Bill C-244

Clean Coasts Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to enhance the protection of marine areas by providing for increased liability for damage to marine areas.

Clean Coasts Act

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

moved that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the 5.5 million Canadians who has the privilege of living on Canada's coast, I know it is not just where we live; it is part of who we are, from learning about the life cycle of salmon as a child to fishing in our rivers and oceans and experiencing the incredible feeling of seeing a whale in the wild. It is what brings residents and visitors together, drives our economy and puts food on the table.

Today, these same coastlines face mounting pressures from marine pollution and abandoned and derelict boats. Coastal residents see these impacts every single day. They have written letters, raised petitions and met with every level of government, saying the same thing: Our laws and policies are simply not getting the job done. They want us to do something about it. They know that our oceans are for the common benefit, but they are not a common dumping ground. They are frustrated because they see what happens when governments act too late when a vessel sinks, fuel leaks and community bears the cost of a problem that should have been prevented. That is why I am honoured to rise today to speak to my private members' bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act.

The legislation strengthens Canada's ability to prevent and respond to marine pollution by closing two critical gaps in our laws: First, it clarifies that marine dumping is a strict liability offence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and second, it amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to prohibit the transfer of vessels to individuals the seller knows does not have the means to maintain or dispose of them safely. Together, these two measures will deter the reckless behaviour that endangers our coasts and ensure that those who pollute our oceans, not the public, are responsible for cleaning up their waste.

These amendments respond directly to challenges that coastal communities, particularly in British Columbia, face every day. Coastal residents see the cumulative impact of marine pollution, derelict vessels and infrastructure that is breaking down.

Nowhere is this happening more than in Porpoise Bay, where long-time residents, such as Angelia, have watched this decline unfold over their lifetimes. She grew up swimming and digging clams with her family, but today, she does not believe she will ever swim there again. The bay, where her neighbour's grandchildren now play, is scattered with derelict boats and floating debris that leach oil, fuel and waste into the water. What was once a clear, healthy inlet has become clouded with pollution and garbage from decaying vessels. The same children who may have spent their weekends searching for shells now spend their time picking up plastic and broken foam that washes ashore

For Elaine, who runs a small waterfront bed and breakfast that was once featured in The New York Times as one of Canada's most scenic coastal getaways, this has become an economic issue as much as an environmental one. Guests no longer see a pristine bay; they see a flotilla of abandoned boats and improvised structures. Tourism suffers, and all the local businesses that depend on it do as well.

When governments are slow to act, people like Don McKenzie, a 90-year-old marina operator, take matters into their own hands. Don has spent years pumping water out of sinking vessels at his own expense because he knows that once they go down, the cost is 10 times greater to deal with them, which ultimately falls to taxpayers. I thank Don for all that he does.

Beyond derelict boats, other forms of marine pollution are also taking a toll. Along the coast, we see styrofoam from decaying docks and aquaculture facilities that are breaking apart into thousands of small fragments that spread across beaches and into fragile habitats.

Community groups, such as the West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society, Átl’ka7tsem/Howe Sound Marine Stewardship Initiative and the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, as well as their volunteers, dedicate countless hours to cleaning up what stronger laws could have prevented from entering the ocean in the first place. Cleanups across British Columbia's coasts can cost thousands of dollars per kilometre. These are costs borne not by polluters but by local residents and volunteers.

These are not isolated frustrations; they are symptoms of a system that reacts only after the damage is done. While communities such as Gibsons, Sechelt and Bowen Island see these impacts up close, the same legal gaps are evident on a larger scale. When pollution reaches the ocean, the effects ripple far beyond one bay or harbour.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is the most important environmental law in Canada. It protects people and the environment from toxic substances, but given how the court has interpreted the marine dumping provisions of CEPA, only intentional discharges into the ocean are now prohibited. This means that even when careless acts, omissions or poor maintenance lead to dumping in our oceans, individuals or companies can escape responsibility.

The 2015 Marathassa oil spill in Vancouver's English Bay makes this very clear. A newly built bulk carrier leaked more than 2,700 litres of bunker oil into the ocean, coating nearby beaches, marine life and shoreline habitats. The cleanup costs were in the millions of dollars. It took weeks and involved volunteers, municipalities, first nations and the Coast Guard. Even after all these efforts, we know that the oil spilled continues to have a long-term impact.

