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.
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
As the bill is written, it would apply to any vessel that's regulated by WAHVA. Canada would have to provide an assessment of the condition of the vessel.
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As well as the competence of the potential owner, the buyer, to ensure that that new owner is competent or not reckless in owning a boat or maintaining a boat.
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, that's right.
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
Currently, it's really tough to enforce these types of legislation regulations on reserve. Has that been considered in terms of this legislation?
Director, Operations and Regulatory Development, Department of Transport
Under the act, we do have the ability to enter into agreements with indigenous groups on the administration of the act. In this case, with the bill, there would be an option for us to enter into an agreement whereby we would talk about things like the interest in monitoring or identification of vessels on the water.
Conservative
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you, Mr. Ross.
I'll continue, but I want to go back to statements about the MV Marathassa, the owner who was acquitted before the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act was passed. This happened in 2019.
Ms. Lane, you said that this PMB is meant to prevent the repeat of the Marathassa, so why didn't the 2019 act include measures to prevent the repeat of that incident?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
If I understood the question, I feel that there were two parts to it. One related to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but then I think there were also elements related to the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Did I catch that correctly?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
The owner of the Marathassa was acquitted in 2019, before the Hazardous Vessels Act was passed.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Right.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Why didn't the act, in 2019, include measures to prevent a repeat of the Marathassa incident?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
With respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the offences under that act, the Marathassa case was a B.C. provincial court decision, so it was a lower court decision that didn't consider the fact that there is the due diligence defence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
With respect to why the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act didn't include elements related to that, I'd have to pass that to my colleagues at Transport Canada. We're not responsible for that act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Do you want to give a quick answer on that or come back to it?
We're out of time on this one, so we can maybe come back to that.
Director, Operations and Regulatory Development, Department of Transport
Yes, we can come back in writing on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Thanks very much.
It's over to you, Mr. Greaves, for five minutes.
Liberal
Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon to all our witnesses. Thank you for being here.
I'd like to go back to some of the fundamentals around the issue that we're trying to tackle, broadly speaking, through this legislation, which my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has brought forward with this private member's bill.
In a situation in which there is a boat that's been abandoned, a vessel that's derelict or dangerous, there is at the root, I would suggest, a lack of accountability. Who's to be held responsible for an object that poses some kind of risk to the public or is otherwise a blight in our communities? In most instances, where a vessel has been abandoned, the simple reality is that it's difficult to identify an owner, so the boat becomes the problem of the nearest marina, community, first nation or neighbourhood.
For instance, in my community in Victoria, we're very lucky to have groups such as the Cadboro Bay Dead Boats Society, which is a group of volunteers who make it their work to identify vessels that have been abandoned or have washed up on our beaches, to try to get the relevant municipal and federal agencies involved. In some cases they take it upon themselves to do the cleanup directly. In this instance, the accountability or responsibility for the vessel is being taken on by people who are not actually responsible for its presence in the first place.
In that context, speaking of the obligation and responsibility to clean up the boats, can you maybe speak to it? I would direct this to the officials from Transport Canada: Could you speak to how Bill C-244 could help to enforce or strengthen the legal accountability for vessel owners to clean up their own vessels before they fall into a state of severe disrepair that can then threaten our environment and human health?
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, thank you.
Chair, the approach of this bill, we understand, is that it's intended to address proactively the risk of vessel abandonment that's associated with the sale of a vessel, often for a very small amount of money, to somebody who is not really prepared to address that vessel and prevent it from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. The bill would do that by ensuring that the owner has the responsibility to transfer the vessel only to people who have the ability, resources and intent to do so.
It's really that preventative step that the bill is aiming to do. If the owner doesn't take the step of ensuring that the vessel is being transferred to an appropriate buyer, they would be subject to enforcement under WAHVA. I'll pass it over to my colleague to talk a bit more about the enforcement aspect.
Director, Operations and Regulatory Development, Department of Transport
Thank you for that.
We talked a bit about disclosure of the vessel. Certainly, if you are required to disclose the status of your vessel in any shape or form, it's reinforcing the accountability of the seller of the vessel. The act specifically speaks to the owner's being accountable for the life cycle of the vessels. Certainly, if there is some disclosure and some accountability on behalf of the seller, it would reinforce that.
In terms of enforcement, we would have some evidence on behalf of the owner that they did their due diligence to disclose the status of the vessel before transferring ownership, which would enable us to enforce it. As I mentioned, the way that we enforce this is by engaging the owner and the seller. We would talk to the community about what has happened. We generally have a good idea of what's out on the water. We have offices across the country. We have officers on the water as well, as we work in collaboration with the Coast Guard across the country. We have a good idea of these vessels that are reported in by the communities, and we would go and explore and assess the status of the vessel.
In terms of enforcement, we have provisions under the act whereby we can administer monetary fines of up to $50,000. That, again, would be a preventative measure that would make sellers of vessels think twice before selling their vessels if they're in a state of disrepair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.
Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lane, I would like to return to what you said.
When introducing his bill to the House, my honourable colleague said that the aim was not to criminalize accidents, such as oil spills. That was the example he gave. He said the aim was to ensure that individuals and companies carrying out activities comply with higher standards.
The bill would encourage better maintenance, the adoption of better safety protocols and better planning. It would both save money and protect the oceans. That is what he said. It is therefore not an objective of the act.
Do you think this will improve safety or that it will reduce the risk of an oil spill, for example?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
I am not aware of the comments made by the member. However, if I understand correctly, throughout the bill, he was referring to amendments to both the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Canada Transportation Act.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
He was really talking about the risks of oil spills, such as the one involving the Marathassa.
You're telling me that, no, this bill does not reduce the risk of oil spills in Canada at all. Is that correct?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
What I'm saying is that the current legislation already prohibits this.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
The new legislation would not reduce these risks at all. Is that correct?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
As I understand it, the aim is to clarify that this is a strict liability.