Fisheries Committee on Oct. 28th, 2024

[Bonny Brokenshire]

I did get some of your question. Thank you very much.

Yes, we're primarily focused on the west coast. I don't know whether there was another component to the question. I'm sorry, but I didn't hear.

[David Mitchell]

For us, we're focused mostly on our region. Our communication would have been with federal and provincial departments of the environment more than environmental groups.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mayor, you have your work cut out for you. From what you say, this a serious issue. Listening to your testimony, it occurred to me that legislative management is lacking. If legislation or regulations on ship divestiture were put in place, would they help you manage the situation? Would a federal act improve it?

[David Mitchell]

I think, certainly, for our example there are the two pieces. It was the federal piece of property that was put into private hands with no checks or balances to see what its use was going to be. I'm sure, looking back, whoever made that decision to give it to the Artificial Reef Society.... My understanding is that not only did they give it to the Artificial Reef Society, but they gave them money to maintain it. Therefore, taxpayer money actually funded the creation of this graveyard for ships.

The other component is that two very historically significant Canadian military vessels were given to an organization that had no plan. The Fraser was one of the first Canadian naval ships for female sailors. That's pretty important, yet that history just gets dismissed. If you do a Wikipedia search on that ship, all that history ends with a little line at the bottom, which reads that it was just rotting in Bridgewater. The Cormorant, as I said, recovered the bell from the Edmund Fitzgerald. That's pretty impressive, yet there were no checks or balances.

In terms of some federal regulation, I think there's opportunity for two there. The first is better checks and balances for the divesting of any federal property, wharfs particularly, but also how do we, whether it's a Coast Guard or navy vessel, make sure that whoever takes that on can fund and support whatever future use it has?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

If I understand correctly, the glaring problem isn't just regulations but funding.

I don't know if you're aware of the Nipigon, a former Canadian warship in the St. Lawrence River in the Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques riding. It was sunk back in 2003.

There are a lot of amateur divers in the St. Lawrence, which is an extremely complex river in terms of navigation and currents. Rather than venturing into the very deep and dangerous Empress of Ireland wreck, they sunk a ship to create a training museum for apprentice divers. The boat was secured and everything dangerous, such as ammunition, was removed before the vessel was scuttled in the St. Lawrence. It was a spectacular sight, by the way.

Could that be a solution for some ships? Obviously, not all boats can be salvaged. In some cases, could boats become training sites for divers?

[David Mitchell]

I appreciate the question. I think “yes” is the answer.

My understanding is that even as a country we have two different rules. Unless something has changed in the last few years, you can submerge a vessel on the west coast for an artificial reef. You cannot submerge a vessel in the Atlantic for an artificial reef. The same department makes that decision from coast to coast, but it's two different....

Again, in our case, with that wharf being handed over to the Artificial Reef Society, I believe that was their original intent, but then they were not able to do it.

I think it's a great idea. It happens around the world, where vessels are properly cleaned, sunk and used for tourist activities like diving and teaching. However, right now, unless something has changed in the last few years, I don't think it can happen in the Atlantic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses who are here today.

First of all, through the chair, I had no idea that this had happened with the two HMCS vessels on the east coast. That's really upsetting to hear.

I know we have the HMCS Nanaimo on the west coast, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It's in Esquimalt. I know the crew takes incredible care of those vessels. I know the vessels currently do illegal substances work, preventing illegal narcotics from reaching our shores. The care of the vessels, the pride the crew takes in those vessels, as well as the pride felt by the community in the work that's being done, is tremendous. To hear that there have been two HMCS vessels that have been left like this for so many years is very disheartening.

Just to clarify and just so it's on the record, could you say that the museum never happened?

[David Mitchell]

You're absolutely correct. The museum never came to be. Nothing came to be of the ship.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That's very disheartening. I know there are also limited resources going into this important work. It's something to keep an eye on for the rest of the HMCS vessels as we move forward on a process.

I have another question, Mr. Mitchell.

You spoke about the three trawlers that were dismantled on site. Perhaps you're not the expert on this, but do you have any more information that you can provide to us around what that looked like and who did it? Any further information would be very helpful.

[David Mitchell]

Yes, for sure.

