C-64 fails to properly address the problem of vessels being left to rot for years in shoreline communities.

Will the Liberals finally work with these communities and with the NDP by debating Bill C-352 in order to fill the gaps in their own bill?

Fisheries and Oceans

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on decisions taken by the procedure and House affairs committee.

Having said that, we are extremely proud of Bill C-64, which is a comprehensive strategy to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels. It is something that all of government should support.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite years of advocacy by coastal communities, the Liberals' Bill C-64 does not legislate on the most pressing aspects of the abandoned vessel problem. Last week another boat sank in Ladysmith.

For too long federal failures have left coastal communities with nowhere to turn. That is why my bill includes their solutions and fills gaps in the government's new bill. However, in unprecedented interference, Liberal members are blocking debate on my abandoned vessel legislation.

Why is the Trudeau government stifling coastal voices?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Well, good for you, if that's the case, but again, I don't see how Bill C-64 fails as a national strategy, even though it doesn't explicitly say it. We may have a difference on that one.

There are two other very interesting points. Your initiative, your bill, calls for an analysis of the Nairobi convention, which I've read, whereas Bill C-64 calls for a wholehearted acceptance of it. I think that's a valid point. You talked about the Washington state measures and the contributions therein, but the government also contributes, as well as the private sector. Is that correct?

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

The words “national strategy” are not mentioned a single time within the bill. The words don't appear there, but they do appear in mine. The minister's briefing notes describe what the government is taking on as a national strategy, and this is mentioned within one of 15 items that the government is doing.

The government itself does not describe Bill C-64 as its national strategy. My bill calls on the government to adopt a national strategy. Arguably, I might say that the minister's been listening so well to me over the last year and a half that this might be one of his actions. He's just skipped over this part.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

It would be less about procedure and more about the subject matter itself. Being east coastal by nature and by birthright, it is something that we're struggling with in a major way. The thrust of your bill is something I deeply respect, by the way.

One issue, though, is about national strategy. You're saying Bill C-64 doesn't explicitly state it's a national strategy, correct? Do you feel that's not built into it? In other words, what makes Bill C-64 not comply with being a national strategy?

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

Thank you, Peter.

There were two bills, Bill C-352 and its predecessor, which I tabled as Bill C-219 in February 2016, just a month after we had been sworn in. Then I reintroduced a new version of it in April 2017: Bill C-352. It's very skinny. The government's bill, tabled 10 days ago, Bill C-64, is much more hefty. That's my first point of comparison.

I will show you how these two bills are not redundant and how they are not contradictory. I urge you to deem my private member's bill votable.

There are a number of points of comparison.

With regard to national strategy, Bill C-64 is not a national strategy. The word does not appear once in the legislation. The government's briefing notes make that clear as well. It's not a national strategy; my bill is all about developing a national strategy.

The next comparison is with regard to royal recommendation. Bill C-64 requires the appropriation of public revenue and, as such, has received a royal recommendation. My bill does not.

With regard to penalties, in Bill C-64 there's a compliance and enforcement regime that is extensive. It creates a whole new set of violations and penalties for abandonment of vessels. My bill does none of these things. Arguably, my bill would make it easier to actually enforce those penalties in Bill C-64.

Another related point of comparison is enforcement tools. In Bill C-64, there is a whole suite of tools for enforcement provided to the Minister of Transport, a number of fines. My bill does none of these things.

With regard to enforcement officers and the justice system, they're also very different. Bill C-64 creates powers for enforcement officers, for the Transportation Appeal Tribunal, for the justice of the peace, for the Attorney General. Bill C-352 does none of these.

With regard to receiver of wreck, my bill designates the Canadian Coast Guard as the receiver of wreck. This was the same in Jean Crowder's bill in the previous Parliament, which a number of members of the government supported at that time. In the government's bill, that's not the approach. Bill C-64 keeps it as a multi-jurisdictional approach and keeps the receiver of wreck within the umbrella of the Minister of Transport, so again they are different approaches, not duplicative.

With regard to consultation, in my bill the Minister of Transport would consult with stakeholders and coastal people to discuss the development of a strategy. That's not envisioned in Bill C-64.

