Environment Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2026

[Stephanie Lane]

I'm not able to answer the specific facts of the question. One thing I would say is that the application of section 125 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is fundamentally not changed by the proposal. It adds this “for greater certainty” provision, so all available defences that are in existence today would also be available should this amendment and this private member's bill pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Okay. Shall G-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We now move to clause 3.

Is there someone who wishes to move CPC-1?

Mr. Arnold, go ahead.

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

This amendment states that Bill C-244, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 6 on page 2 with the following:

34.1 (1) The owner of a vessel who transfers ownership of the vessel is deemed to remain an owner for the purposes of this Part until they notify the Minister of the transfer.

(2) The owner must, in writing, notify the Minister of the transfer of ownership within 14 days.

(3) The notice must include the name and contact information of the new owner.

Madam Chair, if I can explain the reasoning for submitting this amendment, it is basically from my 40 years of experience in the boatbuilding and boat repair business and seeing the number of vessels that are out there for which the registration of transfer is not completed because, as soon as it is done, the buyer receives notice from federal and provincial tax departments that they now owe taxes unless they've already been paid to a dealer in a dealership sale.

Through my shop over those years, and in other facilities, the number of private vessels that I saw that were transferred, oftentimes more than once, to a new owner with no record-keeping whatsoever made it almost impossible for some of the new owners to track down who may have originally been the last registered owner of the vessel.

This amendment would basically incentivize the seller to notify the department of the transfer, because once that is done, it should absolve them of liability for the vessel. They wouldn't have to go through the process that we're probably going to discuss, which is having to determine whether the new owner is qualified or not and the state of the vessel, which often requires a marine survey that can cost thousands of dollars, even for a small vessel. It simply would require the seller to provide the name and contact information of the buyer.

The purpose of this bill really is to track liability, and I believe that's what the sponsor of this bill is really looking for. It's to track the ownership and the liability of any vessel. This would make it very simple. It's just a matter of the seller providing the new owner's name and contact information. Then the government would have all of the resources to find that new owner, and they are liable.

I speak to this from my personal experience, which included the theft of a vehicle from my yard. That vehicle was stolen at three o'clock in the morning, never to be found again, but within a week's time the insurance on that vehicle was due for renewal. I thought that because it didn't belong to me anymore, I probably didn't need to renew the insurance. I checked with my insurance agent, and they said I actually did need to renew the insurance, because until it was either paid out by the insurance company, which was ICBC at the time, or I recovered it, if that vehicle was parked on the side of the highway and it rolled out and injured or killed someone, I was the registered owner and therefore I was responsible. I had to reinsure a vehicle that I wasn't in possession of and probably never had a chance of possessing again. Because I was the registered owner, I still had to pay for the insurance on it until the insurance company paid me out.

If the seller can provide the buyer's information, that should be enough to absolve them of the liability, and the government would have the ability to track the new owner. That is the reasoning and the rationale for this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

I'm told that this proposed amendment has to be moved by an existing member of the environment committee.

Thank you, Mr. Bexte.

If CPC-1 is adopted, G-2 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 16.71, “Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.” That is just for clarity.

Is there any debate on this proposed amendment? If not, we shall take it to a vote.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Grant, would you like to move G-2?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is that Bill C-244, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 6 on page 2 with the following:

34.1 (1) It is prohibited for an owner of a vessel to transfer ownership of it to a person unless the owner has taken the following steps to satisfy themselves that the person has the resources and intent to maintain, operate and dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming a wreck or hazard or from becoming abandoned:

(a) they have disclosed to the person, in writing, information relating to the condition of the vessel; and

(b) they have obtained from the person, in writing, confirmation that the person has the resources and intent to maintain, operate and dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming a wreck or hazard or from becoming abandoned.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of vessels, other than pleasure craft, that are 24 m or more in length.

The amendment maintains the original intent of the clause by prohibiting the transfer of a vessel to individuals without the means or intent to properly maintain or dispose of the vessel, while making the provisions more practical to implement and enforce. For example, the amendment would remove the requirement for the seller to assess a buyer's ability or intent to maintain a vessel, which raises concerns over how sellers could determine the buyer's ability, resources or intent to operate, maintain or dispose of the vessel. Instead, the amendment introduces two clear requirements that the owner of a vessel must fulfill when transferring a vessel: They must disclose to the buyer, in writing, information relating to the condition of the vessel, and they must obtain written confirmation from the buyer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Grant.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's great to see everybody back for another fall session.

Given that we broke before summer after hearing the testimony from the sponsor, I had a lot of time to review this legislation and, in turn, some of the amendments. If you'll bear with me, Madam Chair, I have a number of questions that I plan to direct towards Mr. Grant as the parliamentary secretary and the mover of this motion.

I'd like to start by highlighting what the original Bill C-244, this legislation, said. It said that the seller could not transfer a vessel if the seller knew or was reckless as to whether the buyer lacked the ability, resources or intent to care for it. This government amendment instead states that the seller must take two steps, as the parliamentary secretary outlined. He called those “clear requirements”. I'm hoping to get some clarity on just how clear those are.