Despite dumping oil into the bay for days, the ship's owners were ultimately acquitted of all charges. This case revealed a critical flaw. It placed the burden on the public to prove intention rather than on the polluter to demonstrate responsibility.

The clean coasts act would correct that imbalance. It would establish a strict liability framework that would shift the onus of proof from the Crown to the polluter. Under this model, if a vessel releases pollution into the marine environment, the owner or operator must prove that they took all appropriate steps to prevent it. They must do what a reasonable person would do in the same situation and simply act responsibly. This is what was always intended by the act, and this bill clarifies that that would be the case going forward.

This is not about criminalizing accidents. It is about ensuring that those who operate in our waters meet the highest standards we expect of them. It would encourage better maintenance, safety protocols and planning, saving both money and our oceans. By placing accountability where it belongs, on those in control of the vessels that could cause harm, the clean coasts act would make prevention the rule rather than the exception.

The Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, passed in 2019, was an important step forward. WAHVA made it an offence to abandon a vessel, rather than what someone should be doing in these cases, which is properly dispose of it. Incredibly, this was not prohibited before then.

In creating this new prohibition to abandon a vessel, we created an incentive for people to avoid it. Some vessel owners now try to sidestep accountability by transferring boats, usually at the end of their useful life, to people who they know cannot maintain them. These transfers are easy to find. Residents have shared screenshots of online listings on platforms like Craigslist, where boats are offered for a dollar or free to a good home. In some cases, the same sites advertized “off-grid moorage” or “tie-ups on makeshift floats”, inviting others to live on the water without proper facilities, order, permission or oversight.

Some might ask who would voluntarily take on this type of liability. Too often, it is some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as the unhoused simply looking for a roof over their head. They have more immediate things to worry about than the cost of properly disposing of a vessel.

Some might ask why this is a problem. These vessels are often not seaworthy and are at risk of sinking. In Porpoise Bay, that danger became real when a man who was living on an unseaworthy vessel tragically lost his life when trying to reach the shore in a small dinghy. Beyond the danger to human life, these vessels pose ongoing navigation hazards and increase the risk of waste being dumped into coastal waters, factors that degrade the water quality in the surrounding region.

In speaking with organizations like the Coastal Restoration Society, which has removed over 100 derelict vessels from B.C.'s coastline since 2017, I have heard first-hand how costly it is to remove these vessels once they have sunk. Safely removing a single 45-foot wooden vessel can cost upward of $40,000, costs that small port authorities and boat owners simply cannot afford, and this is on the cheaper side. Without accessible disposal options, many vessels are stripped for parts and then left to deteriorate in the water, leaking pollutants into the nearby ecosystem.

The clean coasts act would close an important loophole. It would prohibit the transfer of a vessel to anyone the seller knows lacks the means to maintain it safely and would ensure that accountability follows a vessel throughout its life cycle so ownership cannot be off-loaded to avoid responsibility.

The clean coasts act would build on progress that Canada has already made in oceans protection. It would strengthen existing tools rather than creating new ones. Through the oceans protection plan, we have improved spill response and habitat restoration and have provided funding to remove sunken boats through the abandoned boats program.

This is about getting ahead of the problem and dealing with it in a much cheaper way, but those efforts can succeed only when the laws that underpin them are enforceable. The clean coasts act would provide that clarity, ensuring that both CEPA and WAHVA work effectively. This is not a radical reform but a practical fix that would deliver results on the water and better value for taxpayers.

Protecting our oceans is not just a national duty; it is a shared responsibility across every level of government. Right now, responsibility for derelict and abandoned vessels is scattered. Transport Canada oversees navigation safety, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages small craft harbours, Environment and Climate Change Canada responds to pollution, and the Coast Guard steps in during emergencies. Provincially, jurisdiction extends over the inshore seabed and shorelines, and municipalities are left managing the impacts within their boundaries.

The result is too often a finger-pointing exercise, with no single body clearly accountable for prevention and enforcement. Communities like Sechelt have seen what happens when this patchwork approach fails: Pollution worsens, vessels sink and coastal communities and taxpayers bear the cost. The clean coasts act is about ending that cycle. It focuses on prevention, ensuring that responsibility could not be passed from one owner, one jurisdiction or one ministry to another.

There has already been strong leadership from local organizations and from volunteers who are stepping up to do the work that should not fall to them. Groups like the Dead Boats Disposal Society show that Canadians are ready to act. They need the federal government to back them up with the right tools.

