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.

The House resumed from November 6, 2025, consideration of the motion 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.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in the House today, and since it is the last time before the big day tomorrow, February 14, I would like to take a moment to talk about Valentine's Day.

I think it is an important day for many people. Obviously, it is very important to me. I would like to take this opportunity to send my love to my partner, to whom I am deeply devoted, as well as to my children, Ulysse, Malbaie and Marcéline. I would also like to wish a happy Valentine's Day to everyone in the House and to all my friends and acquaintances. I might add that today is one of the few days when the colour red does not annoy me, so people here might want to take note. Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to declare my love for my nation, my country: Quebec. I doubt my partner will consider that cheating.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-244, which was introduced by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country in British Columbia. This member is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, so I would imagine that his role in committee may have led him to take an interest in the subject of his bill. Judging from the name of his B.C. riding, I also assume that he lives near the water.

Bill C-244 deals with the issue of derelict vessels in our waters. It should be noted that this issue has been addressed under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act since 2019. Bill C-244 seeks to amend that act, which essentially states that Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Transport are responsible for implementing a framework for dealing with abandoned vessels. The act also gives the Coast Guard the mandate to keep an inventory of these problematic and dangerous vessels, which are scattered throughout the country.

I would say that at first glance, this bill appears to be in the public interest. Its main provision is contained in clause 3. In fact, clause 3 basically sums up this bill, which aims to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by adding section 34.1, concerning transfer of ownership, after section 34. This is what the new section 34.1 would say:

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.

Responsibility is therefore assigned to an individual or organization during a transfer of ownership, in order to ensure that the person to whom the boat is being transferred will take care of it and does not intend to let it become a wreck. In my opinion, this is not a negative thing, quite the contrary. Of course, this may not be enough to solve the problem of wrecked vessels, let us be honest. Nevertheless, I think it is still an initiative that cannot be described as bad. We welcome it.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-244 so that it can be examined in committee. We will even try to improve it, if possible, because I think this is an important issue. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has examined this issue before and it tabled a report with a whole series of recommendations in the House on October 22. We may be able to draw on that report in committee to further improve the bill before us, since I am assuming that everyone in the House will want to send this bill to committee.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' report highlighted certain issues involving wrecked and abandoned vessels specifically, including vessel ownership identification. Sometimes it is difficult to know who owns and is responsible for a particular wreck. There is also the issue of managing private mooring buoys, because sometimes it is unclear how to deal with them. The approval process for removing a derelict vessel is also slow and bureaucratic. I will have the opportunity to talk about this a little later, because there are some very concrete examples from certain ridings. There is also the obvious issue of cost. Removing wrecks is not free. It costs money.

There is a specific case that brings to mind the issue of costs and red tape. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon experienced this first-hand in her riding. The Kathryn Spirit was beached on the shores of Lake Saint-Louis in Beauharnois from 2011 to 2018. The ship sat there for seven years. This is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, nobody in authority seemed willing to deal with it.

People often complain that the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibilities. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that respecting jurisdictions is very important. In fact, we sometimes find that the federal government interferes too much in our jurisdictions. Some things do fall under federal jurisdiction, but it seems as though the federal government is not interested in those things and is not taking care of them. In the case of the Kathryn Spirit, it is completely unacceptable that a ship has been left there as a wreck for seven years. It also proves that the federal government often does not do its job properly.

It is not just a matter of political stripe, either, because between 2011 and 2018, there were both Conservative and Liberal governments in power, and that is how long it took for the ship to finally be moved. The people in the region represented by my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, were fed up with this situation, and understandably so.

Abandoned vessels can cause all sorts of problems. There is rust in these vessels and possibly contaminants. Children may decide to go and play in the vicinity of these vessels, teenagers or homeless people could get hurt. There are people who will go and explore them out of curiosity, and we can understand that it might be interesting. It may be more the exception than the norm, but in some places, shipwrecks even become tourist attractions and draw curious visitors in regions such as the north shore or elsewhere, where people want to go and see the wrecks. Nevertheless, these wrecks cause significant damage to the environment and the surrounding area.

