Evidence of meeting #45 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vessel.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Verville  Director, Monitoring and Compliance, Canadian Coast Guard
Lane  Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Vieira  Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Henein  Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Weiss-Reid  Director, Operations and Regulatory Development, Department of Transport
Wolfish  Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Department of the Environment
Taillefer  National Manager, Marine Programs, Department of the Environment
Rogers  Executive Director, Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs, Department of Transport

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

I call the meeting to order.

Hello everyone.

This is the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Welcome.

This is a public meeting.

For those in person, please remember the health and safety guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents for our translators.

Our meeting today is to commence a study on Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, and we have MP Patrick Weiler here with us to talk about his private member's bill.

Before we go to him, I have a couple of pieces of business.

We have a vote scheduled for 4:15 today, so I am seeking the unanimous consent of the committee to go through once the bells start, until 10 minutes before the vote. We can then suspend, and people can vote, either in person or virtually. What is the interest of the committee? Does it work for everybody to go through closer to the voting time? Okay.

We need to approve two—

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

I'm sorry to interrupt, Madam Chair.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor.

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

I have a question about the upcoming vote, since I'm not familiar with the procedure. With the leave of the committee, would it possible to vote electronically? That way, we wouldn't have to change locations and suspend the meeting for quite so long.

The Clerk of the Committee Leif-Erik Aune

We're hoping to stop ten minutes before the vote so that everyone can vote.

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

That's fantastic.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

If I can't get the unanimous consent of the members, I will have to suspend the meeting for 30 minutes rather than ten.

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Thank you for the clarification, Madam Chair.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you very much.

We have two small budget items to approve, and then we'll get to Mr. Weiler's opening statements.

The first amount requested is $1,500 for expenses for the work on Bill C-244. Is there unanimous approval of that by the committee?

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

The other one is for $500, and it is for the main estimates work that was previously conducted.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Excellent. Thank you.

Mr. Weiler, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the environment and sustainable development committee. It's a real pleasure to be with you today to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act.

I see some familiar faces, including from the fisheries and oceans committee. I see Mr. Arnold.

These issues we're going to be talking about today are issues felt by many coastal communities, including my own in the riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, where we know the marine environment is inseparable from our communities, our local economies and our way of life.

Over the years, I've heard consistently from local governments, first nations, harbour authorities, commercial operators, search and rescue personnel, the Coast Guard and, particularly, residents about the growing challenges posed by abandoned vessels and marine pollution. The clean coasts act would respond to this by addressing two specific gaps in federal legislation that coastal communities continue to encounter in dealing with these long-standing frustrations.

The first relates to abandoned vessels. In 2019, Parliament adopted the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. In so doing, it established new protections, making it illegal, for the first time, to abandon a vessel. Crazily, you could actually abandon a vessel before that without committing an offence.

Experience has shown that since then, vessel owners have found ways to avoid their responsibilities under the act. Rather than properly disposing of vessels at the end of their useful life, I've encountered countless examples of unscrupulous boat owners transferring them, usually for nominal amounts, to individuals who lack the means, capacity or intent to operate, maintain or dispose of them responsibly. These are oftentimes vulnerable individuals who are simply looking for a roof over their heads.

In many cases, these vessels continue to deteriorate, creating risks to human safety, navigation and the marine environment. I've seen examples of loss of life, even in my own riding, when these vessels sink. There are many cases of communities and taxpayers bearing the cost of cleaning up toxic waste and other pollutants that come out of these vessels when they sink. At major expense, the taxpayer then pays to clean those vessels up off the bottom of the ocean.

The clean coasts act seeks to close this loophole by strengthening accountability at the point of transfer. It would prohibit vessel owners from transferring ownership when they know or are reckless as to whether the recipient lacks the ability, resources or intent to prevent the vessel from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. One way of doing this is by creating a system whereby the boat seller will disclose the condition of the boat before selling it, and the boat purchaser will disclose how they intend to maintain and operate it. This would build on the existing system we have for vessel registration. This proposal complements the recent improvements that were made to that very system by Transport Canada and the pleasure craft licence system to strengthen ownership records and vessel traceability. Together, these measures will help improve accountability throughout the life cycle of the vessel.

The second issue in the bill relates to marine pollution. At its core, it's guided by the principle that Canada's marine environment should not become a dumping ground, and coastal communities should not be bearing the costs of pollution caused by others. We see the impacts of deteriorating marine infrastructure when it breaks apart and enters marine ecosystems. We see them when aging docks and other structures release debris into our waterways. Most visibly, we see them when oil and other pollutants are released into the marine environment.

A well-known example occurred in English Bay in 2015, when a bunker oil fuel spill caused significant environmental and economic damage. Despite the consequences, establishing the liability proved very challenging, because the existing provisions focus heavily on proving intent. The court found that there was a mens rea requirement involved in that, so the proposed amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act seeks to clarify marine dumping provisions so that accountability doesn't depend solely on proving that intent to pollute when harmful substances are entering the marine environment. It would allow someone who is spilling to still establish due diligence and that they took all reasonable measures.

In closing, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, is not a complete solution. Preventing abandonment and strengthening accountability are important steps, but they must be accompanied by other practical measures that support responsible vessel disposal, recycling and cleanup efforts. For that, the long-awaited vessel remediation fund is needed.