I would also say that the issue is not partisan. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in its bipartisan report on abandoned and derelict vessels, offered important recommendations to address the issue, including thoughtful suggestions in the Conservatives' supplementary report. I want to recognize the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, the Conservative Party critic for fisheries, for his work in this space and particularly for the recommendation that I deeply agree with and that the government should adopt: to require boat sellers rather than boat buyers to register the transfers of boats.

I would also like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for seconding the bill and for his long-standing advocacy on dealing with the issue of derelict vessels, which absolutely plagues his riding as well.

We would not have the WAHVA framework were it not for the private member's bill that former fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan brought forward. More locally, the former MP for my riding, John Weston, has also long been a champion of this issue.

We all care about clean coasts and know that the bill alone will not solve the problem. We need a modernized vessel registry system so we can effectively identify vessel ownership, and we need a sufficient and sustainable source of funding through the vessel remediation fund to remove and dispose of vessels for which we cannot identify the owners. These two regulations are long overdue, and I call on the government to act urgently to finalize them.

Furthermore, on the west coast, there is still no dedicated facility for dismantling or recycling end-of-life vessels. We need to change this. We need to make it both easy and affordable for boat owners to properly dispose of their boats. Pairing this with legislative reform, we can make a lasting difference of addressing the root causes of marine pollution rather than only its much more costly symptoms.

In conclusion, I want to add that a recent poll by Glacier Media shows that nearly 97% of respondents are in favour of stricter regulation of marine dumping and derelict vessels. The clean coasts act would respond to exactly that, so I invite all members to support this pragmatic step, to stand with coastal communities, to honour the people who have been calling for action for years, and to ensure that our oceans remain clean, healthy and productive for generations to come.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his concern for the environment and for derelict vessels on the coasts of British Columbia, and for pointing out, to quote the member opposite, that the government is “slow to act”.

Indeed it is a reflection of a failing economy that there has been an explosion of abandoned vessels that have gone from being just boats that are broken down to being ones that people are now turning into small towns to live in. Indeed there is a problem.

The member opposite indicated that the bill would put the onus on the seller, and that the seller would have liability for a boat and the actions of the new owner. Could the member opposite perhaps explain what liabilities the seller would then have, with the onus on them, as a new owner would take on that boat? Would it just be the environmental impact or other impacts as well?

The example I would like to give is that of selling a car. Once it is registered with the new owner, the new owner should take on the responsibilities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. With the changes proposed in the bill, there would be an obligation for the seller to take steps to ensure that they are not selling to someone who they know does not have the means to maintain it or properly dispose of it. There are a lot of ways that one can do that, such as properly disclosing the current condition of the boat and ensuring that the seller can also provide in written format how they can maintain it as well. This is one way of dealing with the loophole that is there. Subsequent to that, the seller of the boat would have no responsibility beyond that, because of course, what could they do at that point?

This is really addressing a critical loophole that was created when we introduced the prohibition of abandoning boats. This is something that we need to do to close that loophole.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work and for his speech. We will indeed be able to work across party lines on this bill.

My question concerns one of the clauses. The bill, which is fairly specific and targeted, includes four clauses. One of the clauses amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act prohibition that no person may dispose of a substance in the sea, which encompasses the sinking of ships, by adding “or allow the disposal” of a substance in the sea.

What purpose does this addition to the act serve?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

This amendment seeks to correct a problem created by a court decision. The penalty and the prohibition were always intended as a strict liability offence. The court's interpretation of the law altered its application. This amendment restores the original intent: Any act committed deliberately or by negligence will henceforward be prohibited.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, coastal communities across Canada see the impact of pollution and the dangers of wrecked and abandoned vessels all too often. The legislation would have a positive impact from my coast in Atlantic Canada to his on the west coast.

I would like to know how coastal communities, especially in his province of British Columbia, have responded to the measures proposed in the bill.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that this is something that requires multiple levels of government jurisdiction to address. The province has taken some actions, as well, to deal with marine pollution. It is very much something that we can work together on. We all realize that this is an issue. If it is in the water, it is typically the federal government's jurisdiction. When it washes ashore to land, we engage the provincial jurisdiction. We need to work closely together.

This is about getting ahead of those problems and stopping the issue from getting worse, stopping more and more derelict vessels from being out there. It is also about making sure that we are holding the folks and companies that are causing marine pollution responsible.