We are familiar with the well-known zero plastic waste initiative. We know that the oceans are full of plastic, and that it is accumulating. We also know of the challenge inherent in what is called “net zero carbon emissions”. Perhaps we should give some thought to a net zero shipwreck or net zero abandoned vessel initiative, since they also pose a major challenge. No one wants abandoned vessels cluttering our waterways, lakes and rivers. Obviously, without a vision, action rarely follows. Without a coherent vision, it becomes difficult to take coherent action on problems like this.

In coastal areas, fishing boats are extremely useful. People need them to put food on the table, and they generate good economic activity. The same goes for recreational boating, which lets us experience remarkable sights, or for commercial shipping, which carries goods essential to the vitality of our communities and our economy. However, we have to consider what happens when these vessels reach the end of their life cycle, too. This is not an issue to be ignored, on the contrary.

We know that contaminants find their way into our environment, which can harm human health and compromise our constituents' quality of life. We do not want to see what has happened in some places. There are shocking images of plastics piling up in the oceans. We do not want to see vessels piling up in our lakes and rivers, lying all over the place. Ultimately, this prevent us from developing these resources on a long-term basis. However, it is not just a matter of developing resources, but also of protecting ourselves and protecting biodiversity and nature.

In conclusion, it is shocking to see the federal government's frequent lack of action when it comes to these issues. In this context, we are pleased to see that a member is committed to trying to make things happen. We are pleased to be having a discussion on this issue today. Discussions lead to solutions. At the very least, discussions lead to more awareness and allow for action to be taken.

I urge all members to reflect on this issue as parliamentarians to see what else we can do. I am thinking, for example, of the Magdalen Islands, which has developed expertise in recovering old—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must interrupt the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak as the member of Parliament for Victoria in support of the clean coasts act, put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

Those of us who live in and represent coastal communities know that the ocean is our lifeline but also our responsibility.

Even before being elected to the House, I heard from people in my community daily about the negative effects of derelict vessels in our waterways. After every storm, we see more and more vessels that have fallen into disrepair and been abandoned by irresponsible owners for others to deal with. These so-called “dead boats” do not just serve as an eyesore for our community; they pose serious safety and environmental risks, often with no one around to be held accountable. There is not one perfect solution to this issue, but I commend my colleague for putting forward Bill C-244, which would take important steps in the right direction.

The bill would target the irresponsible transfer of vessel ownership. In Victoria, I hear of these instances far too often. An owner sells a rotting hull for a dollar, sometimes less, to somebody who they know cannot maintain it, effectively washing their hands of the environmental liability of responsibly disposing of that vessel. By prohibiting the transfer of vessels to those who lack the resources or the intent to actually maintain them, we would help stop the cycle of abandoned and wrecked vessels before they end up on our beaches and in our marinas. We would be demanding accountability at the point of sale, not just when the taxpayer is forced to foot the bill for a clean-up or removal of a derelict vessel, and not simply relying on the goodwill of local organizations and hard-working volunteers.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the often thankless work by organizations in my riding, such as the Cadboro Bay Dead Boats Society, the Royal Victoria Yacht Club, the Veins of Life Watershed Society, and the Dead Boats Disposal Society, as well as others who have given their time and energy to address this issue, often taking on personal costs and liability. I would also like to thank the Canadian Coast Guard's western region and Transport Canada for their role in environmental response but acknowledge that they do not have the capacity or the mandate to single-handedly shoulder this burden.

As always, we also wish to express our thanks and our appreciation to the Lekwungen-speaking peoples of southern—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, while I find the commentary interesting, I cannot hear it because of constant crackling. I think perhaps the member has an issue with his mic or computer. Perhaps we can move on to the next speaker while he fixes his IT issues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will invite the hon. member for Victoria to perhaps move the microphone just slightly out from his face. Hopefully that will solve the issue. Of course, we do need interpretation to function correctly for the House to operate, so we will see if that works.

