Evidence of meeting #90 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 program.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Weston  Lawyer, Pan Pacific Law Corporation
Frank Mauro  Director, Area A - Pender Harbour & Egmont, Sunshine Coast Regional District Board
Ian Winn  Director, Area F - West Howe Sound, Sunshine Coast Regional District Board
Kyle Murphy  Assistant Division Manager, Aquatic Resources Division, Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Troy Wood  Manager, Derelict Vessel Removal Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Terrance Paul  Membertou First Nation, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat
Ken Paul  Director, Fisheries and Integrated Resources, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat
Peter Luckham  Chair, Islands Trust Council, Islands Trust
Anna Johnston  Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association

February 12th, 2018 / 3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kelly Block

Good afternoon, everyone.

I will call the meeting to order as the vice-chair on behalf of the chair. I know that she is going to be here momentarily.

I'm calling to order meeting number 90, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2017.

We are studying Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

We have a number of witnesses with us for this first hour of our meeting.

We have, from the Pan Pacific Law Corporation, John Weston.

Representing Sunshine Coast Regional District Board is Frank Mauro, who is director of Area A, Pender Harbour and Egmont. That is by video conference. We also have Ian Winn, director of Area F, West Howe Sound, also by video conference.

Joining us representing Washington State Department of Natural Resources, we have Kyle C. Murphy, assistant division manager of the aquatic resources division, by video conference. We also have Troy Wood, manager of the derelict vessel removal program, by video conference as well.

We will start this portion of the meeting with Mr. Weston.

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

3:35 p.m.

John Weston Lawyer, Pan Pacific Law Corporation

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since there's some reference to private members' bills in our discussion today, I would be remiss if I did not draw members' attention to Bill S-211, which was passed in 2014, thus creating National Health and Fitness Day, which unleashed, among other things, ski day on the Hill, which will be held this Wednesday. At noon on that day, Nancy Greene Raine will be there, as will the Governor General. You're all invited, no matter what your level of skiing ability is.

When I first came to Parliament as a member in 2008, I thought law-making was about passing bills. I've learned through processes like today's that law-making is so much more than that. Thank you for honouring me with your invitation to testify. For four reasons, it means much, as today's protests reflect important values and positive aspects of our democracy that often get overlooked. I'm going to cover those reasons and then touch on one or two of the refinements that could make Bill C-64 move from good to great.

First, the law you're reviewing is not only the brainchild of legislators or bureaucrats; it's also the results of earnest pleas by people of this great country, people who saw their treasured oceans desecrated by the litter of irresponsible boat owners who could abandon their boats with impunity.

Second, it reflects the influence of individual legislators in our system. With the author of the reform act on your committee—Michael Chong—you may be more mindful than other committees of the importance of the role of individual legislators. Though Bill C-64 is a government bill, it stands on the shoulders of private members' bills the House considered and passed, such as that of Ms. Malcolmson. As detailed more thoroughly in my written submission, which you should have received, two NDP members, including Ms. Malcolmson, engaged the House with their bills, as did I with my Bill C-695.

Third, the bill you consider today reflects an amalgam of cross-party views, not just those of the party in power. At a time when Canadians bemoan hyperpartisanship in Canada and the U.S., you should take pride in promoting the open-mindedness demonstrated here.

Fourth, and most important, the bill promotes responsibility. It's a key value often lost in the cut and thrust of policy-making. We speak often about freedom. I'm no exception. I spoke in these hallowed halls frequently about freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and I joined the legal profession motivated by my interest in constitutional freedoms, but as Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl said, freedom without responsibility is dangerous.

The book I published last year touches on stories with which many of you are familiar. Above all, it's a focus on values, including responsibility. The book exhorts political and non-political leaders to be “on”. In fact, On! is the book's title. To be really on, we must cultivate our sense of responsibility.

The core of this bill is an emphasis on accountability. As far as I know, my bill was the first-ever legislative instrument that contemplated the imposition of jail time and fines for people who abandoned vessels. Bill C-64 expands upon that principle and increases the consequences. Thank you, Liberal Party friends, for seizing on such an important part of Conservative philosophy: personal accountability.

By now you know that I support Bill C-64. It's a happy moment when a person associated with one party supports a bill proposed by another. At the risk of tarnishing this happy moment, I have to point out that it took the Liberals 52 pages of text to accomplish what I sought to achieve with one page, a decline in efficiency of some 5,000%. I'm just saying.

Beyond my general support for the bill, I do have 16 recommendations that might improve it, which are listed on pages 5 through 7 of the written submission that you received. There are three general ones and 13 others that arose in my section-by-section review of the bill.

