Fisheries Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[Roberta Bowman]

I think a lot can be done. I think we need to be putting some new initiatives in place and put them back on the boat owner. I can say that. I'm a boat owner, so I totally understand this situation.

What's happening with the growing increase in the cost of living these days is that folks are not able to afford moorage, so they are taking their boats and anchoring them. From anchoring them one day, one thing leads to the next. It's a domino effect, and all of a sudden these boats are abandoned and become derelict.

I think this ties into insurance. Once a boat reaches a certain age.... Getting insurance on a vessel is increasingly difficult with older vessels, with the increased amount of maintenance that needs to be done on them. Again, a boat is as good as it is used. The more you use the boat, the healthier it is. Not everybody knows or understands that. I've managed and run multiple marinas in my time. That is something we tell folks all the time.

I think it starts with boat owners and educating them on what they can do. Then I think it leads to multiple levels of government coming in and helping to put processes in place.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Ms. Bowman, for that excellent expert testimony.

Mr. Chair, my next question is for Ms. Dubois.

You spoke about how expensive removing these derelict vessels is.

Do you have any suggestions for maybe creating a pool of money or drawing together different sources of funding privately to help deal with this problem, versus placing the bulk of the onus on taxpayers across Canada, many of whom have never seen the ocean?

[Chloe Dubois]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Small.

This work is incredibly expensive, and just to speak a little bit on your last question, it can be dangerous. I don't think that leaving this work in the hands of volunteers is the right way to go long term.

In terms of raising funds or pooling funds, we can look to waste management models, such as extended producer responsibility. I know people aren't in favour of taxes or putting a tax on something, but creating a deposit scheme or method at the point of purchase of the vessel could help pool funds together for that.

When shipping containers come into the port, we've also discussed looking at creating a small tax on each container, so that money can then be pooled for restoration funds across the coast. That could create a substantial fund to help not only with the funding and removal of derelict vessels, but also with many other restoration needs across the coast. Those are some of the mechanisms we've explored to date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Mr. Weiler for six minutes or less, please.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I also want to thank our two witnesses for joining in today by video conference.

I want to start with Ms. Dubois. You mentioned a few things that piqued my interest. Number one, you mentioned some of the challenges with the removal permit process and the time that it takes to go through this review and the consultation process. I was hoping you could share a bit more with this committee on what that type of process looks like right now and what types of recommendations you might have for amending it.

[Chloe Dubois]

Right now, in a nutshell, what this process looks like is that when we come across a vessel, we have to identify the registration number, and then we have to work through Transport Canada to identify the owner.

This can be quite a long process in terms of putting out consultation. Usually, that looks like a public announcement, which lasts, I believe, up to 60 days—there are 60 days for somebody to claim that vessel. When we're looking to do restoration and cleanup efforts, we have to be planning six months to a whole year in advance in order to align the approval of the permitting process. If none of these vessels are owned, or the owners don't come forward, we have to align that with the funding that we're applying for. That looks like grants, oftentimes, or donors or sponsors we get from the community to do this work. It makes it challenging for us to be able to go through that administrative process and align all of the resources that we need in time to be able to do the work.

After the consultation process, if no owners claim the vessel, we can fill out a few other forms to own the vessel, so the ownership of the vessel then gets transferred to our organization. From that point, we are legally allowed to clean up and remove the vessel. We've encountered numerous instances of going to clean up a vessel underwater, submerged, and when we remove the vessel, there's another vessel underneath that vessel. We have the resources in that moment to clean up the stack of vessels, but we are not legally allowed to.

It creates an incredibly frustrating circumstance for us when we have to literally leave these vessels that we can see actively leaking and polluting toxins into the environment. Then we have to go through the whole process again, reapply for more funding and then get the permitting process involved.

I feel that there needs to be some sort of concession in place when extreme circumstances like that occur. There need to be concessions to be able to remove the vessel when we have an expert and a specialized team in place with the resources in place.

We've also come across instances when we're doing extensive shoreline cleanup and debris removal. We do extensive surveys of these areas ahead of time; however, sometimes we come across, say, up in a forest or a location where we didn't initially catch the initial debris, concentration from a derelict vessel. These vessels are ripped apart and shredded, and they're actively leaking all kinds of pollutants. Again, we can't touch the vessel unless we go through this permitting and consultation process. It's heartbreaking to see and to have to leave these vessels in place.