This is a practical and targeted bill. It builds on existing federal legislation, addresses gaps that have emerged through experience and focuses on preventing environmental harm before communities are left to deal with the consequences when they are much more expensive.

With that, I look forward to the committee's study and would be pleased to answer any questions that members have.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you very much, Mr. Weiler.

We will now begin our series of questions. We'll start with Mr. Arnold for six minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here at this committee. I have been on the fisheries committee for over 10 years now, so it's interesting sitting here. I thank Mr. Weiler for his time as chair of that committee.

I have a number of questions on this bill and what's led up to this.

Mr. Weiler, you said that since the passage of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, vessel owners are finding loopholes and ways to get past the accountability piece of it. Were these loopholes and things missed in the drafting and passing of that legislation?

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

The legislative process for the WAHV Act took place before I was elected. There are things, looking back on it now, that should have been included. This is one part of that.

I think it is an unintended consequence. When you prevent people from abandoning their vessels, they're going to find a way around some of their new obligations of properly disposing of them. This is very complementary, and, of course, it builds on what's already in the act. In a perfect world, that would have been addressed from the get-go, but it is incumbent on us to address it now.

Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC

Clause 2 of this private member's bill adds wording that says, “or allow the disposal”, so it reads:

No person or ship shall dispose or allow the disposal

Does “allow the disposal” refer only to the vessel owner, or does it refer to the vessel operator? Is it anyone who is observing that vessel, who is nearby and may see this happening? Would they potentially be as guilty of an offence by allowing the disposal to happen without reporting it or seeing it happen? If not, how is this bill going to avoid that situation?

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

What this section does is clarify that this is now a strict liability offence. You wouldn't have a bystander seeing something happening and then being caught under this. This would be just the actual source of the pollution. It may be coming from a vessel. It could be coming from another source.

The way the court has interpreted this section is that you actually have to prove that they intended to dump. This changes it, so that it would be interpreted as a strict liability. You would still have to have the due diligence defence, but it would not affect folks who are not directly involved in it.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC

The court hasn't interpreted your amendment yet. You're saying it's interpreted this in the current act as being disposal directly from a vessel. You're only hoping this would be interpreted the same way. There's no guarantee that it wouldn't implicate someone who observed a vessel being abandoned and didn't report it.

Can you guarantee that that's not going to be the case?

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

I got a legal opinion drafted before I put forward this legislation to address those issues and other issues that came up in early discussions about it. Of course, I can't guarantee how courts are going to interpret things. It will be up to the courts to do that. From the legal advice I've been given, this would be very sound and really focused on making this a strict liability offence.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC

Okay. Thank you.

I'll move on to clause 3, where you intend to change section 34.1 by saying:

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

Can you describe to the committee how an owner who has a boat...? I come from the interior. There are lots of small vessels sold on the front lawn. Basically, the owners are tired of them. Say somebody driving by on the weekend stops in to buy it. How can this apply to a case like that, where the transaction may take place in less than an hour in somebody's backyard? That's a typical scenario, and I don't see how this bill will cover that.

How can an owner—the current seller—possibly be expected to guarantee that the buyer is qualified?

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

Thank you for the question.

Obviously, there are limits on what the seller of a boat will be able to determine from a buyer of a boat. There is already a system in place for the registration of boats once they're transferred. As you will know, it's on the buyer of the boat to make that change.

What this would introduce is a requirement for the boat owner to disclose the condition of the boat and then the person who's buying it to have some type of format showing their ability to maintain and operate it going forward. It would complement what is already in there with the vessel registration system.

In a case like the one you're mentioning, it is more than someone coming by and just giving someone some money. You actually have an obligation now to register that boat within 60 days of getting it. This would complement what's already in there.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

We will now move to Mr. Greaves for six minutes.

Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Good afternoon, MP Weiler.

Thank you so much for bringing forward this private member's bill and for giving us the opportunity to talk about an issue that I know is of great concern to residents in your part of the country, which is close to my part of the country, and our coastal communities, where this issue is a surprisingly topical one in many instances. It's probably the first issue, in fact, that I was approached on after last year's election and that people demanded our government take action on. I appreciate your stepping in to help address that need.

I think it's particularly important, as our colleague opposite mentioned a moment ago in his remarks, to bring attention to this issue for our colleagues who may not live in coastal communities, who may not live in marine-adjacent ridings such as ours and may not be familiar with the many aspects and challenges associated with dead and derelict boats being, in many cases, abandoned.

One thing that leaps out at me about this issue is that people see it through many distinct lenses. We have, obviously, an environmental perspective in terms of contamination in the waters and on the shoreline and impacts on animal populations. We also have implications in terms of local economies, tourism and destination-based economies like ours. These vessels are something of an eyesore. There are also impacts on public finances—because, at the end of the day, the cost to remove these derelict vessels falls on the public purse—as well as for safety and other reasons. There are numerous different ways in which we can interrogate this issue.

With that in mind, would you be able to expand for our colleagues, who may not be as familiar with the knock-on impacts of these vessels in our communities, on how Bill C-244 will work to reduce the instances of new boats being added to this problem?