With regard to international conventions, Bill C-64, the government's bill, would implement the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. My bill requires the government to assess the benefits of acceding to that convention. Again, they're compatible, not duplicative or in conflict.

A vessel turn-in program is something that coastal communities have been requesting for more than a decade. On the model of the cash-for-clunkers program, this would be a way to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels. Bill C-352 has that as one of its key elements. This bill has been endorsed by the Union of BC Municipalities and, across the country, by at least 50 different coastal organizations and harbour authorities. That is not a part of Bill C-64. Again, they're completely different. Bill C-64 does not legislate that.

In order to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels, my bill has a number of measures that would legislate to address the backlog of what Transport Canada says might be thousands of abandoned vessels. Bill C-64 does not have measures to deal with the backlog, so again they're not in conflict, not contradictory, but arguably compatible.

A fund for vessel disposal modelled on what Washington state implemented 15 years ago is not addressed in Bill C-64, and the transport minister's briefing notes make that very clear. A fee associated with vessel registration going into a pool to deal with emergency removals is not something that is in Bill C-64. It is in my bill.

Amendments to other acts are another point of difference. Bill C-64 amends other acts, including the Navigation Protection Act, the Oceans Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Customs Act, and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act. My bill does none of these things.

Turning to review mechanisms in Bill C-64, there's a review proposed on the fifth anniversary of the day the bill comes into force. That would be to the committee of the Senate, the House of Commons, and/or of both Houses of Parliament. My bill only requires the transport minister to prepare and table a report to Parliament.

There are many more points of comparison. I haven't run through them all. I just hope that is sufficient to convince you that these two bills are distinctly different. They're not contradictory; they're arguably compatible. They have the same big-picture aim, but the House can absolutely hear both of them, and I sincerely believe the minister's bill would do better with mine in place.

I urge you to reject and overturn the subcommittee's ruling and I urge you to rule that my abandoned vessel private member's bill C-352 be deemed votable.

I'll turn it back to my colleague, Peter Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank you, Ms. Malcolmson. We are very happy to have an opportunity to speak with you today about why Bill C-352 should be votable in the House of Commons.

Since your committee is in charge of all the prerogatives of Parliament, the decision you have to make is important.

There are three main arguments I would like to put forward at the beginning.

First off, as you will see, Bill C-352 is in fact quite a different piece of legislation from the government bill, Bill C-64, and therefore should not be considered the same question as Bill C-64, which is currently on the Order Paper.

Second, the subcommittee was incorrect in applying the criteria to Bill C-352 because it was similar to Bill C-64 at the same meeting where it applied different criteria, it seemed, to Bill C-364, which was declared votable, despite being on the same subject and amending the same Canada Elections Act as Bill C-50 and Bill C-33. There's an inconsistency there.

Third, allowing the subcommittee decision to stand is allowing the government to violate the separation of private members' business and to let it do through the back door what the rules were designed to forbid through the front door: to deny individual members their right to vote on their preferred item of private members' business.

As we all know, government bills are subject to party discipline. Private members' bills have been the exception to this, and in our bible, which is O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it is clear that these rules were developed over decades, leading to a system based on the following fundamental characteristics: each member should have “at least one opportunity per Parliament to have an item of Private Members' Business debated” and voted upon, and “each item in the Order of Precedence would be votable, unless the sponsor opted to make it non-votable.”

The basic premise for PMBs is that government business is fundamentally different from private members' business. This premise was put in place to protect individual initiatives from members against the power of majority governments, including the power to try to knock off a bill.

Now, to emphasize the differences, the House has many rules built in to reflect the separation of government and private members' business. Amendments to private members' motions can only be moved with the consent of the sponsor. PMB recorded divisions, as we know, are done row by row in the chamber, and not by party. The lottery is designed to exclude ministers and parliamentary secretaries from PMBs, and if the committee makes a decision and it is appealed, the appeal is done by secret ballot on the floor of the House of Commons. The only other time this arises is when we elect a Speaker at the beginning of Parliament.