I will invite the member for Victoria to resume from where he left off, and if there are more challenges, we will address them when they come.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, we also wish to express our thanks and our appreciation to the Lekwungen-speaking peoples of southern Vancouver Island, the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ nations, whose stewardship and care for these lands and waters since time immemorial set a high bar for our communities and our governments to uphold today—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am getting word that the interpreters cannot interpret due to sound quality.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

I was hearing the interpretation earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I am not seeing any technical issues on this side.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am going to ask the member to pause for just a second. I am going to consult the table.

We are going to have an IT ambassador reach out to the hon. member for Victoria to hopefully remedy the situation. We will then return to the remainder of the hon. member's intervention, hopefully later in the hour.

Until then we will move on to the next person in the rotation.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to offer my intervention on Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

The bill proposes to strengthen Canada's ability to address abandoned, derelict and hazardous vessels; close the gaps in the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by expanding liability for owners who cause or allow vessels to become hazards; clarifies that it is illegal not only to dispose of pollutants but also to allow someone else to do so; tightens rules on the transfer of ownership, preventing owners from offloading vessels into vehicles or onto individuals who cannot maintain or safely dispose of them; reduces long-term marine environmental risks, oil leaks, contamination and wrecked debris; protects public, environmental and navigational safety; ensures owners can be held liable where they are reckless in transferring a vessel to an unqualified buyer; and encourages proactive prevention, consistent enforcement and polluter pays principles.

I do have some concerns, though, with the bill as drafted, specifically about the transfer of ownership amendment, because it uses broad and open-ended language in stating, “if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent”.

This would create legal uncertainty and potentially unfairly impact individuals accused of reckless vessel ownership transfers. Where my concerns lie is with regard to how a seller could guarantee or truthfully know the purchaser's intent and means. How would DFO and/or the courts deal with the ambiguities, litigation costs and burden of proof issues?

I am hoping that the drafter, the member who has put the bill forward, could maybe provide some clarity with regard to this, even during debate today, or that, should the bill get to committee, this could be addressed with an amendment.

I would note that the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, enacted in 2019 under the Canada oceans protection plan, is designed to prevent vessel abandonment and hold owners accountable for the environmental and safety risks posed by their vessels. Under that act, it is illegal to abandon a vessel in Canadian waters or on federal property. Owners are responsible for the costs to remove and repair, and for mitigation. The Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada have the authority to order owners to take action. If owners fail to comply, the government can intervene and recover those costs.

The act also establishes significant penalties, including fines and potential imprisonment, and supports a national inventory of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels to monitor and manage the issue. Overall, the act does hold the owner responsible for vessel-related hazards. I know I can speak on behalf of Conservatives. We supported the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act in the 42nd Parliament, and we emphasize the belief that individuals should be responsible for their actions and their property.

I want to lay out in my speech why this is so important for my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. In the community of Stokes Bay, I have been dealing with this issue for a couple of years now. We have had a fishing vessel sink at a government dock. Unfortunately, it released diesel and pollutants into the harbour. The Coast Guard deployed containment booms and conducted a helicopter overflight to monitor the spill.

The vessel was seen afloat on September 14. The contaminants were contained with provincial assistance. Despite the federal response, the vessel was then refloated but, again, left at the dock. That same vessel sank again in the same location a couple months later. The Coast Guard was again deployed with environmental response equipment. The vessel was refloated, towed to Southampton, just outside my riding, and dry docked, but the recovery had to remove approximately 25,000 litres of pollutants from the water.

The Ontario Provincial Police reported no evidence of criminal activity related to the sinking. However, community frustration increased due to the inaction between the first sinking and the second sinking.

Even more recently, in March 2025, at another location in Howdenvale, a fishing boat was reported sinking at, again, a federal government dock, releasing diesel fuel into the water. Local residents indicated the vessel had been neglected for many years by its owner. Fortunately, the diesel pollution was contained through a joint effort by the boat owner, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Nawash, one of the first nations in my riding, fisheries assessment program team. The vessel was then pulled ashore, ending the immediate environmental risk.

