Environment Committee on June 16th, 2026

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

Thanks for that question.

I have a similar experience. This was an issue that I didn't understand all that well before I started running for office. I can tell you that, even before I got elected, I had people reaching out to me to fix this problem.

It's a problem that drives people crazy, because it involves all different orders of government, in different ways and in numerous different departments. I think it is helpful that we have many officials behind me who will be able to speak to this afterwards, in the next hour.

When WAHVA was passed, an important change was made to prohibit abandoning vessels. Earlier this year, we updated our vessel registry system, so we have a better idea of who owns these vessels. Every five years, that will need to be updated, so we have a good sense of who owns those vessels.

What this legislation will do is prevent the transfer of vessels to individuals where the current owner knows they cannot maintain or operate them. This will prevent a lot of new hazardous vessels from being out there on the water and causing all of those impacts that you mentioned. I'd say that's one piece of the puzzle.

I think the other piece that hasn't been solved at this point is making sure there's ongoing funding to pull those problem vessels out of the water when we can identify the owners, and also having a sustainable system to dispose of and recycle those boats.

I think, if we can have all of those pieces in place, then we'll be able to deal with this issue.

This legislation will prevent the problem from getting worse. There are other jurisdictions that have already done this. Washington state has a good system in place that we can learn from, and I think this is one step to getting there.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you for that response.

I want to pick up on one piece of what you just said. I feel that, in many communities where this isn't as relevant an issue, there isn't an appreciation of the costs and the quite specific technical expertise that could be required to remove these boats from our shores and communities once they've been abandoned.

Certainly, in Victoria, I have people quite frequently ask me about where the responsibility for dead and derelict boats falls. Who's responsible for paying for their removal? Is it the Coast Guard? Is it the municipality? Is it me personally? Should I dive into the water and pull them out with my bare hands?

I'm wondering if you could speak to the challenges related to resources and jurisdiction that arise around this issue, because I know there's quite a bit of complexity here. At the end of the day, if the cost of removing these vessels falls to the federal government, there's a considerable cost to pay.

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

Yes, it's a very considerable cost. We have a program called the abandoned boats program to clean up vessels that have already sunk, but it's out of money and hasn't been recapitalized. It needs to have more money. There isn't funding there. Thankfully, in the spring economic statement, we got more money for the ghost gear fund. Ghost gear is another really damaging form of marine pollution. If we had the vessel remediation fund, which is something the government promised back in 2021, that would be one way of addressing this. There would be a small fee to pay every time you register your boat, in order to make sure you have those funds in the long term.

The abandoned boats program runs through Transport Canada. There's a separate one that runs through DFO for small craft harbours. Part of the challenges you bring up is that there are so many different responsibilities here. Transport Canada will get involved if the boat is a navigation risk. DFO will get involved if it is in a small craft harbour. Environment and Climate Change Canada will get involved if it's currently spilling. Now the Coast Guard is part of National Defence, so, in an urgent situation, they can step in and give a private operator the ability to remove the vessel. It is a very complex thing. That's what makes people so frustrated. It allows agencies to point fingers at one another, and the problem doesn't get solved.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

In our last 30 seconds or so, let me ask you this: The bill would make it an offence to transfer a vessel if the owner is “reckless as to whether” the buyer has “the ability, resources or intent to maintain” it.

Can you speak to what message you feel your bill sends to boat owners in Canada who view selling their boat for a dollar to anybody who comes along as an appropriate disposal strategy?

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

It's not a proper disposal strategy. It comes back to personal responsibility. This is your boat. You have a responsibility to properly dispose of it. It's not fair to put having to clean it up when it sinks on the taxpayer or the coastal communities.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Weiler. I have two quick questions for you.

The bill you've introduced would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. From what I understand, this amendment would address a problem we've seen in the past: following a 2,700-litre spill, the owners of a vessel were acquitted of the charges against them, with the court ruling that it was up to the Crown to prove intent rather than requiring the polluter to demonstrate that they acted responsibly.

Your position is that this amendment would shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the polluter. The polluter would thus be responsible for demonstrating that appropriate measures were taken to prevent a given situation.

Having read the provisions in question, I have some questions. I'm not sure I understand what we're doing here. I understand the intent—you've explained it well—but I remain unconvinced by this amendment. Please note that I am not a lawyer, but a legislator. Can you explain to me how this minor amendment addresses the original problem?

