Evidence of meeting #46 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.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
How are they going to...? Do I call 1-800-O-Canada and ask, “What's my guidance on selling this?”
Living in reality—
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
There could be a number of different mechanisms to do it. Whether or not it's a phone call, I'm not sure. We could put something on the website. There are various ways we have to.... I don't want to be flippant about it.
The point is that we would take—
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
How about living in reality? This is a difficult thing to expect individuals to actually operate on.
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
The government and the department would have to approach the problem of how to educate people about their obligations and provide them with the information they need.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Would the passage of this bill, given those extra demands on awareness, cost the government money?
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
The intention here is to set a standard in the marketplace and not to involve the department in every transfer of a vessel from a seller to a buyer. We would follow our usual mechanism for implementing the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Would you like me to suspend now so that we can review the subamendment? It's been sent now.
We'll suspend briefly and review it. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
We will resume. Thank you very much, members.
Everyone received the proposed subamendment in both official languages. Are we ready to vote on the subamendment?
Liberal
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to move the subamendment that was circulated via email a few minutes ago.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Thank you very much.
(Subamendment agreed to)
Do you have your hand up to speak, Mr. Arnold?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Briefly, I'd like to ask the sponsor of the bill, MP Weiler, what the original intent of the bill was. Was it simply to better track vessel transfers in order to better manage the liability of abandoned and derelict vessels?
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you for the question, MP Arnold.
Yes, it's about tracking the ownership of the vessels. A number of changes have been made recently, including the modernization of the pleasure craft licensing system, but it particularly addresses the issue of these bad-faith transfers, where you have someone transferring a boat, usually for a nominal fee, to someone they know doesn't have the ability to maintain it. Yes, it's making sure the owner is responsible for it and being able to track who that individual is, but it's also to address this issue of the transfers. That's what the measures are meant to do in addition to the amendment that's being discussed right now.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you.
Now I'll turn to MP Grant, whose amendment we're dealing with here.
How would this amendment affect sales through auctions, whether they be private, public or government auctions? Who's responsible for the tracking of information in the case of an auction, when there often is no direct contact between the seller and the buyer?
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Thank you.
This is a very specific circumstance that's being asked about. The text of the bill regulates the owner of the vessel, and the owner is not allowed to transfer the ownership unless this is the case. It would be up to the parties involved in the auction to ensure that these provisions were accounted for within the overall system that the auction is being run under. It doesn't prescribe how it needs to be done in the auction, but it sets transfer requirements that would need to be met regardless of the type of sale.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
In the case of a private auction, I can see where it would perhaps be reasonable for the auction company to require a statement from the seller of the vessel as to its condition, but when you have an online auction with multiple buyers bidding, how would you expect the auction company, to which the payment is made after the auction is completed, to verify that the buyer meets these conditions?
Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
The requirements of the act wouldn't change in this scenario. They would need to be met through the auction rules or through a mechanism like that, and it's the responsibility of the seller to ensure that happens.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
I'm going to ask a good friend back home who's been an auctioneer all his life what kind of an impact this would have on auction companies that are considering selling vessels. I would guess that his response would be that they wouldn't want any part of it if it included this paperwork bureaucratic nightmare, which could add to the complication of abandoned vessels.
Unless there's something more specific or simplified that you can provide or that this bill could provide to deal with the transfer of vessels through auctions, I can't support where this would go.
Liberal
September 22nd, 2026 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to summarize what I heard from the the staff. I want to ask the sponsor of the bill about this, as well as the mover of this amendment we're talking about here. I want to be able to put this into words that I can describe to my constituents, while providing them the bill itself. I want to try to describe what I've heard.
From what I understand—and please give me some rope here—the seller has to take steps to satisfy themselves, as the seller, that the buyer has the resources and the intent to own the boat responsibly. I'm not talking about the legal text here. Basically, what you're talking about is the vessel condition disclosure, but it does not have to be verified. It's just basically the seller's opinion on the condition of the boat.
The buyer confirms that the buyer has the resources and the intent to own responsibly. Once this is agreed upon and it is recognized in writing, is in a written form, and the transfer takes place, the new owner has the responsibility and liability for this boat.
I really don't want to put words in Mr. Henein's mouth or anything, but is that more or less correct in terms of what we're talking about here today?
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
If I may, Chair, the amendment as written shows that in order to satisfy, it's prohibited to transfer ownership “unless the owner has taken the following steps to satisfy themselves”, which includes disclosing “the condition of the vessel” and then obtaining from the person they're selling the vessel to that they confirm they have “the resources and intent to maintain, operate and dispose” of it.
There's a requirement for the seller to properly describe it and a requirement for the buyer to affirm they have this intent. Of course, it's not possible for the seller to have absolute certainty that they do, but it's a matter of taking these steps in order to satisfy themselves of that.
There are already measures in place to transfer the boat. There's a bill of sale. You also need to include things like having your identification. You need to have a picture of a boat. In my view, there would be ways in which you could add these provisions here to the existing processes already in place. I think it would be very difficult to fully prescribe all of the details of what that could look like, but should this pass, there would be the opportunity for Transport Canada to incorporate that in the existing processes and provide the necessary details so that those future boat transfers would be able to follow them.
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you for that.
What I'm getting at is that there's a certain point in time, given the measures that we've talked about here, when the liability and the responsibility for this vessel is no longer incumbent upon the seller. That is after the seller confirms that the buyer has the resources and intent to own the boat, and the buyer, in return, says, in writing, “I have the resources and intent.”
At that point, when that's all done and the transfer is actually completed, the seller has nothing to worry about. After a year, if the boat sinks, nothing will come back to the seller. That's kind of what I thought I heard here today. Is that the opinion of the...?