That is something that all levels of government and all members of the House should be able to agree to, because this is about a core value, personal responsibility, and ensuring that the polluter pays for actions.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the floor for this bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

I come from Kitamaat Village, which is at the head of the Douglas Channel on the west coast of British Columbia. I grew up around marine activities, hunting and fishing, but there was no recreation. We have had a private port for the last 70 years, but apart from the pulp and paper tankers, the aluminum tankers carrying bauxite and ore and those carrying methanol, we have not really seen marine activity or even been part of it, for that matter.

As a small first nation community, we were trying to deal not only with derelict vessels sinking, but with the topics the member just talked about, such as spill response. More deeply, we went into industrial degradation with air, land and water. The more we dug into it, dating back to the 1970s, the more we realized that regulations and legislation had empty promises. They were not really living up to the limitations that had been put on by the permits and the regulators, whether it be in Canada or B.C.

In fact, by the time we got to the consultation in 2003, we realized that permits were basically rules to be broken. If a company could not abide by the limits put on it by a permit, the permit limitations would be expanded. We fought really hard to get the provincial government and the federal government to live up to the regulations and permitting requirements. In some cases we succeeded and in some we did not.

It was not until we started to engage fully in environmental assessments by Canada and B.C. that we realized we could kill two birds with one stone. We could make the standards for environmental protection higher for marine, terrestrial and air, not only in the environmental assessment process but within existing permits.

Being a small community, we still deal with vessels sinking today, not only in the Douglas Channel but also at our docks. The dock we are talking about in my village is actually owned by the federal government under the small harbours act. We really thought the existing regulations were going to not only help prevent vessels from sinking, but also help us remediate and get these vessels to stop polluting our waters. That was not the case.

When we look at some of the existing processes, such as the oceans protection plan the member mentioned, the $300 million that was earmarked for the oceans protection plan has removed 791 vessels to date to get the polluting factor out of our marine environment. However, there are still 1,355 derelict vessels on the list from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that are backlogged. We still have a long way to go. When we think about that and quantify it, with upwards of $300 million for these vessels, we need a better way to implement and enforce the existing regulations. We have to make it easier.

I agree with the member that it has to be a coordinated effort among the provincial government, the federal government, the municipalities and first nations, which are burdened with the cost and the pollution we are talking about. It is first nations like my band that struggle with this cost and with trying to figure it out. We had the same problems the member talked about. We had a problem with ownership and trying to track down who the owners were, to try to offset some of the costs the council was paying out.

At that time, we had no money. We were broke. We were trying to find some way within our Indian Act agreement to pay for these derelict vessels, not only to take them out of the water but also to clean up the damage. That is really hard to do when there is no money. Most of the time we had to let these vessels just sit there until we could figure out a way to keep them from being a risk, let alone trying to clean up the damage.

The intent of the bill is good. First nations and non-first nations all want to see a cleaner environment, whether it be terrestrial or marine. In fact, the record in my community over the last 20 years reflects that in all categories, whether we are talking about dumps or marine spills. During the preliminary oil and gas days, for proposals in our territory, we tried to engage with the idea of getting involved with the spill response. We wanted to be partners with Canada and B.C. to be the first responders in case of a spill, whether it came from industrial activity or residential activity, even on the highways, or even sewage.

Sewage is a big issue on the west coast of British Columbia. Prince Rupert, for example, has been begging the provincial and federal governments for some help because they have no primary treatment of their sewage. It goes directly into the ocean. They are under threat of fines coming from the provincial government. At the same time, Prince Rupert does not have the funds to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. They are in a really tough spot.

I grew up on the water, purchasing boats on my own behalf, as well as for friends and family. It is an interesting concept to say that the onus should be on the seller to basically ensure the new owner or prospective buyer has the ability, resources or intent to own a boat, and that before the buyer can purchase a boat, the owner has to ensure that prospective buyer has the ability, resources or intent to manage a boat. That is an interesting concept.

I do not know how that would be done. Are they interviewed? Is a credit check done? Is their bank account checked? I do not know how a buyer would ensure that the new owner could actually maintain a boat. We do not do that with vehicles or anything else. It is going to be interesting to see how the government or the regulator would ensure that that happens. I can see it being a legal mess. I can see it going before the courts. Unless there are some provisions that would come out in the regulations later to show the steps that a seller would have to take to ensure that the buyer is not reckless.