Again, this incident demonstrates that hazardous or neglected vessels are not isolated to just one area in my community, and that similar issues are unfortunately occurring across multiple federally operated docks in my riding. Here is the challenge for the constituents and what the community is reporting. They stated that they reported the second sinking in real time with photos. They asked why the vessel was allowed to remain after the first sinking and questioned the lack of clear accountability. A local business owner emphasized that the community's sheltered, marked harbour is having trouble now being used by transient boaters seeking refuge during storms, when these vessels are left at the docks.

Historically, this harbour, in particular in Stokes Bay, has a shared responsibility between the indigenous commercial fishers and recreational boaters. However, multiple fishing tugs have now been occupying the dock, three unmoved for years, which again limit access for everybody. This dock congestion has been described as an eyesore, which harms tourism, recreation and businesses in the local community. Basically, here is what the residents are saying: “Someone needs to do something. This cannot keep happening.” Many noted that this vessel, which has fortunately been removed, had even sunk five years previous to the incident in 2024, so this has been an ongoing concern.

In summary then of the local impacts, cottage bookings ended up being cancelled; tourism declined; boaters and swimmers avoided the federally operated harbours after the contamination; local businesses, guides and operators lost income during peak season; wildlife and nearshore habitat concerns increased; municipal staff were forced to take on responsibilities despite this being a federal jurisdiction; and there was widespread communication frustration over these unclear federal responsibilities. The most common question I get is this: Who is responsible and why was it not removed after the first spill?

It is impacting transient boating traffic and marine tourism and creating lost revenue for local small businesses and operators, with long-term risks to property values, insurability and economic reputations. There is heightened anxiety over water safety and environmental contamination, and tension has also increased due to the limited dock access. The residents feel that they have no federal mechanisms available to trigger these vessel removals. There is overlap that creates confusion between the Coast Guard, Transport Canada and DFO, and residents really feel that the federal response is reactive instead of proactive, allowing this environmental harm to repeat.

In conclusion, I just want to offer that Bill C-244's goal of reducing barriers must also apply to federal operations. It must shift from a reactive cleanup to proactive prevention. The polluter, not the public, must pay. Communities like Stokes Bay in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound deserve federal systems that work the first time. As our Conservative Party of Canada policy declaration clearly states, the government has an obligation to “establish and enforce safety standards for local and foreign vessels which operate in Canadian Waters for the well-being of workers as well as the environment.” It also states that, “The Conservative Party stand[s] by its commitment to facilitate rehabilitation or demolition of abandoned and derelict vessels.”

I believe the intent of the member proposing Bill C-244 is absolutely in the right direction to address derelict and abandoned vessels. I am not sure as drafted it will achieve this, but I look forward to hearing the continued debate. As I said, if this bill does get sent to committee, amendments can be made that will make the bill even stronger in terms of addressing this important issue not only in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound but across Canada in all our waters, whether they be lakes, oceans, etc.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-244. It is a bill that delivers real accountability and takes a proactive approach to preventing marine pollution and abandoned vessels.

I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, for bringing this bill forward, which shows great leadership.

The first thing the bill does is amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make it clear that when pollution ends up in our oceans, the owner or operator of the polluting vessel is responsible, even when that pollution results from negligence, poor maintenance or foreseeable failure, not only when the intent can be proven.

Second, it amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to stop vessel owners from off-loading end-of-life boats onto people they know do not have the means to maintain or safely dispose of them. It closes a loophole that allows responsibility to be transferred on paper while the pollution risk remains in the water.

These two changes are practical. They respond directly to what coastal communities live with every day. From the perspective of a coastal riding, where I live, the problem this bill addresses is not occasional; it is structural. Our system too often intervenes only after damage has already been done. We mobilize the Coast Guard once fuel is already in the water. We rely on volunteers, especially indigenous guardian programs, once debris is already on our coast. We scramble for funding once a vessel has already sunk. That approach costs more, harms ecosystems and downloads the responsibility onto communities that did not cause the problem.

