Fisheries Committee on Nov. 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 127 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Before we proceed, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. Please address all comments through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and a motion adopted on February 8, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of derelict and abandoned vessels.

Welcome to our witnesses on the first panel.

We have in the room Mr. Richard Welsford, president of Port of Bridgewater Incorporated. On Zoom, we have Ian Winn, director of the Átl'ḵa7tsem or Howe Sound UNESCO biosphere region. We also have Mr. Leonard Lee, the board chair and director of Area A, Egmont and Pender Harbour, Sunshine Coast Regional District.

Thank you for taking time to appear today. You will each have five minutes or less for your opening statements.

Mr. Welsford, you can go first, please.

Yes, Mr. Kelloway...?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll make this brief.

First, happy belated birthday to MP Perkins. Happy 24th.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'll pay you your hundred bucks later.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I would like to put forward a motion, and I'm looking to seek unanimous consent on it.

Very briefly, because we have important witnesses here, the motion you see in front of you is simply based on having a lot of witnesses in terms of the Fisheries Act. We're looking to get a press release out along with using our other modes of communication with stakeholders to let them know of the Fisheries Act study.

I don't know if you want me to read it, but it reads, “That the committee issue a press release to inform stakeholders, indigenous people and communities that they can provide the committee with written submissions on the Fisheries Act review so that we can ensure all voices are heard on this important issue.”

I'm just looking for UC on this, and then hopefully we can move right into the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

Does anybody have any objection or—

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

There is no unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

There is no unanimous consent. Okay.

Thank you.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

All right. Good try.

Now we will start off, as I said, for five minutes or less.

Mr. Welsford, go ahead when you're ready.

[Richard Welsford, President, Port of Bridgewater Incorporated]

Thank you. Good afternoon.

Today I'm offering information, questions and, perhaps, criticism of the current abandoned vessel practices. I have direct experience with the ship, the Cormorant, which began back in 2002.

The Canadian government disposed of the 240-foot former Canadian navy vessel and sold it to an American company. The ship was brought to the port for repair. Their financial difficulties caused the port to arrest and resell the vessel to a new American company in 2010. By 2013, we had the same problem back again. The ship was broken into at night in March 2015 and intentionally scuttled alongside the wharf. The Canadian Coast Guard intervened, raised the boat and removed the pollutants. The Canadian Coast Guard on-site manager, Mr. Seward Benoit, showed me the cause of the sinking and confirmed it was an intentional and a criminal event.

In 2016, the ship-source oil pollution fund initiated litigation on a subrogated claim for $534,000. Their broad-brush approach named the port and all the various American owners that could be identified. The port also made a court application to take some management control and have it removed. The Canadian government, inexplicably, opposed this application. This demonstrated to me that there was something amiss about the whole situation. The port, its volunteers and the entire town of Bridgewater were being held hostage by Canada's opposition to dispose of the vessel. Concurrently, the ship-source oil pollution fund pursued a course of focusing on ownership. In 2018 a summary trial was held with no result, because the court could not decide on ownership.

The port applied again to remove the Cormorant ship in the summer of 2019, which Canada again opposed. Their position was that the boat posed no threat to the environment. Coast Guard employees Stephan Bournais, Keith Laidlaw and David Yard previously stated the vessel was not leaking, the pollutants had been removed and the ship was stable. The port was asked to support a government survey in July 2019.

As our last motion hearing for management control allowing for the disposal was opposed by Canada, the court prothonotary suggested that an out-of-court solution might be more timely. The port and Canada agreed that the port would take control and title of the ship—only for that agreement—and dispose of it, and any funds collected by the ship's sale would go to a guaranteed payment of $400,000 within two years. Over the two months needed to get court ratification, one hurricane and the completion of unshared draft survey reports, a consent judgment was agreed upon. Within hours the Coast Guard then came back and seized the vessel, claiming it was a grave and immediate threat of pollution. The Coast Guard has withheld all documents required for discovery purposes, including ministerial decisions and financial disclosure.

These thoughts I'll leave with you. The vessel had pollutants removed in 2015, and the costs for doing so were reimbursed to the Coast Guard. Then, there were, all of a sudden, contaminants in 2019, and we're still asking, “From where?” The ship was being held in Bridgewater by actions of the ship-source oil pollution organization, holding the community hostage and incurring a considerable cost. We don't know why.

The ship-source oil pollution fund reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, and the Canadian Coast Guard reports to Parliament through the Minister of Fisheries. Are they all still considered the Crown, one Crown? If subrogation laws relate to these same two entities, are they expected to speak in one voice, co-operate fully and honour any legal obligations made?

Were survey reports produced, even as drafts? Were they withheld during a settlement negotiation for months, a discovery process, through a major hurricane and, even, an election, knowing the plan was to seize the vessel as soon as a deal was signed? Was the seizure made by ministerial decision, as is required? If the seizure was unlawful, the ship broken up and its contents disposed of, does it fit the definition of piracy? It is still on the books, in sections 74 and 75 of the Criminal Code.

I am pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We now go to Mr. Winn for five minutes or less, please.