By the way, a lot of boats purchased in Canada come from the United States. That presents different problems. There are already different rules to be followed when purchasing boats from the United States. Now the seller in the United States would have obligations when selling a boat to someone living in Canada. That becomes a different issue altogether.

Canada is actually a seller of boats. British Columbia is a seller of boats. It is mostly done through surplus auctions. Canada would be in the same boat—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his Bill C‑244, which will allow us to address an important topic.

When we leave dry land and set sail, the ship that carries us transports us to another world. Things are different at sea. The horizon stretches out all around us, the air is salty, and the sky is vast. Boats are a gateway to other places, but they do not last forever. Boats wear out, break down, sometimes run aground and become wrecks. Sometimes boats are abandoned.

In Canada, there are thousands of abandoned boats. Some are still afloat, moored like ghost ships in ports. Others have already sunk and become wrecks. What do we do with these abandoned boats? They pose a clear environmental risk. I would like to tell the story of the Corfu Island that unfolded in my riding, the beautiful Magdalen Islands, to give members an idea of what we are talking about today.

The SS Corfu Island ran aground on December 20, 1963, on the West Dune of Cap aux Meules Island, in the L'Étang-du-Nord sector, with 27 Greek sailors on board. It was December and there was an intense blizzard. Through courage, ingenuity and islander rescuers' desire to help, tragedy was averted. In the end, all the sailors were rescued, but the Corfu Island became a wreck filled with heavy oil.

In 1966, three years after the shipwreck, a Quebec City company won the contract to demolish the hull of the Corfu Island and send it to the scrapyard. However, executing the contract proved difficult. The hull refused to slide easily enough, and the wreck had to be cut up, but only the part that was above the sandy section could be cut up. To this day, about 10 feet of the ship remains stuck in the sand dune, on the Magdalen Islands, on what is now known as Corfu beach.

The wreck is subject to shifting sands, which sometimes exposes small, sharp metal parts, and has recently caused oil spills. Two of those oil spills happened this summer, in August. They were minor, at roughly 500 millilitres, but still. For the people of the islands, who love their natural environment so much, seeing small traces of oil in the sea is worrisome and troubling.

Since 1996, 186 operations have been carried out to recover oil from the Corfu Island. Since 2015, 200 litres of oil have been recovered, but some still remains. The Canadian Coast Guard is now in charge of the wreck and believes that it poses little risk to the environment and the population but remains dangerous to visitors. The question Magdalen Islanders are asking is: What are they going to do with the rest of the Corfu Island? It is not a pretty sight. It is the remains of a wreck stuck in the sand on the Magdalen Islands. The Coast Guard says it cannot get rid of it until it can ensure that the benefits of removing it outweigh the environmental risks associated with the operation. That is where things stand. I am still getting emails from Magdalen Islanders who want to know what is going on with the Corfu Island.

In short, the archipelago is still dealing with this ship 62 years after it ran aground. This story shows that abandoned vessels are a major problem that needs to be better managed. Tracking down the owners is often difficult. The cost of removing vessels is often too high. Public funds are available to help, but it is insufficient given the number of vessels that need to be removed. These vessels also pose risks to maritime safety when they are in shipping lanes. They also pose environmental risks, given the oil leaks that can occur, as we have seen.

How do we make sure that what happened with Corfu Island does not happen again? I think Bill C‑244 is a partial attempt to answer that question, and that is why the Bloc Québécois supports it and will be voting in favour.

Bill C-244 seeks to amend two laws, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, to enhance the protection of marine areas by providing for increased liability for damage to marine areas. That means the owners' liability.

The first proposed change would amend the provision that says “no person or ship shall dispose of a substance” to add “or allow the disposal of”. This may seem like gibberish, so I will provide some context for those tuning in. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the term “disposal” means the disposal of a substance at sea from a ship, an aircraft, a platform or another structure.

The proposed amendment clarifies that it is not only illegal for a person who owns a vessel to simply sink it and pollute the area, but it is also illegal for someone to allow another person to do so. The explanation I received from my colleague was that this change was in response to a court ruling. Basically, that is how it works. When this situation arises, it constitutes a criminal offence and the offender ends up in court.

Someone argued that, under this provision, a degree of intent was needed for the person to be found criminally responsible. This amendment is intended to close that loophole. If it does indeed close it, I totally support it. However, when I read the clause, I am not sure I understand that this is what it does. I will have questions to ask about the clause and its effect.