Bill C-244 moves us toward a prevention-first approach. It strengthens accountability when pollution results from negligence, poor maintenance or foreseeable failure, not only when intent can be proven. Anyone who works around these harbours knows that some of the most damaging pollution comes from aging vessels or deferred maintenance and weak oversight. The ecological harm is the same whether a spill is deliberate or caused by neglect, so if we want to change behaviour, we have to change incentives.

Clear liability rules encourage better maintenance, safety planning and proper end-of-life management. When the costs of failure are real, prevention becomes cheaper than cleanup.

The bill also addresses a pattern that coastal communities see repeatedly, which is responsibility being passed along until no one is left holding it. Vessels nearing the end of their useful life are transferred, deteriorate and eventually sink. The community that then inherits that problem has to deal with the navigational hazard and the cleanup bill. That is not just an individual failure but a huge policy failure that the bill will address.

It is also important to be honest about why some of these transfers happen. Many vessel owners want to avoid the costs of the proper deconstruction of the vessel or the recycling of a boat at the end of its life rather than pay for responsible disposal. Some of them off-load these vessels cheaply or literally for free onto vulnerable or desperate people. A lot of people take these vessels just for housing. I have seen this first-hand in Tofino, where I lived for almost 25 years. With limited affordable housing, people ended up, and still live, on aging vessels tied to makeshift moorages. Those vessels are often not seaworthy, and the people living on them often do not have the resources to maintain or even safely dispose of them. The result is predictable. The vessel deteriorates, pollution increases, and when it finally sinks, the costs fall onto the community.

The bill helps close the loophole that allows responsibility to be pushed onto the most vulnerable. This is not about blaming people who are struggling to find housing; it is about ensuring that those who profit from vessels and control their disposal cannot avoid and evade responsibility by passing the problem down the line to someone who really has no realistic ability to manage those risks.

Marine pollution is also an economic issue. It undermines fisheries, tourism and working waterfronts. Clean waters are the foundation of coastal communities. Every abandoned vessel that sinks in a harbour imposes costs on local governments, first nations and taxpayers. Strong rules are not anti-economic but pro-community and pro-future. We know how sacred wild Pacific salmon is. The bill would protect it as well.

For these reasons, the NDP supports this bill at second reading. It improves accountability and strengthens prevention, which are things for which we have been calling for a long time, and it moves us in the right direction.

The bill also highlights how much further the federal government still needs to go. Even with the stronger liability rules, as the Transportation Safety Board has rightly pointed out in the past, Canada still has no coordinated response system for dealing with shipping container spills and marine debris incidents. We have seen the consequences of that over and again, and I would like to see it addressed.

Containers were lost from the Hanjin Seattle in 2016. More than 100 containers fell from the Zim Kingston just a few years ago. More recently, a large barge off Bella Bella nearly went down with a full load. Each time, first nations and coastal communities were left to respond. Volunteers cleaned debris from beaches, and local governments and indigenous guardians dealt with the long-term impacts to ecosystems, fisheries and local economies. The lack of a coordinated response leaves our coast exposed incident after incident.

The Zim Kingston spill also exposed a deeper accountability gap that is similar to concerns outlined in the bill. Under current rules, the owner of the Zim Kingston can be held liable for damages and cleanup costs for only up to six years from the date of the incident, but the debris from that spill continues to wash up on our shores and will for decades. Microplastics and polystyrene fragments will persist in the marine environment long after that liability clock runs out.

Pollution does not end when a legal timeline expires. Communities and ecosystems live with the consequences long after corporate liability has ended; this is why relying on after-the-fact liability alone is not enough. We need preparedness, prevention and a standing response system that is ready before the next spill happens, not improvised afterward.

Coastal and indigenous communities keep telling Ottawa the same thing: They are tired of holding the bag when debris hits their shores. A coordinated response system backed by industry through mechanisms like an ecosystem service fee on cargo units and on ships would ensure that the costs of protecting our coasts are not downloaded onto communities and volunteers alone.