[Ian Winn, Director, Átl'ḵa7tsem Howe Sound UNESCO Biosphere Region]

Good afternoon, Chair, and esteemed committee members. It is a privilege to be invited to meet with you today on the important topic of derelict and abandoned vessels.

I live on the sunshine coast close to the small community of Ch’ḵw’elhp or Gibsons, located in the traditional territories of the Squamish Nation. My personal journey of learning about and dealing with these vessels began 10 years ago when I was an elected director with the Sunshine Coast Regional District for Area F, West Howe Sound. A November storm was blowing, and a sailboat that was being used as a live-aboard had broken its mooring in Gibsons Harbour and beached close to a community dock, risking nearshore homes.

The Coast Guard determined that there was no life safety issue or obvious contamination to the marine environment, and that it was not a hazard to navigation. After a few more calls for help, we realized that no government agency was taking responsibility. The community rallied and, working under lights that night when the vessel was on the beach at low tide, the vessel was pumped out and the hatches and windows sealed shut. At 4 a.m. on the high tide, a local tugboat operator pulled the vessel off the shore to a safe harbour, where it could be cleaned out and disposed of. The learnings for me and our community were that if you have a problem with a derelict or abandoned vessel, you're on your own.

Fast-forward 10 years. Thankfully much has been done at the federal government level to protect our marine environment with the introduction of the oceans protection plan, the subsequent WAHVA and now the vessel remediation fund, but gaps still exist.

Through my volunteer involvement with the Átl'ḵa7tsem or Howe Sound UNESCO biosphere region, I remain committed to issues such as derelict and abandoned vessels, marine debris and the best management practices for marine docks. Our local communities carry out many beach cleanup events, and through the good work of organizations like the Dead Boats Disposal Society, Ocean Legacy Foundation and the Átl'ḵa7tsem/Howe Sound Marine Stewardship Initiative, the marine environment is in a much better condition today than it was five years ago. However, those learnings and challenges encountered 10 years ago still persist today. This jurisdictional quagmire of who has the responsibility for dealing with D and A vessels is still very real.

In many cases, time is of the essence to deal with a vessel before it sinks or breaks up on shore. Two such situations in Átl'ḵa7tsem or Howe Sound underscore this situation. The first one involved an individual who bought a powerboat on a trailer in Squamish but who only really wanted the trailer. It was towed to the B.C. park at Porteau Cove, where the boat was launched and set adrift. The boat ran aground, became lodged under the government dock, broke up and sank. The finger pointing as to who was responsible continued while the marine debris and pollutants accumulated on shore. B.C. Parks finally removed the boat.

A much larger situation exists in Andy's Bay on the west side of Gambier Island in Átl'ḵa7tsem or Howe Sound, a bay closely located between a rockfish conservation area and a protected glass sponge reef. An individual was paid by the owner of two large scows and a barge to take possession of them and dispose of them in a proper manner. The vessels were towed to Andy's Bay two years ago and have been left to rot and take on water. The barge broke free in a storm and washed ashore on a neighbouring island. One of the scows sank in 300 feet of water and the remaining scow ownership has, through a long process, been transferred through the TC receiver of wrecks to a person who continues to search for a place to properly dispose of it and has to check on it and pump it out regularly.

The root of this problem is that the individual who was paid to dispose of the vessels is known to Transport Canada and is a repeat offender for doing this with other vessels in southwest British Columbia. However, the behaviour still continues, and authorities appear to be hamstrung to deal with the situation in a timely manner while the environment gets polluted.

As evidenced by this parliamentary committee, the federal government is stepping up to face the challenges of D and A vessels, but there is still more to be done. However, other levels of government at the provincial and local levels don't share in this responsibility. At the federal level, TC, CCG and DFO must be empowered to address D and A vessels in a much more timely manner. Less bureaucracy is needed in order to prevent pollution in our challenging and diverse Canadian marine environments.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

Before I go to Mr. Lee, I have to ask the clerk to do a sound check for our interpreters, just to see if the connection is okay. I'm going to suspend for a moment while that's taking place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're back.

Mr. Lee, you can start. You have five minutes or less for an opening statement.

[Leonard Lee, Board Chair and Director, Area A - Egmont and Pender Harbour, Sunshine Coast Regional District]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I have to say thanks to all of you for serving on this committee and taking the time to listen to all the areas of Canada that are affected by the abandoned and derelict boat phenomenon, as I call it.

My name is Leonard Lee, and I turned 76 years old yesterday. I was born and raised in Pender Harbour, as were my mother and father. Pender Harbour is on the Sunshine Coast and approximately 60 kilometres north of Vancouver. I'm one of those guys who grew up on the water, as boats were the only means of transportation when I was young. Plus, my father was a commercial fisherman. I have lots of concerns about the health of our environment.

I logged and fished after high school, saved some money, went to vocational school, worked in telecommunications for Telus for 30 years and retired at 55. I've been full time on the Sunshine Coast since retiring. I've always been here. I'm active in many not-for-profit organizations, such as the chamber, the Living Heritage Society museum, the residents association and the Harbour Authority of Pender Harbour. I was strong-armed into running for the SCRD director by those I now call my “so-called friends”, and I've been at it for six years, the last two as chair of the regional district.