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

Thank you very much for the question.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the French version in front of me, only the English version. The original intent, when this law was passed, was that this section would constitute a strict liability offence.

In 2015, as I mentioned earlier, there was a spill, and the court that handed down the ruling interpreted the law very differently. The government could have appealed the decision, but it didn't.

So this amendment brings us back to the original intent of the law. If you abandon a vessel without following the steps a reasonable person would take, that constitutes an offence.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So that's the intention. It's clear.

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

Certainly.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to return to proposed section 34.1 on transfer of ownership.

You mentioned the seller's responsibility to disclose the vessel's condition. Is it clear to you exactly how far this responsibility extends and what specific conditions must be disclosed?

It's not clear to me. Do they have to conduct a comprehensive inspection with an independent inspector? Specifically, what conditions are they required to disclose?

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

There are several ways to determine the condition of a vessel, including requesting an appraisal. What's important here is that the person buying the vessel knows its condition.

This is the step the person selling the vessel must take. In fact, for the buyer to know whether they will be able to maintain the vessel, they must first know its condition. They can then explain how they intend to maintain that condition. There are different ways of doing this, but the intention must be there.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

How far should people take this? They'll have to interpret this law, but how far will they go, both in terms of the vessel's condition and the buyer's ability to ensure that they can operate or dispose of it in a way that prevents it from becoming a wreck or other hazard?

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

There are limits to the information the person selling the vessel can provide. It is primarily up to the buyer to describe how they will maintain it.

It is difficult for the person selling the vessel to do more than that. This won't solve the entire problem, but these are the things the seller can control.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to return to the issue of potential spills.

In your bill, when you say “or allow the disposal of a substance”, I assume that doesn't apply to an outside party who would then be held liable. You're referring to the owner or operator of the vessel, not someone who would witness a spill and fail to intervene, correct?

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

Only the person or company responsible for transporting the substance from one place to another would be committing the offence, not someone who is merely watching it happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Arnold, we go back to you for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'd like Mr. Weiler to clarify a bit further how a seller would provide the declaration, if you want to call it that, of the condition. You talked about many ways of doing this. I spent about 42 years in the boating industry, and there really is, probably, only one defensible way of declaring the condition of a boat, and that is through a proper marine survey. A marine survey can cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, depending on the size of the vessel, and it's hundreds of dollars just for a small pleasure craft.

One way that they can look at a vessel is by determining moisture content in encapsulated wood that may be rotting—they have a number of ways like that. For a vessel that's nearing the end of its life, how do you propose that a vessel owner would provide that declaration of condition? Further to that, how would a seller verify that the purchaser would be qualified to maintain it? Would that require checking financial status, knowledge of vessel maintenance or vessel operation requirements? Please expand on that.

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

Thank you for that.

That could be, absolutely, one way of understanding the condition of the boats. One thing I should have mentioned earlier is that this isn't going to capture all boats. It's going to capture the boats as defined under the WAHVA, which has de minimis and maximum sizes of boats. Obviously, bigger boats are captured by different processes in the shipping act, for instance. However, one way would be just that: having a proper, in-depth assessment of the status of the boat.

For the person who is buying the boat, I think you could get financial records, but getting that and verifying all of that information is not within the boat seller's control. What is going to be required here is that they submit, in writing, that they can take care of it.

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

Are you simply saying that the buyer has to sign something saying, “I'm going to maintain this boat,” and that's it? Is that as far as they have to go?

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

It's more than that. It's going to say how they can maintain it.

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

If they don't have the vessel operation or maintenance experience, if they're a first-time buyer, how can you expect someone to have that experience?

I'll let you answer that first. Then I have another question.

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

I think it's a fair question.

Again, there are a lot of different ways in which someone could prove how they would maintain the boat at that point. Having all of that information is not something that every boat seller is going to have, either. It's not their responsibility to prove all of those things, but this is the due diligence that you can do, as a boat seller, as you're selling it.

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

Maybe you can just clarify.... You were talking about the intent of the bill. Is the intent of the bill, really, to track who actually owns the vessel, who is legally responsible for it, so that, if it is abandoned, someone can be sought out to be responsible for the cleanup? Is that an intent of the bill? That's not what you were talking about earlier, so please elaborate on that.