The Bloc Québécois supports the idea of making it easier to prosecute someone who deliberately sinks a vessel or is complicit in deliberately sinking a vessel. Basically, by broadening our powers and being more vigilant, we can avoid creating problems that will last for decades. Once a vessel is abandoned and sunk, it takes decades to get rid of it, and sometimes that cannot even be done.

Another of this bill's improvements is to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by proposing a new section 34.1 concerning transfer of ownership. It clarifies that owners of a vessel will now be prohibited from selling the vessel to someone knowing that this person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked or abandoned. The bill goes even further by stating that not only may the vessel not be sold if the owner knows that the buyer lacks the resources to look after it, but neither may it be sold if the owner is reckless as to whether the buyer has the ability to look after it.

That is interesting. Cases like these have been documented before. A broken-down ship is a whole lot of trouble. The owner has to find some way to offload it. It can be tempting to simply sell it off cheap to someone who will make the best of it or use it for shelter. That has happened before in some places on the west coast.

Now, a seller would be required to ensure that a buyer has the ability to properly care for the vessel. How are they supposed to do that? That is something the committee will have to discuss. What will be expected of the seller? How far would they have to go? Should they ask for bank statements? How do they know someone has the ability to care for a vessel? Those are very relevant questions. How long will they be responsible? My colleague actually answered that question earlier. That is a question the seller has to ask. If someone sells a vessel and the buyer appears to be solvent and responsible, but then sinks the vessel six months later, can the seller still be held responsible? Those are questions worth asking.

I would reiterate that we agree with the principle. We want to prevent the transfer of property that ends up being yet another wreck.

In closing, I believe we must act to prevent yet more wrecks from polluting our coasts. Let us ensure that the Corfu Island is the last of its kind.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this private member’s bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, introduced by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. At its core, Bill C-244 aims to provide a tool to ensure that those who benefit from Canada’s waterways must also take responsibility for their use and for the safe end-of-life management of their vessels.

Bill C-244 proposes amendments to two important pieces of federal legislation: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. The proposed amendment to the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act would prohibit vessel owners from transferring their vessels to individuals who do not intend to maintain, operate or dispose of them responsibly.

The intent of the bill, as outlined by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, is to ensure that when vessels are passed from one owner to another, they are not neglected to the point that they are abandoned, wrecked or hazardous. For those in coastal communities, we know this can pollute our waters and create hazards for Canadians.

Canadians are proud stewards of our coasts, lakes and rivers. Navigation is a right that has helped shape our economy, our communities and our identity. However, with that right comes a responsibility to do the right thing when vessels have reached the end of their life.

While the vast majority of vessel owners take this duty seriously, there are instances, which are too frequent and too visible, where individuals choose to abandon vessels rather than dispose of them properly. Across Canada, more than 1,300 vessels have been identified as wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. Many of these vessels no longer have known owners.

When ownership cannot be traced, the burden falls on taxpayers and communities to address the environmental and safety risks. These risks can include leaking fuel, sinking hulls, navigational hazards, and impacts on fish and wildlife habitats. This issue affects communities in all regions, along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, across the north, in inland lakes, along the St. Lawrence Seaway and in the Great Lakes. It is a national challenge with local consequences.

Marine areas carry deep cultural, spiritual and historical significance, especially for indigenous communities that have navigated, harvested and lived along these waters since time immemorial. Abandoned vessels harm ecosystems and can also disturb culturally significant sites, archaeological resources and areas of traditional use. For these reasons, the government has made addressing problem vessels a priority for several years. The approach has been centred on prevention, preparedness and accountability, while recognizing community realities and cultural context.

A key step in this effort came with the launch, in November 2016, of the national strategy to address Canada’s wrecked and abandoned vessels. That strategy was designed to reduce the prevalence of problem vessels, prevent new ones, and support responsible owners and safe disposal.

One of the pillars of the national strategy was the creation of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, which came into force in July 2019 with the support of all parties in the House. WAHVA made it illegal to abandon a vessel in Canadian waters, strengthened enforcement powers and introduced new penalties. It reinforced the principle that the polluter, not the public, should pay.

In parallel, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, the government administers the disposal at sea program, which regulates the disposal of substances at sea through a strict permit system and allows Canada to meet its international obligations under the London Convention and the London Protocol.