That was a process led by the Canadian Coast Guard. Thank goodness the funding for that wasn't from the taxpayer. It was from the ship-source pollution fund. My understanding is that this fund is paid for by industry, so the Coast Guard will be going after the owners of the vessels to try to recoup that. If not, at least it's not coming from a pot of taxpayer money.

They were able to pull up two of the ships onto shore to be dismantled. The third had to be very carefully dismantled in the water because it was so fragile. Again, it was filled with lubricants and had fuel in it. It's a tidal river, so if there were any mistakes, parts of that ship and its contents would be going all the way out, past very pristine islands, into the Atlantic.

It was all handled very well, though. Again, it was overseen by the Coast Guard, but almost 30 years later.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

One thing that comes up over and over again is having the appropriate plans and spaces for vessels to be dismantled that ensure we're taking into account those who are doing the work, by having work safety standards in place, as well as the environmental impacts. It's always interesting to learn from examples that have already done that.

We have a spot called Union Bay in British Columbia, where we are seeing a tremendous amount of pollution happening from ship-breaking. I think it's good for us to learn from what we are doing coast to coast to coast, so we don't repeat the same patterns. Thank you for that information.

Ms. Brokenshire, you mentioned a voluntary non-anchor zone. I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about the responses you received to allocating this voluntary non-anchor zone and any changes you've seen to that area.

Are people voluntarily following those recommendations? Some more information would be helpful.

[Bonny Brokenshire]

Thank you for the question.

We have a very engaged community. There are a lot of waterfront property owners around the bay. We also take really good inventory of our eelgrass beds, which are a vital nursery for our forage fish and salmon species.

The idea came out of Washington state. We did install these voluntary no-anchor zones. They've been in place for three boating seasons now and I'm happy to report that we haven't seen anybody go inside those zones and anchor.

We've done lots of education around that. I'm just really pleased with that. If people do go inside there without anchoring, there are lots of kayakers and people who utilize the bay for recreation, now that the derelict and abandoned vessel problem has somewhat been resolved, who are very good educators. We've had great success with that.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

I find this interesting. It sounds like there is a bit of community buy-in on this, which has resulted in a cultural shift on what's acceptable and not acceptable in this area. It seems this has influenced a lot of the decisions being made in this area.

Would that be accurate?

[Bonny Brokenshire]

Yes. It hasn't been without controversy, though, especially when we talk about live-aboards and how that feeds into derelict and abandoned vessels.

It's about consistency in messaging, the legislative bylaw tools in place and community buy-in.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

I think this speaks to the importance of having the community involved in these processes and making sure there's full consultation with all of those who are living in the communities and are impacted by these decisions.

I realize there are only a few seconds left of my time. I wanted to ask you a little more about the impacts of all the mooring vessels on the sea floor. Perhaps we can find time for you to answer that in another question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

We'll now go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for being here.

Mr. Mitchell, you mentioned that your community is on a tidal river.

Could you explain jurisdiction over the dock space, the foreshore and the underwater land? Who has jurisdiction over those?

[David Mitchell]

My understanding is that the underwater land is controlled by the federal government. The water lots are federal in nature. I can't speak about where the town's land jurisdiction ends and the water begins. It was certainly never something in municipal control. Everything that was federal was handed to this organization.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

This sounds slightly different from what I understand to be the situation in British Columbia, where, in a river, the riverbed is provincial Crown jurisdiction. That would be a significant difference, again, between the east coast and the west coast. I hope we can get that clarified.

Regarding the vessel remediation fund, it's been proposed that there be a levy of a $10 flat fee applied to pleasure craft, and a fee based on vessel size for commercial vessels. That $10 fee would be every five years.

Would that fee cover the cost of the removal or remediation of a vessel?

[David Mitchell]

Certainly, on the east coast, it wouldn't. I'm thinking of the cost of just moving the Cormorant, which was towed to Sheet Harbour. My understanding is that the towing fee was almost $1 million. Then you have to pay to scrap it.

On the west coast, yes....

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The same question is for Ms. Brokenshire.

[Bonny Brokenshire]

I think, potentially, for pleasure craft of an average of 25 feet and fibreglass-hulled.... Right now, the cost to demolish and dispose of said vessel is approximately $3,000. Yes, I think that fund could potentially be useful.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Will $10 every five years pay for $3,000?

[Bonny Brokenshire]

I'm sorry. Collectively, if there was some access to funds....