Environment Committee on June 16th, 2026

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

I will remember your next birthday, sir.

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Mr. Leslie has a point of order.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

You may continue, Mr. St-Pierre.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

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

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Thank you very much.

We will continue with our questioning of the witnesses.

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

[Josée-Annie Verville]

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

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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

[Josée-Annie Verville]

I could not qualify that information.

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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

[Josée-Annie Verville]

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

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

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

[Stephanie Lane]

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

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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

[Stephanie Lane]

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

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

[Daniel Wolfish, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Department of the Environment]

Thank you.

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

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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

[David Taillefer, National Manager, Marine Programs, Department of the Environment]

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

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

What environmental risks are associated with unauthorized disposal at sea?

[Daniel Wolfish]

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

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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