That's a little bit of our experience in undergoing this process.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

It leads to the next question I wanted to ask. You mentioned that the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act was a very good start, and some of the funds are provided through that, but you also mentioned that more resources need to be allocated to survey areas. Certainly, what you mentioned about finding these submerged vessels and the cumulative impact of other vessels or other ghost gear that is getting attached to it is very concerning.

I think, number one, it's the need to have more resources, but I think it's also about ensuring that those resources go to surveying areas that are going to have the biggest impact, so you're avoiding those situations that you just mentioned, of removing one boat and finding more there that are submerged.

I wonder if you have any recommendations for this committee about how those resources can best be allocated to do surveys.

[Chloe Dubois]

That's a great question. Thank you for that.

I think to allocate the resources best, what we're seeing—and to Mrs. Bowman's comment about Dogpatch—is that there are very large concentrations outside of larger cities and urban establishments. Oftentimes we're seeing incredibly large concentrations in remote indigenous harbour communities.

I think allocating these resources should go in the hands of the indigenous communities, so that they can oversee.... Oftentimes they know exactly where a lot of these vessels are and where their traditional grounds and harvesting areas are being affected. Working more closely with indigenous stewardship is essential, as is working with the coastal communities, which can then help co-create the restoration and removal plans together.

A lot of the indigenous communities that we partner with to do this work have generations of vessels in place under water. The survey work is imperative, so definitely partnering with these communities is the direction to go for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Weiler.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses. It's always so valuable to have them with us.

I'll turn to Ms. Dubois.

I'll briefly review the first testimonies that this committee heard.

In 2016, we learned that $2.2 billion had been injected into the sector's economy to equip the various organizations involved in managing ghost ships.

You said that you have a hard time obtaining funding and that it's complicated. Have you received any significant financial support since 2016, in your opinion?

[Chloe Dubois]

We have received significant support from the federal government through the ghost gear program fund, so we've been able to remove subsurface ghost gear and develop sustainable end-of-life solutions for processing this material once it's removed. I'd like to note that I don't think we struggled with the administration process itself. It was just the timing of the administrative process, and then aligning that with the fiscal end of year and the constraints of the funding we received.

We're asking to look—when we're in the field, collecting and removing vessels—at potential concessions, if there are more vessels underneath those vessels or, from a shoreline perspective, if those vessels are completely ripped apart and too far gone and are just polluting everywhere. If there's something in place that we can quickly apply for, like a mechanism that can then be enacted and that we can run with, instead of having to go back to a six month-plus process, that's what we're really asking for.

We have been funded. We do have the ability to go through the administrative process, and we've done that repeatedly. The challenge is that, once we're in that and when we're actually doing the work, it would be great to have some of those additional mechanisms in place.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Your comments are informative.

We also heard from witnesses, Quebec divers from Québec Subaquatique. They provided insight into a sometimes positive aspect of shipwrecks when the wrecks don't contain any hazardous materials. In the St. Lawrence, boats even serve as shelters for the marine life of certain species.

To your knowledge, is this component found on the west side of the country?

[Chloe Dubois]

Sunken vessels can create habitat, and they can stimulate biodiversity within the marine ecosystem. However, I would caution actively leaving vessels in place until extensive survey work on those vessels has been completed, if there's no hazardous waste involved in that. The type of material and the composition of material that the vessel is made out of needs to also be considered with that. There might not be oils or batteries or any kind of hazardous materials on board, but leaving a fibreglass vessel in place that is made out of plastics and resins could also create photodegradation over time. I would say the same for tires. I know tires are often also used as a substrate to stimulate underwater biodiversity growth.

Those factors should be considered, as well as extensive survey work, before those actions are taken.

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

Thank you, Ms. Dubois.

Ms. Bowman, you spoke about three pillars. I actually wrote down the word “pillars”, but that may not be the right term.

These pillars are identification, the removal of boats following identification and prevention.

If you had to ask the committee to make recommendations in these areas, what would be the priority? Could you provide an order of priority? Are your biggest challenges with identification, removal or prevention?

How would you categorize the financial needs of these three pillars?

[Roberta Bowman]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

I think there are two opportunities. The first one, trying to get this under control from a triage perspective, I think, would be identification and removal. Prevention would come last. Once we get this current situation under control in terms of what's there, then I think prevention comes first, followed by identification and then removal.

I say that because the vessels need to be identified by the owners, and that's difficult to do. Here in B.C., there are two ways that a boat can be registered. One is through the Canada registry, which is how I registered my boat, because I bought it offshore. The other way, which is the case for the majority of the boats here, because they are pleasure craft, is through a licensing process.