I'm very proud of the Sunshine Coast. It's a friendly place, isolated from Vancouver by ferry service, which runs periodically during the day. We're effectively an island, even though we are connected to the mainland.

The reason I mentioned Pender Harbour is that it's a very nice harbour. It has multiple bays and coves, and it stretches inland for five kilometres. It has over 60 kilometres of shoreline, 300 private docks and a very active boating community. It's popular with summer boating tourists. We also have a lot of derelict and abandoned boats.

Derelict and abandoned boats are a relatively new phenomenon and with many different causes. A main cause is that there's no longer anything called cheap moorage in our harbour. Increased regulations—including for limited dock size and construction standards—and the high cost of purchasing and owning waterfront property have pretty much eliminated any category called “cheap moorage”. Once you don't have cheap moorage, people can't afford to tie up the cheaper boats. The less affluent owners become guardians of those cheaper boats, and they resort to anchoring them in our protected bay. There are hundreds of them around the Sunshine Coast, the vast majority not insured or registered.

There are probably a hundred of them right now in Pender Harbour and Egmont, and there's a cross-section of boats. There are several large ex-commercial vessels owned by individuals. They're derelict. They were bought by guys who were going to make their fortune. Of course, that didn't happen. They're floating still, but who knows why they're floating. The owners don't have any money left to do anything with them. They're eventually going to rust out and sink.

We have a whole bunch of boats that are at legal mooring buoys and not a problem. They're generally in front of the owners' residences and maintained. However, the vast bulk of boats are almost-good, cheap boats. They're first anchored by owners who thought they were going to use them for recreation, but they're not in front of the owners' properties. They're only randomly used due to the difficulty in accessing them. Inevitably, a canvas will break or a boat battery will die, and the boat will fill with water and become immovable. If the owner can't afford to fix it, it's a derelict boat sitting at anchor, and it will eventually sink since the owners can't get to it.

The problem boats are now the ones that are illegally at permanent anchor. There are way too many boats in too small a space in many bays. The anchor is not a secure moorage, and it's prone to drag under heavy winds, scouring the sea bottom, damaging eelgrass beds and bouncing off other boats that are tied to wharves. Some end up on the beach. Most often, a local will rescue them and return them to anchor.

There are no mooring lights or anchor lights, which is a hazard for navigation. Boats have been known to collide with them, trying to drive through them at night. Near misses are common. A few of them are live-aboards with no liquid waste holding tanks. People simply dump their garbage over the side at night. Some are fixer-uppers, with owners trying to fix them up and make them livable and self-propelled, but all they do is end up selling them to someone who lives aboard them. Then they end up abandoned and eventually sink.

The problem we have now is that we wait until they sink and then do something with them. That's way too late. We should have some way of avoiding that in the first place and making sure they don't end up sinking. I have lots of ideas on how that could happen, but I think I'm pretty much out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, you're a bit over, but not by much.

Before I go to questions, I want to remind members that there are two witnesses online and one here in person, so please identify who your question is going to instead of having everybody staring into space wondering who's supposed to answer it.

We'll start off with Mr. Perkins for six minutes or less, please.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming for this important study. My questions in this round will be primarily for Mr. Welsford.

Mr. Welsford, if I'm right, you are the former owner of the Bridgewater Marina. Is that correct?

[Richard Welsford]

I'm currently the president of Port of Bridgewater Incorporated, but the asset, which was the port, has been disposed of.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The issue that you're here for—and it's always a pleasure to see a constituent before a parliamentary committee—has to do with several abandoned vessels that you were saddled with while operating that port. The main one that got most of the press was the Cormorant.

I want to ask you a question at the beginning before I get into this. Is it correct that you were the Liberal riding association president when my predecessor, Bernadette Jordan, was introducing legislation on this issue and when she was the fisheries minister dealing with it?

[Richard Welsford]

That's correct. Of course, I worked with them up until we started having disputes. I felt I was in conflict at that point.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Let's talk about those disputes.

The Cormorant sank twice. The first time it sank, the ship-source oil pollution fund said that all of it was cleaned out. Then it sank a second time, and they had to do it again. It cost millions of dollars.

If it was cleaned out the first time, why did they have to do it a second time when it sank?

[Richard Welsford]

I have a little correction. The only time that it actually sank—in our case it settled out and was never submerged—was in 2015. That was in March, in the middle of a snowstorm in the middle of the night with locked gates and locked hatches. As I testified, the Coast Guard eventually discovered that it was an intentional scuttling.

That vessel was due out of the port with new ownership a few months later, as soon as the ice had left the river. The costs for that were recovered from the ship-source oil pollution fund by the Coast Guard. Of course, all of us felt that they were reimbursed for removing the pollutants from that vessel. That's part of the deal. If you get support from them, you clean it up.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It seems to be the case, as in other witness testimony, that one thing that ends up happening is a dispute over ownership and who's responsible for removing the vessel and for cleanup. You went through years and years of court issues, it sounded like from your testimony. Is that correct?

[Richard Welsford]

We've seemed to have a court issue just about every month since 2015. Even up to the present, there are some ongoing issues that have not been nailed down.