Any coordinated marine pollution response would be incomplete without reinstating the ghost gear fund. It was one of the most important conservation initiatives in Canadian history, tackling up to 800,000 tonnes annually of abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear that is among the deadliest sources of plastic pollution. I think of the Ocean Legacy foundation, the Coastal Restoration Society in my riding, the Surfrider Foundation Pacific Rim, and many other groups that did that work. The bill before us might strengthen legal liability standards against marine pollution, but a multi-year, permanent ghost gear fund focused on prevention and rapid response remains essential to keeping our coast clean.

This brings me to another piece of the prevention puzzle that Bill C-244 points towards but would not fully solve: What happens to vessels at the end of their life? If we are serious about stopping abandoned and derelict vessels from becoming pollution hazards, Canada needs a responsible ship recycling system here at home. Too many Canadian vessels are sold off, exported to jurisdictions with weaker standards, or left to deteriorate in our waters until they become hazardous waste. That is environmental negligence and economic leakage. We lose the jobs and the materials, and communities inherit the pollution.

Canadian vessels should be recycled here in Canada to high environmental and labour standards. That requires domestic ship recycling infrastructure, clear federal guidelines, and investment in facilities and training so vessels can be dismantled safely and responsibly. This is not only an environmental necessity; it is also an economic opportunity to create good, local jobs in coastal communities while preventing pollution before it happens.

In Port Alberni, in my riding, the ship recycling leadership group that I have been working on has brought together local governments, labour, environmental organizations, industry, and indigenous partners to develop a model for responsible ship recycling. A core guiding principle of that group is that ship recycling must be grounded in indigenous leadership, decision-making authority and consent. Responsible ship recycling cannot be imposed on communities, and it must be done with indigenous nations as true partners with leadership at the table, real decision-making authority and free, prior and informed consent. This is the standard Canada should be embedding in any national ship recycling framework.

Bill C-244 would strengthen accountability when vessels are abandoned or cause pollution. That is necessary. However, if we want to stop the problem at its source, we must also build the end-of-life solutions that make responsible disposal the easy, affordable way for vessel owners.

Parliament should support Bill C-244. It would close loopholes and strengthen prevention, but the government must act on container spills and marine debris, implement the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations and invest in Canadian ship recycling capacity with strong federal standards. If we fail to do the full job, we will keep paying more to clean up pollution after the fact instead of preventing it at the source. Coastal communities deserve better than that.

Again, I want to thank my colleague the MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with him on these additional concerns and solutions, from marine debris and container spills to building responsible ship recycling capacity here in Canada. New Democrats will be supporting this bill and will continue to push the government to do the full job of protecting our coasts, our communities and the waters we depend on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will now invite the hon. member for Victoria to resume his comments.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to continue.

I want to start again by expressing the thanks and appreciation that everybody in my community has to the Lekwungen-speaking peoples of southern Vancouver Island, the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ nations, whose stewardship of and care for the lands and waters that we live on today since time immemorial sets a high bar for our governments and communities to achieve today.

The bill before us proposes important amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ensure that no person or ship can “allow the disposal” of substances in our waters. This is about proactive stewardship. It ensures that negligence is no longer a legal defence for polluting our marine ecosystems.

The Salish Sea, which surrounds my region and my riding, is an intricate ecosystem, home to species such as the southern resident killer whale and the chinook salmon. These species are put at risk when pollutants are introduced in our waterways, and we have a duty to act.

The clean coasts act is a common-sense, preventative measure. It would protect our blue economy, save millions in future salvage costs and honour our commitment to maintaining the health, beauty and accessibility of the B.C. coast and all of Canada's coasts for everyone.

I sincerely thank my colleague the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for bringing this bill forward, and I urge all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation to keep our coasts clean, to keep owners accountable and to keep our oceans thriving.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today 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 want to thank sponsor of the bill for bringing forward an issue that coastal, river and lakeside communities across Canada have been raising for years. It is definitely on the right path. This is a huge problem throughout Canada and the interior of British Columbia, which I represent, and also in our beautiful lakes such as Okanagan Lake, where abandoned vessels have caused environmental chaos.