A couple of the key ones are that, first, it would be much easier to identify boat ownership if Canada consolidates and improves our boat registry databases and, second, that abandoned vessels are more a Transport than a Fisheries issue, and the Coast Guard is more a Transport arm of government than an aspect of Fisheries.

The Canadian Coast Guard ought to reside within the Transport Canada ministry where it used to be, not with Fisheries and Oceans. If you're unsure about this, just consider which committee is reviewing Bill C-64 as we speak today: it's your committee, Transport, not Fisheries. While a reorganization to achieve a more streamlined Coast Guard lies beyond the ambit of Bill C-64, I do recommend that such a change be considered.

I see that my time is almost up, but if this committee desires, I can, in under two minutes, later run through 14 more recommendations to help move Bill C-64 from good to great.

I believe that positive values have motivated those who have contributed to this bill, not partisan self-promotion. It is not in self-promotion but because I really believe what I say that I will close with a quote from my own book: “For the good of society, let's pray for leaders who model these values, for people who pursue the community's interest over their own, who seek leadership for the good of the people they serve.”

In supporting this bill, you're doing just that. Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)) Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Mr. Weston. I can assure you that you are very much missed in the House of Commons by all of us.

We go on to the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board, represented by Mr. Mauro and Mr. Winn.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes for opening remarks.

3:40 p.m.

Frank Mauro Director, Area A - Pender Harbour & Egmont, Sunshine Coast Regional District Board

Thank you very much for inviting us to participate in this very important discussion.

I will repeat what Mr. Weston said. This is a good bill, something we've been waiting for for a long time to address issues that we on the Sunshine Coast have been dealing with, as has the entire coast of B.C.

I'm going to get right to the introductions and speak a bit to some general items.

What we see, and as has been mentioned, is the jurisdictional issue. The major problem with current regulations is initiating action, because of the many jurisdictions involved, including federal ministries and, in some cases, several provincial ministries. It makes it difficult for the public and for local governments—and I'll speak for local governments—when, in order to get action on derelict vessels, they are shuffled from ministry to ministry and in some cases to provincial jurisdictions. This bill goes a long way toward improving that.

The bill does seem to identify Transport Canada as the lead ministry, obviously. This is initiated by Transport Canada. However, the document, in subclause 124(1) and in other places, makes reference to "may notify the minister responsible for administering that provision", or words to that effect. I think that we would like to see, in general, the burden taken off the public to interpret where reporting.... We want to make sure that they don't have to navigate an interjurisdictional maze. A major improvement would be that the lead interface ministry would do the required navigation through the jurisdictions, if the jurisdictions need to be taken care of.

In a similar way, subclause 6(1) should be clarified. It refers to “agreements and arrangements for carrying out the purposes of this Act...” and would authorize a provincial government, a local authority, a council, or a regional district to do the work.

I see this as positive. I believe these vessels end up at our front door, and the local governments have a major concern, as mentioned previously. I think, though, that there should be some commitment—and I'm not sure that it should be part of the bill—to compensate local governments for doing that. They don't have the resources to be able to undertake the work.

I want to talk about the transitional program as the introduction, too. The Transport Canada transitional program right now—and I think it's the abandoned boats program, which is part of the oceans protection plan— provides short-term funding for legacy abandoned vessels, but it doesn't meet the need in rural areas. There are many, many vessels in rural areas where that program only provides 75% of the contribution to remove the vessel. These rural areas are left to the devices of volunteer groups, and they don't have the capacity come up with the required contributions.

I'll go to Mr. Winn for some more comments.

3:45 p.m.

Ian Winn Director, Area F - West Howe Sound, Sunshine Coast Regional District Board

Thank you, Madam Chair. How much time do we have left here?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

You have two minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Director, Area F - West Howe Sound, Sunshine Coast Regional District Board

Ian Winn

I'll continue.

Clause 90 is one part that is troublesome and a little concerning for us because clause 90 talks about the fine structure. I believe the fines are good and of course very appropriate, but in many cases the fines are too low. They need to really address the responsibility of the vessel owners and the problems. Really what we want is a fine that is substantial enough that it's not considered as just being a cost of doing business. We'd like to see a review of that fine structure.

Paragraph 5(2)(c) speaks to the “vessels that are on location for the purposes of engaging in the exploration, exploitation or production of mineral resources”, and they are excluded. Our concern is that if they are adrift, under this act they would be considered a hazardous vessel. It should be spelled out in the act that these vessels could be excluded, except where there is a consideration that they'd be a hazardous vessel adrift.

