Evidence of meeting #88 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was owner.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Gregory Lick  Director General, Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Brian Wootton  Regional Director, Incident Management, Western Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Marc-Yves Bertin  Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Ellen Burack  Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Marc Sanderson  Acting Director General, National Strategies, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Eventually it would be cheaper to dispose of it, in any event, than to continue to tow it around.

Mr. Lick, would you comment?

4:55 p.m.

Director General, Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Gregory Lick

There are also much more stringent requirements that Transport Canada and marine safety have now put on the towing of vessels as a result of many of the sorts of towing incidents that have occurred over the last number of years with the MV Miner, the MV Lyubov Orlova, and those types of incidents. Transport Canada marine safety inspectors have much more stringent criteria that are applied to a tow.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I have a question about the administrative monetary penalties. I think it's a maximum of $50,000 for an individual. Is that right?

It seems to me that it is quite a significant figure for an individual, of course, but there was some talk about ensuring that the owner remains liable for the costs of removing. Is that in addition to the administrative monetary penalty? I'm trying to figure out if it's a punitive or a compensatory model of damages.

4:55 p.m.

Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport

Ellen Burack

The penalty is assessed once they have not taken the action. It's not punitive; it is compensatory—well, I don't know if I would use the word “compensatory”, but it is intended to be a deterrent. It should generally cost less or at least be comparable to the cost for them to actually take the action, so that it would be a deterrent to inaction.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Sure.

As a final question, it would still be possible, though, if it were a $3-million removal that I refused to do, that you might give me the $50,000 fine up front, but I'd still be liable for the full amount should a problem arise, should the vessel sink and need to be floated. It becomes more expensive.

4:55 p.m.

Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport

Ellen Burack

I don't know if you can speak to an individual pleasure craft with a $3-million price tag—

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

No. We're getting into a different scope.

4:55 p.m.

Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport

Ellen Burack

It's more likely to be a corporation, which has—

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I think I'm out of time as well.

5 p.m.

Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport

Ellen Burack

—a $250,000 limit.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Okay. Thank you.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much.

We will move on to Ms. Block.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to return to the question I asked in my first round.

One of the goals in any of the measures that we've undertaken in our policy platform, certainly, and in our policy declaration statement, or even in that of my former colleague, is to ensure that no undue onus is put on the taxpayer to remedy abandoned vessels. I was asking if there was anything contemplated in the bill besides an insurance requirement to mitigate against a vessel becoming wrecked, abandoned, or made hazardous.

I recognize that this whole bill is to be preventative in many ways against that happening, but I guess I'm speaking more specifically to the strategy in the annex that we have in front of us. It's the “Federal Strategy on Abandoned and Wrecked Vessels”. When I was able to speak to the minister prior to this time with you, he indicated that part of the planned strategy is a “national inventory of problem vessels, prioritized by risk”, but there's also another planned measure here, which is “vessel owner-financed funds to pay for future vessel removals”.

I'm wondering if you could speak to that, because that to me seems like another measure, similar to insurance, that would keep the burden from falling onto the taxpayer. Perhaps you could speak to that. It says it's “planned”. It might be nice to know what the plan is and the timelines on it, but also, what are you envisioning?

5 p.m.

Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport

Ellen Burack

Thank you for the question.

I think it's fair to say that we're early on in the plans with respect to that. There are a number of issues that we're trying to work through.

When it comes to pleasure craft, for example, we have been looking at the model of Washington State. For 15 years or so now, they have been collecting a surcharge on top of licensing in order to build up a fund that they use for these vessels that inevitably fall through the cracks, because no matter how robust a system you have, there will be vessels that fall through the cracks. That's one model or one approach. Through that program, as they have a buildup of resources in it, they also periodically offer a limited turn-in situation.

All of these are things that are being looked at. We're talking to the provinces and territories about how that works. Requirements are slightly different across the country. Whereas in B.C. most abandoned vessels are in the water, in Ontario most are on the land. The challenges across the country are a little different, so we're trying to manage that as well in such a large country.

We are in very early days in starting to think through what approach one might take to commercial vessels, larger vessels. I can't really say too much, not because I don't want to but because it's early days in thinking through those strategies. We really are looking at models that are out there.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Thank you.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Badawey is next.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do once again want to dig a bit deeper into the process, and I think I'll refer to Mr. Wootton again with respect to some of the comments he made earlier about the protocols that are embarked on by the federal government.

Essentially what I'm hearing is that the federal government does take on ultimate responsibility, and with that, it is made the go-to body to initiate the protocols that are established through this legislation and to establish a strategy. Attached to that strategy are numerous objectives, and then attached to those objectives are numerous plans of action. With that goes taking a lead role to delegate to other partners, such as the provinces, territories, communities, municipalities, and others that may be either directly or indirectly involved in a situation.