Abandoned and derelict vessels, which are commonly referred to as DAVs, are a growing and serious threat to our ecosystems, our fisheries, our aquatic habitats and the Canadians who depend on them. These vessels pollute our waters, endanger marine life, block navigational routes, pose real safety risks to workers, first responders and entire communities, and affect tourism.

Conservatives believe in protecting Canadian waterways and conserving our marine environment. We believe government has a responsibility to ensure the rules meant to protect our oceans and lakes are actually enforced. When vessels operate in Canadian waters, whether they are local, commercial or foreign, they must meet strong standards that keep Canadians safe and protect the environment.

Leaving abandoned vessels to rot and pollute our coasts and beautiful lakes is not an option. We have seen this over and over again in my riding and in the Okanagan Valley. Vessels have sunk at docks, leaked fuel into water or sat for years because no one could determine ownership or responsibility. In many cases, communities are left to manage the environmental and safety risks of these vessels without the resources or authority to act.

For small communities, whether coastal or lakefront, the cost is overwhelming. They are often forced to choose between letting a vessel sit and pollute or diverting scarce funds away from housing, infrastructure or essential services just to deal with a problem that should never have existed in the first place.

After nearly a decade in government, the Liberal response has been more spending and more bureaucracy, with very little to show for it. An example can be seen through the oceans protection plan, where over $300 million has been allocated to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels. Since 2016, that spending has resulted in the removal of just 791 vessels. That is an average cost of more than $379,000 per vessel.

Meanwhile, 1,355 derelict vessels remain on the Canadian Coast Guard's inventory list. At this pace, taxpayers could be forced to spend more than half a billion dollars just to clear the existing backlog. That is not value for money. It is not effective environmental policy, and it is certainly not responsible stewardship of public funds.

The problem is not a lack of legislation. The problem is a lack of enforcement, coordination and accountability. During testimony before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, witnesses, including government officials, made it is clear that federal departments are not working effectively together. Even basic functions, such as managing private buoy regulations, have fallen through the cracks after being transferred between departments. These bureaucratic breakdowns delay assessments, slow removals and leave communities waiting year after year for actions that never come. Municipalities want action, including municipalities in my riding that have been asking for this for years, while Ottawa continues to get in the way of being a partner.

Another major failure is the vessel registration system itself. Without reliable ownership records, enforcement is impossible. Vessels are sold, resold and resold again, often without ownership transfers being properly reported. When a vessel becomes abandoned or hazardous, officials cannot identify who is responsible and the polluter does not pay; the taxpayer does. The problem is that Bill C-244 attempts to address this issue but would not fix the root cause.

Clause 3 proposes to prohibit the transfer of ownership if the seller knows that the buyer is reckless or lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain the vessel properly. That would be impossible to know.

While the intention may be to prevent pollution, the language is vague and raises serious concerns. How is a seller expected to determine a buyer's intent or financial capability? Are sellers supposed to demand financial statements, conduct interviews or predict future behaviour? What happens in online auctions, which are increasingly common? What about cross-border sales? How long does the liability follow the seller after the sale has occurred?

These unanswered questions create legal uncertainty and risk punishing Canadians who are acting in good faith. Instead of clarity, this amendment risks adding confusion, litigation and unintended consequences, especially when existing regulations are already not being enforced.

Unfortunately, Canadians are now abandoning vessels simply because they cannot afford repairs, moorage or disposal. Even more troubling, many Canadians are being forced to live aboard old, unsafe boats because they have nowhere else to go. We see this constantly in Okanagan Lake and throughout the interior. Vessels are being used now as makeshift housing, but these are boats that were never designed to be lived in. Many lack proper sanitation or waste disposal, creating serious risks of pollution. Others pose fire hazards, safety risks and concerns related to criminal activity.

A housing crisis has now spilled into our waterways, turning a social crisis into an environmental one. That is not compassionate policy. That is a result of years of federal mismanagement.

Conservatives believe in caring for our waters and the people who depend on them. That means ensuring the polluter pays principle can actually be enforced. It means fixing the vessel registration system, so ownership is clear and accountability is real. It means coordinating across federal, provincial, municipal and first nations governments, instead of burying communities in red tape.