This program authorizes a limited set of materials for disposal at sea only after an assessment of risk and under strict environmental conditions. The program issues approximately 80 to 100 permits per year, and it conducts monitoring to ensure compliance and protect sensitive marine ecosystems. These efforts form part of Canada’s broader commitment to environmental protection, including through CEPA and its core principles, notably precaution, polluter pays and pollution prevention.

While the government has created a solid foundation of legislation, programs and partnerships, experience has also revealed gaps, especially related to vessel transfers and end-of-life management. Many vessels still change hands repeatedly, often among parties unable or unwilling to manage them. Ultimately, the costs and risks land on coastal communities, harbour authorities, indigenous governments and taxpayers. The bill proposes to prevent the transfer of vessels to individuals who lack the capacity or intent to manage them responsibly, and to place the responsibility with owners.

Work is already under way to modernize Canada's approach to vessel ownership. Measures include updating vessel registration and licensing rules so ownership information stays current; requiring faster registration of transferred vessels, which will help trace responsibility; developing an owner-financed cleanup fund, creating a sustainable source of funding for removals when owners cannot be identified or cannot pay; maintaining a national inventory of vessels of concern to support enforcement and planning; and supporting removal and disposal efforts through programs such as the abandoned boats program and Fisheries and Oceans Canada's small craft harbours abandoned and wrecked vessels removal program.

These tools are important; they mean that Transport Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard can work together more effectively to hold owners accountable and prevent abandoned vessels from accumulating in communities and waterways. However, as parliamentarians have heard from coastal residents, harbour operators and indigenous partners, more can be done to address the causes of vessel abandonment.

Bill C-244 proposes to discourage irresponsible transfers, support the polluter-pays principle, and build a more responsible marine ownership culture. Some may ask why this issue matters when many Canadians never encounter abandoned boats. For those who live in coastal regions, particularly in British Columbia, as my colleague pointed out, the problem is highly visible. Vessels left to decay near marinas, anchorages or beaches are more than an eyesore; they represent environmental degradation, lost economic opportunity and an unfair burden on communities.

Beyond local impacts, there is a national interest. Abandoned vessels create navigational hazards, interfere with safe commercial and recreational boating, and cost significant public funds to remove. The challenge will only grow as fleets age, as the resale market grows online and as climate change increases the risks associated with damaged vessels from extreme weather.

Parliament has already demonstrated a shared commitment to addressing the issue. The unanimous passage of WAHVA in 2019 reflects a consensus that abandoned vessels do not belong in Canadian waters and that owners must be accountable. Addressing wrecked and abandoned vessels is long-term work. The national strategy has already laid the important groundwork: a modern legislative framework, a national inventory, improved owner identification processes and federal programs to assist communities. Regulations to support a dedicated removal fund are under way.

I would like to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his long-standing advocacy for coastal protection and for bringing forward the proposed legislation, Bill C-244, and the ways it will help strengthen prevention.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today as the representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, a riding that stretches from the continental divide in Yoho National Park, through the lakes and highlands of the Shuswap, to the grasslands of Kamloops.

Today I rise to speak to Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. I thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, for bringing it forward. I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with the hon. member, and I know that marine protection is a matter that is important to him and to the Canadians he represents.

Protecting Canada's waters and aquatic habitats is a priority that my constituents across Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and I share with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Having spent decades working with grassroots conservation organizations, I have experienced first-hand the value and importance of our waters. They are essential for aquatic species and wildlife, for biodiversity and for all Canadians who depend on fisheries and marine resources for food, livelihood and recreation. Our waters are also essential to our survival, and conserving our pristine waters is a priority we all can agree on.

As I mentioned, the sponsor of the bill and I serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, FOPO. On October 22, 2025, our committee tabled a report on the issue of derelict and abandoned vessels. The study was initiated in the 44th Parliament. During the study, multiple witnesses, including government officials, described difficulties in dealing with derelict and abandoned vessels, DAVs, because authorities are unable to identify the current owners of vessels.

I encourage everyone to read the report in order to better understand the challenge of DAVs, and I especially encourage them to read the Conservative supplemental report, which contains recommendations for a workable solution to the vessel registry issue.

Transport Canada operates a pleasure craft licence database, but transfers of ownership are not consistently reported to that database, so a vessel can change hands, sometimes multiple times, and the Transport Canada database does not reflect the changes in ownership if the transfers are not reported and the new owners fail to register vessels after purchase. This causes a major blind spot for enforcement of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act and regulations that flow from the act. Laws and regulations are in place, but enforcement of the laws and regulations is not possible when the current owner of a vessel cannot be identified.

