Transport Committee on Feb. 12th, 2018

[Anna Johnston]

Yes, I think so, absolutely. In addition to that, I think the idea of a single go-to agency need not be a legislative matter. You can keep the division of responsibilities in the act as is, and then just maybe have.... If somebody phones Transport Canada with an issue that is the fisheries minister's responsibility to deal with, then they could probably be easily herded over to the responsible authority on that one.

But yes, education would be beneficial, of course, especially with respect to what was said about issues of toxicity on these vessels, and maybe the average person shouldn't be handling.... You want to have a lot of education out there about what people should be doing, how quickly, and who they should be getting in touch with.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

As I mentioned, from previous testimony the east coast seems to be a little different from the west coast in terms of the vessels we're dealing with. On the west coast, it's mostly pleasure craft and there's a lot of fibreglass, whereas on the east coast we're dealing with larger former naval ships like the MV Miner off Cape Breton. I'm sure that Chief Paul remembers the environmental disaster that this ship was.

When we look at the difference between the two coasts, how do we make sure, when there's such a big difference, that the legislation addresses both?

[Anna Johnston]

I think that there's some nimbleness already built into the legislation—the fines scheme, for example. You can have violations that begin at $5,000 or offences that begin, I think, at $100,000, depending on whether it's a summary proceeding or an indictment.

I would again just recommend requiring registration for pleasure craft so that you're capturing the smaller vessels. It does appear a little bit as though the legislation is intended more for the larger craft, although Mr. Chong's statement about the 300-tonne threshold, I think, is quite valid. That appears to me to tie it in with the Nairobi convention, and probably for the sake of domestic law it could be quite a bit lower and just require some sort of insurance or security for mid-size craft.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You mentioned registration for smaller recreational vessels, but what about registration for the larger ones?

[Anna Johnston]

It's my understanding that the legislation, the Canada Shipping Act of 2001, requires registration of commercial vessels. It's only non-commercial—

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's finding them.

[Anna Johnston]

Sorry?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's finding them.

[Anna Johnston]

It's finding them, and again, this might be a legislative measure. I know that in Bill C-68, the amendments to the Fisheries Act, and Bill C-69, the proposed impact assessment act, there are provisions requiring consolidated databases of information, and also under the Navigation Protection Act.

It could be quite easy for an amendment to be made to this legislation to similarly require a consolidated registration database of all registered vessels, which would probably clear up a lot of the issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey is next.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go a bit deeper into the process of what we've learned from past consultations, particularly with the indigenous community and with the Minister himself, who has participated in many discussions on this, and then come forward with some of the contents of the bill.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm looking at now ensuring that we do not have orphaned vessels, that vessels have a hull number attached to them so that we can locate them and therefore attribute a vessel to someone. That's point number one.

Point number two is to then—and this is a point that the gentleman on video conference made—enter into a tendering process, because not every situation is the same. It's not a cookie-cutter process. There are not only different methods, but also different circumstances attached to those methods that we can embark on, and therefore we can mitigate the cost as well as mitigate the impact to the environment in the surrounding area.

Lastly, there's the future with respect to ensuring that the processes are abided by. It's built into legislation, and therefore we won't find ourselves in the position that we're in now, with 600-plus vessels that are abandoned.

Would that be accurate, in the opinions of the delegations that are here today, with some of the comments that you made? Would it be accurate in terms of that process as we move forward?

I open that up for all of you.

[Peter Luckham]

It's not an unreasonable assumption that if there's a process in place that's comprehensive, we can clean up the vessels that are out there, and that if we create mechanisms that don't promote abandonment, we will see a reduction in the number of vessels out there.

There is definitely an opportunity for progress in the future. We can make this as simple or as complex as we want. I know that if we want to report a wildfire, we phone a 1-800 number, or if we want to prevent an oil spill, we phone a 1-800 number. Why can't we phone a 1-800 number for someone to receive a wreck?

We need to make this simple without getting it terribly complex. We just need to create the funding opportunities and the relationship with agencies and salvage people to make this effective.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, if I may, I'm going to pass some of my time over to my colleague, Ms. Goldsmith-Jones.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you very much, and thank you for allowing me to be a guest here.

I want to comment before I ask Peter Luckham on the consultation with indigenous peoples, because that is so important.

The minister did meet on August 30 and 31 with the Nanwakolas, the Maritime Aboriginal People's Council, and the Mi'kmaq federation. Of course, there's always more we can do, and certainly the oceans protection plan reflects our deep commitment to working with indigenous peoples with regard to everything to do with marine safety and protection.

Mr. Luckham, I thought what you said about the opportunity to help those that ask for help was interesting. Could expand on that a little bit more? No doubt this is going to be a community partnership endeavour.

[Peter Luckham]

Thank you for that opportunity.