I am looking forward to the amendments that will come forward concerning this bill, because the issue is extremely important. Conservatives are ready to work towards practical, accountable and results-driven solutions, ones that would truly protect our coasts, our lakes and our environment for generations to come.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to recognize the profound loss being felt by the community of Tumbler Ridge. All members of the House grieve with the families who are mourning. We stand with the students, staff and first responders who are carrying the weight of this unimaginable tragedy. In times like these, we are reminded that in sorrow, we are united as a nation. Canada will hold them in our hearts, not just today and in the years to come, but always.

I want to thank all of the members who have participated in this debate on Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, for their local leadership and for sharing the all-too-familiar stories that I am hearing in my riding as well.

This bill is grounded in a simple principle. Canada's marine environment is not a dumping ground, and coastal communities should not be left carrying the cost of pollution that others create. In coastal regions across the country, residents see the impacts first-hand: abandoned and derelict vessels leaking fuel into harbours and marine infrastructure left to decay, spreading plastic pollution and releasing toxins into sensitive ecosystems. These are not abstract concerns. They affect navigation safety, local economies, indigenous food security and the health of our oceans and waterways.

Bill C-244 proposes two practical solutions to address these problems. First, it amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to clarify that marine dumping is a strict liability offence. Because of how this legislation has been interpreted to date, liability is limited to cases where the prosecution can prove that this dumping was intentional. That leaves a troubling loophole where pollution from reckless or negligent behaviour goes unaddressed. The clean coasts act addresses this gap.

Second, the bill strengthens the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by addressing a well-known tactic. Too often, owners avoid their disposal responsibilities by transferring an end-of-life vessel, typically for a nominal amount, to someone that they know cannot dispose of it properly. That is how vessels become hazards in our waterways.

Some members have raised fair and important questions about how these measures would work in practice, and I would like to respond directly to those.

One question has been about seller liability. Let me be clear: This bill is not about punishing good-faith sellers or ordinary Canadians making responsible transactions. The intent is narrow. Liability rises only where a vessel is transferred knowingly or recklessly to someone who lacks the ability or intention to manage it responsibly.

Related to that is the question of how a seller can assess whether a buyer is fit. This bill does not require intrusive measures like interviews, credit checks or financial investigations. It requires reasonable care, not a guarantee of the future behaviour of an owner. The objective is to create clear, practical expectations that are not onerous for good-faith sellers while discouraging bad-faith transfers to avoid disposal costs. I just want to recognize that these were questions that came from the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Members have also raised questions about enforcement and ownership tracking. We have good news. Since this debate started, Transport Canada has announced a modernization of the pleasure craft licensing system by introducing a five-year licence validity, a nominal fee for applications and renewals, and a requirement for owners to update their contact information within 30 days. However, the responsibility to report these transfers remains with the buyer. This has been a vulnerability that has been addressed by a number of members, including the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and it needs to be addressed.

While these licensing changes are a step forward, we need to make sure that there are sustainable long-term resources to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels where we cannot identify the owner. For that, we need the long-awaited vessel remediation fund, which will have a small user fee and will finance the removal and proper disposal of abandoned and sunken vessels. I just want to note that the member for Courtenay—Alberni brought this up as a need. I look forward to working with him.

There is also the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. These vessels should never linger in these places for five years or more.

Lastly, there was a concern brought forward by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley about the wording of the new strict liability offence. I just want to confirm that this will not affect people that would observe marine dumping. This is only for those who would lead to that by their acts or omissions.

I would just say that all legislation improves through study. If this legislation proceeds to committee, members will have the opportunity to hear from experts, examine the provisions carefully and propose amendments as they see fit, including any measures that are necessary to clarify some of the measures in this act.

With that, I know this is a problem that all members know exists. I urge all members to support this legislation being sent to the next stage at committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Before we adjourn, I will just wish everyone a very happy Valentine's Day and a happy Family Day next week, as we return to our ridings to serve our constituents.

It being 1:40 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 23, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:40 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion 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.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-244, under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #73

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Bill read a second time and referred to a committee)