In terms of safety concerns, I know in our area, the Great Lakes, a lot of times derelict vessels may be at a dock that might be close to power lines and things of that nature, and therefore pose a safety situation or risk. Finally, there is a role to actively monitor a situation as it relates to challenges with respect to the environment.

I guess it's a twofold question. One, am I correct in assuming that protocol? Two, can you walk me through anything I may have missed?

5:05 p.m.

Regional Director, Incident Management, Western Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Brian Wootton

Thank you for the question.

I think you've summed it up very well. Right now this one-stop-shop portal for the Canadian Coast Guard, as we've heard, is in its infancy. However, I expect this to look like Canada's three Canadian Coast Guard regional operations centres, which are already 24-7 portals for the public to call. Pollution response is a great example. These watch-keepers will also be the conduit for calls about vessels of concern and complaints from the public, and it will be the job of the Coast Guard's new vessels of concern program branch to take that information and add to the inventory.

The hazard analysis piece about how we will quantify the hundreds of vessels that are going to end up on this inventory is still being worked up with our partners, the provinces and indigenous communities. Right now what will be new for the Coast Guard is that we take immediate action when the environment is at risk, so if there's an active spill, we take the action I described earlier and then source the owner.

Now we're going to be talking about economic and social impacts and what that looks like in the hazard matrix. With a list of hundreds of vessels, I don't expect the Coast Guard will be launching on day one with 1,000 vessels and going into removal action mode with local communities, but these officers will go out, and after they've prioritized or triaged Canada's inventory, I expect then to have a discussion on technical assessments, particularly for large assets such as the Viki Lyne II and the larger 300-tonne class of vessels. Then we'll look for solutions on the funding side to take care of those.

If there's an active environmental impact, I expect the Canadian Coast Guard to continue to use its existing authorities to remediate and potentially remove some of those high on the list as triage priorities.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

I'd like to ask one more question, if I have time.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

You have two minutes.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question goes back to a question that Mr. Fraser had with respect to the financing and who would be responsible for paying.

Clause 91 provides that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a violation, the minister of transport or the minister of fisheries and oceans may either enter into a compliance agreement or issue a notice of violation. Can you go a bit deeper into that in terms of what it actually means? Does that mean there's an out for individuals who may in fact have committed a violation with respect to this legislation?

5:05 p.m.

Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport

Ellen Burack

I can take that question, if you like.

Compliance agreements are a mechanism that exists in other Canadian legislation. They offer the possibility of someone who's violated the requirements of the legislation to acknowledge that there has been a violation and commit to addressing the matter, and also acknowledge that if they now don't comply, they will face twice the penalty that they would have faced before.

It's a faster and more efficient mechanism for getting the action addressed properly when you're dealing with certain kinds of violators. One wouldn't do it with foreign owners or those you couldn't be quite certain that you would be able to get, should they not comply with the compliance agreement. It's an innovative tool that has been used in other legislation, and we think it will be very valuable in this context as well.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Go ahead, Ms. Malcolmson.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I can't overstate how high the expectation is from the local government side in British Columbia in particular. They've been waiting a really long time to have federal leadership on this matter. When the first funding round was announced, $300,000 this year and $260,000 a year for the small craft harbour segment out of the oceans protection plan, there was quite a bit of disappointment, because many of these communities have been waiting a long time and they don't have the authority, let alone the budget, to deal with it, so now we're starting to get feedback. The District of Oak Bay, the District of Sechelt, and the District of Lunenburg all decided not to proceed with applying for the program, even though they had such a backlog. They were concerned about their own budgets, about liability and legal concerns, and about how they couldn't put the money up front.

When I talked to Bill Veenhof, who is the chair of the Regional District of Nanaimo where I am elected, he said it was just too costly, although the abandoned vessels in his area threaten aquaculture jobs and are really a huge concern.

I just heard from John Roe from the Veins of Life Watershed Society, also known as the Dead Boat Society. They've been doing hands-on removals through all these communities. He said they would have had to fill out 140 pages of application forms to deal with the 20 abandoned vessels they had identified, and he said it was going to cost half a million dollars. He can't afford to pay the 25%.

Given the numbers you have given us today, the take-up has been really tiny. We've had numbers as high as thousands of abandoned vessels across the country, but there were applications for only three removals and four assessments from this very high-profile offer, so can you tell me what you've done to evaluate the barriers to participation and what you can do to make it easier for coastal communities to work with the feds to get these dangerous boats gone?