I would like to pass the microphone back now to Ms. Malcolmson, who will explain why Bill C-352 is so different from Bill C-64.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

The second item is really quick. Maybe we'll just make this a standard procedure.

There's a group from Ghana coming November 28 to 30. With other parliaments, we've set up an informal meeting outside PROC time when any member who wants to come can do so. Unless I hear otherwise, or there's nothing controversial, maybe we'll just do that when we get requests, if that's okay with the committee members. I'll just inform you that it's coming, and if someone has an issue, we can bring that up at committee.

Ms. Malcolmson, I wasn't at the subcommittee, but there are people here who were. On your private member's bill, administration said it should be non-votable because it was similar to a government bill, Bill C-64. She has the right within five days to appear before the committee or send written reasons stating why she disagrees. Five days would elapse the Monday after we get back, so we'd have the Monday after we get back. Basically we need to schedule time either this week or on the Monday we get back when she could present to committee, and committee could make a decision.

Go ahead, Mr. Graham.

[David Groves, Committee Researcher]

I reviewed all the items, and an issue came up with only one item, Bill C-352, An act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to provide for the development of a national strategy (abandonment of vessels).

The issue is that the government recently tabled Bill C-64, An act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, which is also about wrecks and abandoned vessels.

Bill C-352 involves creating regulations on wreck removal and developing this national strategy. Bill C-64 is much more comprehensive. It also involves the creation of regulations on wreck removal, and it deals with the issue of wreck removal generally.

The rule in this committee is that bills and motions must not concern questions currently on the Order Paper and Notice Paper as items of government business. The question in both bills is dilapidated boats, abandoned vessels, and wrecks.

The Environment

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, derelict vessels are a problem for many coastal communities, including in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. That is why I introduced Motion No. 40, and was very proud when the House adopted the motion unanimously.

Earlier this week, our government introduced Bill C-64 in Parliament to address this important issue. Could the Prime Minister please update Canadians on the new measures included in this unprecedented legislation?

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you for this opportunity to colleagues at the table. It's great to see you again.

I won't repeat the introductions that you offered, Mr. Chair, but the senior officials of the department and, of course, our colleague, the parliamentary secretary, are with me. If I am not able to struggle through an answer, I hope that you will indulge them and allow them to provide the information that all of you may be seeking.

Mr. Chairman, as I think you understand, or as we indicated, I am happy to stay here for about an hour, probably an hour and 10 minutes. I think we have a vote perhaps coming up a little later. If there is a bit of time before you adjourn for the potential vote, the officials have indicated that they would be happy to stay as well.

Colleagues, as all of you know, the ocean is extremely significant to our heritage, our culture, and certainly our economy. Our government, like previous governments, is committed to meaningful marine conservation measures that will protect both the environment and coastal communities and their economies. In our view, these are not, and should never be, incompatible principles. One of the reasons we would want to protect our oceans is precisely to protect the long-term sustainable economy that depends on them.

We know that our ocean is a vital part of the future of our country—ecologically, clearly, but economically as well. We also know that climate change is real and our ocean is under stress at many levels. We believe that it's time to act, together. It's time to act collectively, and we are asking Parliament to make amendments to the Oceans Act with that specific objective in mind.

Canada supports the objective of a marine-based economy that provides social and economic benefits for current and future generations and is based, as I said, on the twin principles of conservation and sustainable economic growth. By virtue of our unique geographic situation, Canada will be a leader on a marine-based economy that provides social and economic benefits for current and future generations.

Marine conservation will be achieved through working across all orders of government, alongside indigenous peoples, the industry, academia, and environmental groups.

Canada is helping to shape the international agenda as we move towards and beyond the 2020 targets, sharing our extensive work on guidelines, for example, for other effective area-based conservation measures, and working with other countries to advance criteria that can be used by all states that share our conservation goals.

Our government takes the commitments made in 2010 to the Aichi target 11 extremely seriously. We are making strong progress in increasing protections of our oceans. I am confident that we will surpass our interim target of protecting 5% of our marine areas by the end of this year. Obviously, we are on track to meet the commitments we made for 2020 as well.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-55, in our view, is an important step in achieving these marine conservation goals, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this with you as you prepare your review of this legislation.