This amendment would mandate that the seller must disclose information about the vessel's condition in writing and get written confirmation from the buyer that the buyer has the resources and intent to maintain, operate and dispose of it responsibly. To me, this raises a question: If the buyer signs a declaration, has the seller simply done enough?

Just for argument's sake, I have a hypothetical case here. Let's say I'm selling a 20-metre fishing boat that could cost $20,000 to $30,000 to dispose of properly, but I choose to sell it for one dollar. I can tell the buyer in writing that the vessel is in poor condition. He then signs a piece of paper saying that he has the resources or intention to maintain and dispose of this vessel properly. If the buyer signs this statement and I don't ask any further questions and I take him at his word by signing this statement—as would be the legislation if this amendment were to pass—is that all that needs to be done to comply with this legislation as amended through what you're proposing here?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I thank you for the question, but I'm going to pass it to the officials to answer.

[Colin Henein, Director, Marine Environmental Policy, Department of Transport]

Thank you for the question.

The intention that we understand in this bill is really to set some standards that would allow an informed decision on the part of the buyer and the seller to satisfy themselves that the buyer does have those resources and intent. The amendments aren't really prescriptive about how that check has to happen. They are about ensuring that there is disclosure by the seller of the condition of the vessel and that the buyer knows what they're getting into and therefore is taking a decision as to whether that vessel is within their capacity and is making the declaration.

To put it simply, the buyer can make that statement in the circumstance that you lay out, but they would do it knowing what they were getting themselves into. The seller would need to be satisfied through that process that the buyer has the resources and intent.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you for that.

It still leaves a lot of question marks. If I'm the seller of this vessel, how satisfied I have to be to be satisfied is not a very strong legal position for future potential ramifications.

Just to be crystal clear, this amendment does not expressly require me to inspect the buyer's finances, insurance or facilities. It just requires me to have him write something down, and then that is enough for me to be covered legally in the event that it is not followed through. Is that correct?

[Colin Henein]

If the seller is satisfied through the person's declaration that the person has the resources and intent to maintain, operate and dispose of the vessel, then they will have met the requirements of the clause.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Who is the arbiter of that down the road? Mr. Arnold and I might be deeply different in how we judge the satisfactory nature of the claims made by the buyer. Who decides later on whether I should or should not have been satisfied?

[Colin Henein]

In the way the bill is drafted, the owner takes the steps to satisfy themselves that the person has the resources to maintain, operate and dispose of the vessel.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It's not unreasonable for the seller to then be asking for financial disclosures or for evidence of ownership of property where the vessel could be stored. In theory, there could be a potentially huge onus on the seller to reach his or her own level of satisfaction based on what the law would be if this amendment comes into force.

[Colin Henein]

Those are questions for an interpretation that I'm not really able to make with specific circumstances here, but what I can do is point to the text, which says that the vessel cannot be transferred unless those steps are taken to satisfy the seller as to the person's resources and their intent to maintain and operate.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

If I'm either a retail seller or somebody planning to sell his or her boat in the future, how would I be satisfied with this law? For the text you just described, how would I be satisfied with that as a comfort level in a future sale?

[Colin Henein]

I'm not sure I can speak to how any specific person in a situation like that would or wouldn't be comfortable. I'm just trying to clarify—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Should it be more prescriptive, then? The problem I see here is that it's not prescriptive at all. It's very subjective.

Do you want to jump in on that one, Mel?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

We have Mr. Ross if you're finished.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

No, I could keep going.

The original bill as drafted said that the seller of the boat had to determine whether the buyer had the “ability, resources or intent” to take care of the boat. Now, for example, let's say that I ask the buyer for a proof of finances, and they say they have a hundred grand sitting in the bank. Then they say they intend to restore this old commercial vessel, but they have absolutely no idea of how to do that. They might have the intent and the money, but no expertise to maintain or oversee such a project of restoring the vessel.

Why would the government, through this amendment, be deleting that particular word, “ability”, from the initial drafting of Bill C-244?

Perhaps I'll ask the government first.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I will keep with the officials, please.

[Colin Henein]

There were challenges that were identified with the issue of “ability”. There were a couple of things.

First of all, the seller may not have the information at hand that they need in order to assess the buyer's ability. In particular, the requirement to assess the buyer's ability may be applied inconsistently between sellers, or it could lead to risk-averse decision-making, and that could lead to differential treatment of certain individuals or groups, which could have raised concerns from a human rights perspective. From that perspective, “ability” was seen to be something that didn't need to be included in the amended text.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

You can see how those two remaining items that are required—resources and intent—and the lack of clarity as to what that actually means beyond just perhaps signing a piece of paper would also lead to adverse views as a seller. I don't understand why you'd cherry-pick “ability” when the other two clearly still leave a lot of questions of potential liability for the seller, depending on their own comfort level and due diligence. Why did you pick that one instead of all three of them?

[Colin Henein]

Some of the issues around ability have to do with the human rights aspect of whether or not someone has the ability to do something. Resources and intent are things that can be confirmed in writing by the buyer on an informed basis, based on the vessel's condition.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay, but what does “resources” mean? Is there a legal definition in the existing act?