Environment Committee on June 16th, 2026

[Stephanie Lane]

I'm going to have to answer in English, since there are a lot of French words I don't know.

As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to clarify and confirm that the prohibition in section 125 of the act is a strict liability offence. What that means is that there is an offence for which the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person did the thing that the act prohibits.

In a normal prosecution, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were duly diligent. That is one of the defences available.

As I understand it, the proposed amendment from MP Weiler is not intended to change the regime that currently exists in the act. It's not intended to change the burden of proof that exists in regulatory offences under CEPA. It's merely to clarify and, I believe he indicated, just to go back to the intention of the act, which was to make sure that, as with most regulatory offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, they are considered these strict liability offences.

We're talking about strict liability offences.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay. So the intent is to clarify the law.

But do you think that these clarifications will make people take more responsibility? Is it just that there are fewer financial risks for the government? Will this clarification lead boaters to conclude that they need to take more preventive measures to show that they've acted responsibly?

[Stephanie Lane]

With regard to the proposed amendment, I believe that the intent behind the words added to subsection 125(1)—as Mr. Weiler pointed out—is to clarify the strict liability for this offence. There are several ways this could be done.

As I mentioned in another response, since there are several offences or contraventions under this section of the act that are already interpreted as involving strict liability, there might be a problem if we were to amend or change only one of these sections.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay. I'll rephrase my question.

Will this bill help create a safer environment where there is less risk of an oil spill, for example? The example that was mentioned was oil. Will the bill have any effect on that?

[Stephanie Lane]

The prohibition in section 125, as indicated by my colleagues, is the same. There are certain types of waste listed in the act that require a permit. There is a prohibition from disposing from certain platforms at sea. Those things don't change with the amendment proposed by MP Weiler. The prohibition remains the same.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

Doesn't this mean, then, that this bill does nothing to reduce the risk of an oil spill?

[Stephanie Lane]

That's correct; it does not alter the offence under the act.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

[Daniel Wolfish]

Excuse me, Mr. Bonin. Let me add a comment: It does not change the process for obtaining a permit. A permit must be obtained before proceeding with disposal at sea. The process for obtaining approval remains the same.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

I thought that was one of the aims of the bill, in a way. Is there another bill that aims to reduce the risk of oil spills, for example? That is the point my colleague raised here.

Do officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada have anything to add?

[Daniel Wolfish]

We have programs to respond to environmental emergencies under the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The program's role is to support the Canadian Coast Guard and others in coordinating responses, including coordinating the government's scientific activities and providing advice on the effects of a toxic substance in a marine environment. This program helps to enforce the law, but it is not a separate piece of legislation with its own regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

I will note that the bells are now ringing. Do we have unanimous consent to continue in the manner we just did until 10 minutes before the vote, and to vote virtually?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you.

Mr. Ross, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony.

I pretty much exhausted my questions on this a few months ago when it was first introduced in the House. Being a boat owner, a boat seller and a boat buyer, I just didn't understand the legalities around this and the enforcement.

We still don't have clarity on the question of how this is going to be enacted, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, where it's a really big problem.

As a high-level question, how does this relate to a seller in the United States selling to somebody in Canada? Does this legislation apply to that seller in the United States in terms of pleasure boats?

Can anybody answer? Bueller? Bueller?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

If you don't have that answer right now, that's great. You can get back to us later with some written answers.

[Colin Henein]

It depends on whether the sale is taking place in Canada or the U.S. It's about the location of the sale. If there's a sale made in Canada, that's what the boat—

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

If the seller is in the United States and that's where the purchase is made, and the boat comes to Canada and it sinks because the buyer wasn't able to maintain the boat, then does that liability stay with the buyer?

[Colin Henein]

The way we understand this bill, the obligation is on the seller—

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

Exactly, but you just said that, if the sale is made in the United States, then there are different rules.

[Colin Henein]

That's right.

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

If the sale is made in the States, and the buyer brings it to Canada and the boat sinks, you can't put the onus on the seller in the United States.

[Colin Henein]

That's right.

The way WAHVA works is that it's about the owner of the vessel. The owner of the vessel is the responsible party.

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

I understand that, but the point of this bill is that the onus is on the seller. They say that you have to do the due diligence to ensure that the buyer is competent enough to maintain a boat.

How will Canada do this at any level of government when they're selling surplus vessels to boat owners? How will they do it? Who will do it on behalf of Canada?