To clarify, the 10% target is being implemented by the 196 countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Canada has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to this goal and demonstrate global leadership.

Bill C-55 is an important element of our marine conservation agenda. While the proposed amendments provide another tool for us to meet our marine conservation targets in a timely manner, our government's objective is, first, foremost and always, to protect sensitive and vulnerable marine and coastal areas for present and future generations of Canadians.

Years of experience in developing marine protected areas, or MPAs, have shown us that too many delays occur during the establishment process. Through this experience, we have also learned that there are some circumstances where greater harm can occur during these delays, and, in these circumstances, there needs to be protection sooner. The interim protection MPA proposed under Bill C-55 addresses this gap in conserving our oceans' biodiversity. This new tool would give us the option to establish interim protection where initial science and consultation tell us we need to act in a precautionary manner.

These MPAs provide a clearly defined geographical space that is recognized and managed through a new legal mechanism called a ministerial order, and are developed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.

Respecting this definition, Bill C-55 provides good policy by taking a precautionary approach and enabling interim protection while science and consultations continue to establish a permanent MPA.

This new ministerial order will be formalized by publication in the Canada Gazette.

I have heard wide interest in Canada adopting protection standards across all MPAs.

The inclusion of standards in the Oceans Act, such as core protection zones and prohibited activities found in national marine conservation areas, requires careful consideration of the need to balance ecological integrity with the sustainable use of our marine resources.

As I announced at the Our Ocean conference on October 5, in Malta, work is under way to establish a national advisory panel to provide this expert advice on protection standards for future MPAs.

Mr. Chairman, we are also investing in enforcement capacity for marine protected areas as part of the marine conservation targets initiative and the oceans protection plan. As of June 1 of this year fishery officers have undertaken 1,482 hours in the monitoring and protection of marine protected areas. Before April 2018, enforcement plans for each marine protected area will be put in place to ensure compliance within those marine protected areas.

During second reading debate in the House, Mr. Chair, I also heard remarks on the importance of consultation in meeting our marine conservation targets. Consultation and seeking the knowledge and views of other governments, indigenous groups, other communities, marine resource users, and stakeholders are cornerstone principles for marine protected area establishment.

Bill C-55 does not take away from the requirement to consult and engage throughout the development of an interim protection MPA. Part II of the Oceans Act, which frames the strategy for managing oceans, is based on a collaborative approach with provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, and stakeholders who depend on the oceans. The Oceans Act is one of the first federal statutes to enshrine a non-derogation clause. Bill C-55 does not need to include provisions relating to indigenous rights and titles. This provision is already enshrined in the act and will obviously stay that way.

As I mentioned earlier, establishing interim protection is subject to the same standards for public consultations as Governor in Council regulations and follows the Canada Gazette process. Bill C-55 does not include sweeping changes to the Oceans Act. Aligned with the March 2017 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Bill C-55 strengthens the Oceans Act by enabling interim protection of MPAs prior to the formal establishment. The bill also strengthens the Oceans Act by adopting the precautionary principle and modernizing the enforcement provisions to align with other modern environmental legislation.

Mr. Chair, by way of conclusion, according to a 2016 World Wildlife Fund report, 98% of Canadians support designating parts of Canadian waters as marine protected areas. I hear, and I'm sure many of you hear, that support every day. This bill, Bill C-55, is one aspect of our government's broader suite of ocean protections being established since we took office two years ago, and obviously we'll continue to do that work in the coming months. The tools proposed will improve our ability to protect our ocean and fulfill the commitments we have made to Canadians, the international community, and the environment.

Once again, Mr. Chair, I thank you for having the chance to discuss this legislation. I look forward to the questions. I also look forward to the testimony of other witnesses who you will, in your judgment, decide to hear from and would work collaboratively with committee members. Obviously you have suggestions around amendments, and my department will be available to all of you as you contemplate amendments or want to understand further details of the legislation. All you need to do is let us know, and we'll be happy to be here and happy to accompany you on the work you're going to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.