The last item is clause 29. It speaks to the size of vessels as being 5.5 metres, and specifically it refers to them as primarily human-powered or wind-powered, such as a sailboat. That length should be considered a smaller length, such as 4.8 metres. There's a big difference in a sailboat length of 5.5 metres and 4.8 metres. Also, the other thing is that even on a small boat there are hazardous materials. They often have a small diesel engine. They'll have fuel. They'll have a lead acid battery and maybe propane tanks. There should be a consideration that even on a small vessel there are hazardous materials.

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much.

We're on to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Wood,please go ahead for five minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Kyle Murphy Assistant Division Manager, Aquatic Resources Division, Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Thank you for asking us to participate today.

My name is Kyle Murphy. I'm with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. I oversee the derelict vessel removal program in Washington. Our program has been around for 15 years. Throughout those 15 years, the program has gone through many iterations and several legislative changes to get to the point where we are today. Again, we're happy to participate today and provide any information on our program that we can.

With that, I'll turn it over to Troy, who is going to provide a bit more detail of our program. Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Troy Wood Manager, Derelict Vessel Removal Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Hello. My name is Troy Wood. I manage the derelict vessel removal program for the Department of Natural Resources here in Washington.

The program, as Mr. Murphy said, has been around for 15 years. We've removed over 760 vessels by 50 authorized public entities throughout the state in that amount of time. We currently have a little over 160 vessels on our vessels of concern list that we're trying to get to whenever funds and availability of personnel manage that. We also help our authorized public entities in their removals because we realize that our priority threes and fours may be their priority ones, so we assist them in removing vessels and then we reimburse 90% of their costs if they follow our statutes.

Having said that, we give out $1 million per year to deal with these vessels. It doesn't go very far, but it allows us to remove a little under 100 vessels per biennium in the derelict vessel removal program. However, we get above 100 vessels by having our vessel turn-in program, which is our prevention arm of the derelict vessel removal program. We accept vessels. We've had that program accept up to 94 vessels per biennium. We were able to get above the 100 vessels per biennium by doing that as well.

I'd like to save my time for any questions you may have, so I'd like to turn it back over to you.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Mr. Wood.

We'll go on to our questioners, beginning with Ms. Block.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to welcome our witnesses here today. Thank you so much for joining us and for providing us with your testimony on this study.

I will be asking questions of my former colleague, Mr. Weston, and that might not come as any surprise. I know that there will be an opportunity to ask questions of the other witnesses who are here.

First, I want to thank you, John, for your very detailed written submission, as well as for the presentation that you made to us here today. I know that the work you have done on this issue certainly raised awareness of the problem in our own caucus, and I believe it has complemented the work and the awareness that has been raised in other caucuses, both by NDP members of Parliament and by Liberal members of Parliament.

Thank you to all of you, because I know you're all in the room today.

John, you briefly mentioned the boat registry as one of your recommendations. While a formal registry of abandoned vessels is a missing component in Canada's assessment of the issue, it is assumed that the majority of the abandoned vessels are personal pleasure craft. I would ask that maybe you speak to that. Then I want to know if you think there is an educational component that needs to be undertaken to prevent pleasure craft from being abandoned, and whether or not you have any suggestions as to where that awareness or education would be best placed.

3:50 p.m.

Lawyer, Pan Pacific Law Corporation

John Weston

Thank you for your questions.

I think it was a classic aspect of being a legislator that when I embarked on the project, I knew very little about boats or abandoned vessels. It was people like Frank Mauro who educated me, people who represented constituents up and down the British Columbia coast—constituents who numbered in the thousands, if you took all the people represented who really cared about this issue.

You asked two or three things. One was the question of registry.

What I learned was that there are three or even four different registries in Canada, and none of them are comprehensive. They're inconsistent. Clearly, one of the underlying issues in this problem is identifying who the owner is. One of the witnesses has mentioned that a problem in the legislation is that the fines don't properly, perhaps, discourage the abandonment of vessels. However, you have to get right down to who owns the vessel, and predictably, the fines can only be visited upon the owner if you know who the owner is. That seems self-evident, and I did notice that it didn't seem to be in the legislation. I think that this would improve it.

The education piece, certainly, is important. I think that was something else that I learned through this process: that it's not all about passing a bill. This process educated many people about the the issue. As a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, you probably learned a lot about abandoned vessels that you didn't know beforehand. As legislators, I think we learn that educating the public, even in the unlikely event that this bill doesn't get passed, brings a new awareness about the problem that is going to lead to better consequences. Education is good, and I think it ought to be formalized.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Thank you very much.