Certainly we need some kind of a vessel turn-in program and some opportunities for education and stewardship. Many of these people don't enter into this abandonment process on purpose. They take on a vessel expecting to realize some dream; it turns out to be a much bigger situation than they had intended, and they end up with no alternatives. The regulation was not clear when they got involved in the vessel, and it would help them make a decision early on if the information were there about what their responsibilities are and that the vessel should be registered and licensed.

I would like just for a moment to compare. If you don't properly transfer an automobile into another person's name by filling out the proper paperwork, it's a $10,000 fine in British Columbia. That same mechanism doesn't exist with a vessel. We can help them help themselves by helping them not get caught in the situation in the first place, and then provide them with some alternatives for proper disposal of the vessel once they have it.

As well, of course, preventing an undocumented sale by an original owner who actually knows how much it's going to cost to fix that boat means that this person is not going to have an opportunity to pass it on to an innocent victim. I think there are many innocent victims. I know of a barge that was pushed up onto the Penelakut beach that was sold to somebody for a dollar. It sounded like a great idea until it started to sink in Ladysmith Harbour.

We can help them by not allowing them to get caught in this horrible situation that they don't see a way out of.

[Ken Paul]

I would like to respond regarding consultation.

First of all, indigenous people are going to support any kind of cleanup of the environment. That's without question. With respect to consultation, the minister met with a number of aboriginal groups, such as the Aboriginal Peoples Council, for example. It is not a legislatively recognized authority for first nations. It is a service organization, much like a friendship centre. It serves a critical role, but the only ones that have the authority to speak on behalf of first nations are first nations chiefs, through the Constitution Act and the Indian Act.

For example, in the lead-up to the environmental review that is going on right now with respect to the SIA, the NEB, the Fisheries Act, and the Navigation Protection Act, there is a two-year engagement session that has been going on, which has actually been really great, but now that they are drafting the bills, that will trigger an official duty to consult.

Everything they've done beforehand is great, because we're learning from each other and learning about ways to make things better, but now that they have drafted the bills, now it is the duty to consult, and organizations like mine will then take a step back and allow the treaty tables to consult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Chong is next.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Johnston, you mentioned that about 160 out of the 240 vessels that were identified were recreational vessels—in other words, pleasure craft, sailboats, or powerboats. They make up about two-thirds.

Mr. Luckham, do you share the view that most of the abandoned or wrecked vessels in the Salish Sea are recreational vessels, pleasure craft, powerboats, or sailboats?

[Peter Luckham]

I can't say specifically for sure on the numbers, because I don't know that, but what I would suggest is that certainly the big vessels are a big problem, and we've had quite a number of them. The cumulative impact of the smaller vessels is as big as or worse than that of the large vessels.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

When you say “big vessels”, are you referring to vessels like the Viki Lyne II that was in Ladysmith Harbour?

[Peter Luckham]

Exactly.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I think this is a good point to illustrate this. The Viki Lyne II is—when I looked it up—only 224 gross tonnes, so it wouldn't even be covered by clause 24 of the bill. It requires vessels 300 tonnes or more to have insurance.

[Peter Luckham]

Thank you.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

This vessel cost the federal government over $1 million to remove, several years ago, so I guess the big question is who's going to pay for all of the cleanup, as Ms. Malcolmson has pointed out, of these thousands of abandoned and wrecked vessels, many of them recreational vessels. The big question I'm thinking about as we review this bill, Madam Chair, is who's going to pay for all this.

We heard from Washington State that it requires all vessels under 200 feet in length to have insurance to cover the cost of removal. Barring that, it defaults to the marina in question. Denmark, I understand, has recently introduced legislation requiring vessels under 20 gross tonnes to have adequate insurance to cover the removal of a wrecked or abandoned vessel. However, here in Canada this bill doesn't seem to cover vessels under 300 tonnes.

The government has announced an abandoned boats program, but that only has $6.85 million allocated to it over five years, or roughly $1.3 million a year, which would barely cover the cost of removing just one ship like the Viki Lyne II.

I guess I'm looking for your comments or suggestions on how we can cover the cost of cleaning up these abandoned and wrecked vessels along our coasts. Perhaps it's amending paragraph 24(1)(b) that relates only to Canadian vessels. In other words, keep paragraph 24(1)(a), which says that any foreign vessel of 300 tonnes or more that is entering or leaving a Canadian port must have insurance, but set a different threshold for Canadian vessels that's much lower than that, so that we can deal with people who have abandoned or wrecked their vessels here on Canadian shores. I'm looking for comment on that threshold.

[Peter Luckham]

If I might respond, I thank you for asking some very good questions that I might ask of the same legislation.

With respect, I would like to ask who is going to clean up the environmental damage and restore the destroyed habitat, and at what cost. We see that the herring roe fishery is diminished, and salmon are diminished, and orca, and the list goes on. It's a balance. There are significant environmental costs that are not being factored in.

With a proper program in place, I would like to suggest that the owners of these vessels will be the ones to pay, if there's a system in place that can identity who that owner is.

They're great questions. I don't have all the answers. Colleagues?