Transport Committee on Feb. 7th, 2018

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono, and Madam Chair.

My concern is more with what happens to the orphaned vessels. We have a bill that we're moving forward with, and it's all fine and dandy. It's going to identify the challenges and the problems with our vessels in general. However, when we have an orphaned vessel and no one has taken full responsibility for it, or any responsibility for it, what is the proper process then? Who is going to be in charge?

I look at certain situations in the past. One situation in particular comes to mind, which is the Kathryn Spirit. It basically became somewhat of a very expensive project, after sole-sourcing versus tendering a company. With that, the Coast Guard made a decision to build a dyke to pump out the water and recycle the ship in the place where it was abandoned, which didn't work. They then walked away from the project, and a second Mexican company came in to take over the project. Once they found out it was next to impossible to do it in a feasible manner, they walked away from the project. As far as I know, the ship is still there.

Again, I go back to my concern. This bill is great. It's wonderful. It has all the right intentions. Many MPs on both sides of the floor have worked on this with all the right intentions, and I commend them for that. However, there's a reality attached to it when it comes to orphaned vessels. Who is going to take responsibility for that? What process is going to be undertaken to find a remover and recycler?

Ultimately, who will bear the cost? Is it going to be the taxpayer?

[VAdm (Ret'd) Denis Rouleau]

Madam Chair, the intent of this project has nothing to do with the removal. In fact, the intent of this project is to have those vessels designated as ocean war graves as opposed to just wrecks that went down in the water.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm not talking about the vessels that you were talking about. I'm giving you the question, based on your title, with respect to the bill that we're discussing right now. That bill has to do with derelict and abandoned vessels. I'm trying to bring the topic back to what we're dealing with versus what you're trying to steer the topic to.

With that said, I go back to my question based on your duties as part of the Coast Guard. Do you see the challenge being that these vessels are simply sitting there anyway, or do you see a more feasible process or protocol that can be put in place to deal with these vessels with respect to removing and recycling them from the areas in which they're basically being orphaned?

[VAdm (Ret'd) Denis Rouleau]

Madam Chair, first of all, I'm not from the Coast Guard. I'm from the navy. I certainly do not have the expertise to even start addressing the question you're putting there. As to how, by whom, and when, it is completely different from what we're talking about here.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay.

Do other panel members have a comment?

[Patrick White]

The only thing I might add, which Captain Bender has raised, is that when it comes to the vessels themselves, the idea to provide protection isn't necessarily to preserve them. We're not talking about maintenance for the vessels. We're not talking about adding additional costs. If we were to designate these vessels and these wrecks as ocean war graves, and down the line as the ships deteriorate there were to be an environmental concern, given the significance of what they contain, being the human remains of Canadian sailors and merchant mariners, I think that would prompt at that time a different kind of discussion about how we might exhume the bodies and provide proper burial.

But that would have to be something we'd approach on a case-by-case basis, because the call for protection for ocean war graves isn't necessarily about recycling or reclaiming the vessels. It's about leaving them where they are and just providing legal protection in that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. White.

We'll move on to Mr. Shields for four minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

They're interesting topics. I think the challenge is trying to relate them to the bill.

I have a couple of questions about the sailors. Have other countries designated sunken sites of their lost sailors?

[Patrick White]

The U.K. has what's known as their Protection of Military Remains Act. It was enacted in 1986 and they provide protection not only for their ships, but for German U-boats in the same waters.

As Captain Bender has found, you could go to the same geographic area, and you'd have protection for the Royal Navy ships, you'd have protection for the German U-boats, and a Canadian ship sitting right beside it does not have any of those protections.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Is that the only one you know of?

Sir, you can jump in.

[VAdm (Ret'd) Denis Rouleau]

Three Canadian corvettes are within the British territorial waters, yes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Are there any other countries?

[Patrick White]

An example would be France, and in fact through Captain Bender's work, France actually now provides protection to one of our own ships under their heritage code. It's not something that is totally foreign, and Canada wouldn't be the first nation providing it. In fact, we're probably one of the few nations that don't provide that kind of protection.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Out of 200 nations, I don't think you're probably accurate with that one.

Is there any example under Canadian waters?

[Patrick White]

This is actually part of the issue. In the protection that exists under Canadian waters the closest thing we come to are the heritage protections under the Canada Shipping Act.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Where are the examples? What do we have?

[Patrick White]

There are 480 souls and 19 wrecks, as the admiral was saying.

The problem, of course, that we run into is that section 7 of the Canada Shipping Act excludes warships from anything in the act. For the merchant navy vessels, for example, if tomorrow the minister were to come out through an executive order to say, we're now providing heritage protections and increased penalties for people who dive on the merchant navy ships, that could apply tomorrow and that wouldn't require any legislative amendment. The problem is that the warships would require some other change. You would have to include something, perhaps that says, notwithstanding section 7 of the Canada Shipping Act, and in consultation with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport and the minister responsible for Parks Canada extend those protections.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

With technology improving for underwater research, and whatever, with the vehicles, is this now coming to a point where it's more critical as more people find and want to do this type of exploration?

[Patrick White]

With the cost of sport diving and just general salvaging decreasing, absolutely. I think that's why, in the past decade, we've seen ships that have remained undisturbed for the previous 50 or 60 years all of a sudden disappearing.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

Admiral.

[VAdm (Ret'd) Denis Rouleau]

That's the exact reason France has the French heritage code, and why the British have this special act that protects war remains. That's the reason for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Time is up.

I want to say thank you very much to our witnesses for coming to join us today and being very informative.

We will suspend for a moment for our other witnesses to come to the table.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I will bring the meeting back to order. Could everybody please take their seat? If you need to have some conversations, please take them outside the room so the committee can commence its work.

Hello, Ms. May. It's nice to see you.

Our meeting is back to order. This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We're doing a study, as you know, of Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

Thank you to our panel that's here. We have from the District of Squamish, Patricia Heintzman, who is the Mayor. From the Office of the Administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, we have Anne Legars, the Administrator. From Vard Marine Incorporated, we have Andrew Kendrick, Vice-President of Operations.

We also have joining us at the table today our colleague Pam Goldsmith-Jones. Elizabeth May has also joined us today.

Welcome, everyone. I'm going to open it up.

Madam Mayor, would you like to go first?

[Patricia Heintzman, Mayor, District of Squamish]

Sure. I'm Patricia Heintzman, Mayor of the District of Squamish. If you're not familiar with Squamish, it's about 45 to 50 minutes north of Vancouver. It's just south of Whistler. We're at the very end of Howe Sound, which is the most southerly fjord on the west coast of Canada.

We, like every coastal community in British Columbia and I'm sure on the east coast, have the issue of wrecks, derelict vessels, and abandoned vessels as part of our day-to-day vernacular. It's part of a conversation that we're constantly having in Squamish.

We have had quite a few experiences over the last couple of years that have led to quite a number of conversations with Transport Canada, both at the local level in British Columbia and with the minister's office. I'm quite pleased to see issues from a lot of those conversations that we had with them actually in the act. It seems to deal with some of the issues, and I can go into specific events that it would help with, if that's helpful. It helps in a lot of ways.

There are still a few gaps and it's hard to know if they're covered in other acts or if there are other ways that we can tie off some of the gaps, but it's certainly an excellent first start.

I look forward to the conversation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

We like you to keep your comments down to about five minutes so that committee members can get as many questions answered and as much information as possible.

Ms. Legars.