Testimony that FOPO received from Transport Canada officials stated that regulatory changes related to the requirements for registering a transfer of vessel ownership are pending, but it is unclear what those changes will be. Will the regulatory amendments place the onus to report the transfer of vessel ownership on the buyer or on the seller of a vessel?

This is a very important question, because if the current owner of a vessel that is causing pollution or poses a threat to polluting waters cannot be identified, it is impossible to enforce laws and regulations that uphold the polluter pays principle, which is the current principle in federal statutes aimed at preventing and prohibiting pollution of our waters. The principle of polluter pays is essential to the sound policy to protect our environment, especially our waters and aquatic habitats.

In 2015, the Harper government formally established the polluter pays principle in legislation, through the Pipeline Safety Act, which enshrined the principle in law. The government also incorporated the polluter pays principle into other legislation, such as the Energy Safety and Security Act and international agreements. Conservatives also strengthened the polluter pays principle for the marine environment by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments for enhancing Canada's domestic ship-source oil pollution fund.

Since then, the Liberal government has taken additional steps to expand the application of this essential principle but, as I stated, when it comes to derelict and abandoned vessels, enforcement officials must know who the culpable party is before they can make a polluter pay. I certainly hope this blind spot for enforcement authorities is quickly dealt with in an effective manner.

Clause 3 of the bill proposes a prohibition related to the transfer of vessel ownership, specifically:

It is prohibited for an owner of a vessel to transfer ownership of it to a person, if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous.

I appreciate the intention of the bill, which I believe to be the prevention of pollution. That is an objective that we can all hopefully agree is worthwhile. However, I do have questions regarding the proposals of clause 3 that I just quoted.

For instance, how can a person who is transferring a vessel determine if the person acquiring the vessel is fit to care for the vessel? Similarly, in enforcement, how could the applicable enforcement authorities determine and prove that someone transferred ownership to someone unfit to care for a vessel knowing that or was reckless as to whether the person who acquired the vessel was unfit to care for it?

Does the sponsor of the bill envision sellers of vessels requesting financial statements from the prospective buyers or enforcement officials pressing the seller of a vessel as to whether the seller had compelled a buyer to produce financial statements demonstrating the means to care for the vessel in question? What about in an online auction sale, a more and more common channel for the sale of used vessels? For what length of time would the liability exist for the seller? How long would it go on after the sale?

I would also like to hear from my colleague who has sponsored the bill, who I know has a background in law, whether the proposals of clause 3 would be best delivered as a legislative or regulatory change.

From my previous occupation in the marine sector, I have seen the root causes for failures of the existing vessel registration system, which the government has failed to correct in any of the changes they have attempted over the years. This is the first hour of second reading, and I know that we have more debate ahead of us, so I hope the hon. member might be able to provide some clarity on these points.

Clause 2 of the bill states, “No person or ship shall dispose or allow the disposal of a substance in an area of the sea referred to in any of paragraphs 122(2)‍(a) to (e) unless”.

Regarding the part of the proposal that states “or allow the disposal of a substance”, it is unclear to me what kind of scenarios this proposal seeks to prohibit. Would the proposal establish an obligation, responsibility or duty for persons who witness a disposal occurring to intervene? For instance, if a recreational boater witnesses the disposal of a substance coming from a commercial cargo vessel in an area described, and that boater does not intervene, is that boater allowing the disposal by not intervening?

Again, today's debate is the preliminary stage of the bill's progression in the legislative process. I hope the sponsor, my hon. colleague, can further illuminate the proposals of the bill that he has sponsored. There are many questions I have about the bill as it moves forward, if it moves forward past the second reading stage.

As I stated, in my experience in the marine sector, I have witnessed boats being sold, re-sold, and re-sold to the point where it is impossible to find one's way back to who originally owned the vessel. I believe the answer to that is in the recommendations in the Conservative supplemental report that I mentioned earlier in my speech, and that would be to place the onus on the seller to simply report the sale of the vessel.

By placing the onus on the buyer, they take on a liability by reporting the purchase, the first liability being taxes. I have witnessed that. As a vessel buyer, if they register a vessel, the first thing that happens is they get a letter from the tax collector to make sure provincial taxes and the GST have been paid. It is a deterrent for buyers to report the sale. If is far better if the seller reports it and a small fine be paid if they do not.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.