You would indicate the province—for example, B.C.—and then there would be a series of numbers beside it. Generally, this registration is located on the side of the boat. If a boat is going to become abandoned or derelict, boat owners generally will remove those numbers to make it more difficult for vessels to be identified. I think we need to put more onus on making it more difficult for an owner to remove that licensing information.

The other thing is that we need to put the onus again on the boat owner, to put in place more red tape, for lack of appropriate words, to make it more difficult for them to just sell their boat to anybody, because that is what's happening. They're giving their boats away to people or selling them, and the new person is not registering them. Even though the boat technically hasn't been removed from the prior vessel owner's insurance, or the identification has been removed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Bowman. I have to end it here. We're going a little over time.

I will now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to both of you here today. Ms. Bowman, if you wanted to finish your thought, I'm happy to provide you with the space to do so.

[Roberta Bowman]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

I lost my thought. I just wanted to say that I think if we put prevention.... Put the onus back on making it more difficult for owners to sell their boats. We need to make that a priority, in my view.

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Bowman, I'm going to ask you my next question, through the chair. It's so nice to see you here.

As we've already heard, there are multiple reasons that it's good to be hearing from you. As the executive director of the Ladysmith Chamber of Commerce, and also as a boater and a west coaster, there's lots of vital information that you're bringing forward today.

As the executive director of the Ladysmith Chamber of Commerce, can you clarify some of the implications that you're hearing from businesses of these vessels being left abandoned along our coast?

[Roberta Bowman]

It's a safety issue for sure. I'm going to use Dogpatch as an example.

Boat owners are leaving their vessels in Dogpatch. It's a body of water located right on the outskirts, right off of our Transfer Beach, which is a very popular beach in the summertime. Tourists come from everywhere. Folks are squatting in those boats. There's drug use happening in those boats.

Last spring, somebody lost their life inside one of those boats. They weren't found until about three or four months later. We have the dignity of humanity at that point. We really need to put that into play.

When a squatter is sitting in a derelict boat, the boat's just sitting there and it's not being checked on. All of a sudden, someone within that community—because they have their own little communities—realized that this person hadn't been seen for a few months. They called the authorities, who went in and, sure enough, located a body. It's a safety issue on many levels.

I've worked at the community marina, which is located right beside Dogpatch. I ran that marina in 2019 for six months, and when I came home—it was interim with me bringing my boat home—we saw people from that area coming in with full fights and on drug overdoses. It's a real community issue. It's an issue for sure.

Thank you, Ms. Barron, through the chair.

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

Thank you, Ms. Bowman.

It definitely highlights some bigger issues. It's a compounding issue that we're seeing. It's all interconnected. Thank you for highlighting that.

Ms. Bowman, you spoke about the adjustment of fees in marinas. Can you share more of your thoughts on that?

[Roberta Bowman]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

Yes, from my personal perspective and experience on this, at the marina that we are located at in Ladysmith, the moorage fees have gone up 24% over the past three years. That's a lot for those fees.

In order to have a boat in a marina, you must have insurance. As I was saying earlier, with older boats, it's more difficult to get insurance. You need surveys. You need an in-water survey and you need an out-of-water survey. You need those to get insurance. For the older boats, it's getting more difficult to get insurance on these vessels.

If there's no insurance, you cannot moor. It's a catch-22 situation when it comes to that.

I don't know how we could do this, because a lot of those marinas are privately owned, but I think that if we could put a moratorium on fees in the marinas until we could get the derelict and abandoned vessel issue mitigated, it would help the situation quite a bit. I think it would be a start, if people aren't looking to solve the next problem of not being able to afford moorage and moving their vessels out on their anchors.

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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

Thank you, Ms. Bowman.

Ms. Dubois, could you share quickly with the committee the status of your ability to access ghost gear funding? Do you have any current applications? Is there funding available?

[Chloe Dubois]

The ghost gear fund has stopped providing resources. Along the west coast we haven't seen resources here now for about two years, as resources were directed to address the effects of hurricane Fiona. It has created a massive loss in our community. For years we've built capacity. We've been able to train a coastal community to respond to ghost gear, and now those resources are gone and there aren't any resources to replace them.

We've been calling on the federal government to reinstate the ghost gear fund across Canada, from coast to coast, as it created an incredible opportunity for this country to continue its leadership in environmental stewardship and marine conservation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

We'll now go to our second round of questioning.

We have Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less, please.