I think I would just add my own observation. You're absolutely right. I'm from Saskatchewan. I'm from a landlocked province. For those who may think that this is a problem that I'm not terribly concerned with, I can assure them that having learned about it and understanding the impact that it has on coastal communities, I certainly do support the legislation that has been put forward.

I want to follow up with another question. It is with regard to the second recommendation that you made: a fee for registering a boat. Could you expand on that?

3:55 p.m.

Lawyer, Pan Pacific Law Corporation

John Weston

Well, this could be a little bit controversial for some people.

Obviously, boat owners may not want to pay a fee, but the whole underlying principle of Bill C-64 is accountability. That's what has gotten the bill this far, I believe. Part of accountability would be dealing with the problem before it ever becomes one. Those who own vessels are more likely to be in the position of abandoning a vessel than those who don't own vessels. It makes sense that part of the purse from which the cost would be drawn to deal with these problems would be the vessel owners themselves. Perhaps that would be on a going-forward basis. That isn't in the bill, and that's something I would recommend to improve it.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Lawyer, Pan Pacific Law Corporation

John Weston

Another part of the process that was interesting was bringing it to the Conservative caucus, and what happened after the bill failed because the election was called. First, the Conservative Party made it part of its platform during the election, and then part of its national platform in terms of its policy resolution process.

I'm not speaking from a partisan perspective at all; I'm just saying that from the education side, in giving a voice to the Frank Mauros who really pleaded for this thing, our democratic process can really work. For me, this is a very heartening day.

Again, thank you all for getting the bill as far as this.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser, for six minutes.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Weston, for joining us today.

When the minister testified before us at this committee, he and his officials indicated there would need to be some kind of an inventory as a first step. Is there a reason that needs to be done through the legislation, as opposed to an internal mechanism in the department?

3:55 p.m.

Lawyer, Pan Pacific Law Corporation

John Weston

I would think you would want, on a recurring basis, to make sure that such an inventory was done, so that you would know the extent of the problem. That would help you budget for the removal of the vessels and it would also assess the legal and environmental liability that the vessels pose.

It could be done through regulation. There ought to be a commitment by government to have such an inventory done. I wouldn't necessarily see that it would have to be a part of the law, but it ought to be part of the regulation, I would think.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Shifting to our guests from the Sunshine Coast, one of the things that one of the witnesses mentioned—I think it was Mr. Winn, although I stand to be corrected—was the rural/urban divide on this one.

Much of our Canadian coastline is in rural communities, including a good portion of my own. How do you think the law could best be designed, or policies implemented, to ensure that rural communities aren't left without the resources they need to actually get boats out of the water?

3:55 p.m.

Director, Area A - Pender Harbour & Egmont, Sunshine Coast Regional District Board

Frank Mauro

Thank you for the question. I think I spoke to that.

I can speak only for British Columbia. I know that other jurisdictions might be somewhat different, but rural communities in British Columbia are all part of a regional district. The regional district is a unique service in British Columbia. You have to create a service to actually carry out work, and each service has its own budget. There is no service over some areas, and the legislation prevents us from having a service over areas where we don't have jurisdiction.

We don't have jurisdiction over the water, so we can't even create a service to fund an activity. That's one of the catch-22s that we find ourselves in. Funding becomes a problem, so we're dependent on volunteer groups to come up and provide that service. We can give them very small grants in aid—we have limitations legally in doing that—to assist with the problem, but when they're paying 25% of a $100,000 removal, it becomes a big issue. Where is that money going to come from? That's the distinction between rural and urban.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Would a solution be if the federal government were to partner with smaller communities by saying, “We'll partner with your volunteer group. You guys do the work, but we'll help out on the resources end”? Is that what you're perhaps suggesting?

4 p.m.

Director, Area A - Pender Harbour & Egmont, Sunshine Coast Regional District Board

Frank Mauro

That's exactly it. There's been a big step taken with the abandoned boats removal program, which is the one that is currently out there as part of the transition. That's the one that requires the 25%. Maybe the entire transition needs to be looked at holistically, especially for the legacy vessels. The act deals fairly reasonably with vessels going forward.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

With respect to the fine structure, you alluded to section 90, suggesting that the fines are perhaps too insignificant, because they may be viewed as a cost of doing business, to use your words.

When I looked at it, if memory serves, it was $50,000 for an individual, and for another person, presumably a corporation or some other legal entity, it was $250,000. If I recollect correctly, department officials told us the fines would be in addition to the actual cost of removing the abandoned vessel. With this information in hand, what would be an appropriate level of fines that should be included in the legislation? How can it be approved?