Transport Committee on Feb. 12th, 2018

[Chief Terrance Paul]

As I said, the tendering process has only recently taken place. I know that for a fact because of what we experienced here in Cape Breton with respect to where the ships were going. They weren't staying in Canada. Since that time, a policy has been put into effect requiring that ships no longer be taken out of the country to be dismantled, which is a good thing. Before that, what we did in Cape Breton, along with a partner who's into ship repair and dismantling, is that we went to Ottawa and provided what they call an unsolicited proposal to dismantle a ship here in Cape Breton.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Chief Paul. Sorry to interrupt, but I have to move on. You can maybe tie the rest of that answer onto our next questioner.

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Chief Paul, you're in luck. I'm going to pick up more or less where you left off. Before I do, though, I want to publicly congratulate you on your appointment to the Order of Canada. It was well deserved, and we are all very happy for you in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Ken Paul, please pass on to Chief Bob Gloade that we're thinking of him and wish him well.

Chief Paul, on the tendering process, there's an opportunity here. We're at the front of a wave, so to speak, in dealing with an historical backlog of abandoned vessels. How can we best engage first nations communities to ensure that they have an opportunity to continue to protect our waters and to participate in the economic benefits those waters provide? After the fascinating history lesson we just received, I understand this is part of the treaty rights guaranteed under the treaty of 1752. Can you finish outlining a process of engagement that ensures you have fair access to the benefits?

[Chief Terrance Paul]

In my presentation, although I didn't specify it, what I really meant was having set-asides as well as giving more weight to submissions that include a partnership with indigenous people.

I'll give you an example of a successful set-aside in cleanup—the infamous tar ponds here in Sydney. We started off with a $20-million set-aside in a $400-million project. That process was successful. I know a local deputy minister in the province stuck his neck out for us, and I'll always be grateful for people who have the guts to take a stand. The government was so pleased with the work we did that they expanded our contract to about $80 million. We've proven that we can do the work. As long as we have the expertise to partner and gain capacity in the field covered by the contract, I believe the indigenous involvement in these bids should be encoded in the tender.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Do you think that's best done on a project-by-project basis, or do you think it would be worthwhile to establish some sort of guideline that could apply across the board for all projects that might impact a first nations right?

[Chief Terrance Paul]

I don't want to answer that because I don't want to put us in a situation where we're not able to fulfill a contract. I think it should go on those merits. Even if we don't have the contract, we should at least have the opportunity to participate in the employment under that contract. There should be a general set-aside for Mi'kmaq employment or indigenous employment, depending on the area, for that particular project.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Chief Paul, thank you very much.

Ms. Johnston, you mentioned some of the efforts to establish an inventory, and I'll build on the testimony given by Mr. Weston, who is still in the room, about the need to create a database to properly deal with the problem.

In smaller communities, one of the issues we face on this piece of legislation and across the board is the capacity to understand the process required to get something on the radar. How can we ensure that we're building an inventory the right way so that all communities that have a problem with abandoned vessels can get their project on the priority list?

[Anna Johnston]

There have been recommendations before that there be a single agency as the go-to agency. I think that would go a long way so that communities don't have to try to figure out whether it's DFO or Transport Canada that is responsible, or perhaps a port or a harbour. It's a little bit confusing under the legislation now. Having what in B.C. we call the “one-window agency” just to direct you to the right people to talk to can be very helpful. There's education, of course, and literature.

I suspect that a lot of communities in British Columbia are well aware of this issue and already know some of the runaround that they have to do.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That is my time. Thank you very much.

Wela'lioq, Chief Paul, and please pass on our regards to Chief Gloade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. We'll go on to Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

I want to pick up on the West Coast Environmental Law Association's questions around ministerial discretion.

What kind of wording would you like to see as an amendment that turns the “might” or “should” into a “must”? If you have anything particular in mind, would you be able to send that on to the committee?

[Anna Johnston]

Sure, I'd be pleased to. It's pretty simple. In most of those, such as subclause 30(3), where it says “Minister may”, change it to “shall” or “must”. It's the drafters' preference, really. It's the same thing. Then for “within a prescribed period of time”, 90 days, for example, might be adequate.

Paragraph 36(a) says the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans “may”, and then paragraph 58(4)(c) says a receiver of wreck “may”:

take, or authorize any other person to take, the measures with respect to the wreck — other than selling, dismantling, destroying or otherwise disposing of it — that the receiver considers appropriate.

Again, I would just say “shall”, within a prescribed period of time.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I will go on to Islands Trust Council chair Peter Luckham, whom I worked with as vice-chair for six years, and now he's in the chair seat, the position I used to occupy.

We did a lot of work on this issue, and honestly, Islands Trust Council was one of the first local governments that brought the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities repeated resolutions every year, which we are still pushing for. The government has said it is going to do some of these things, but they are not embedded in the legislation. They're on the website and part of its programming, but a lot of us have such an appetite for action on this that we would be more comforted if it were embedded in legislation.

Some of those pieces would be fixing the vessel registry, creating a fee to help cover the cost of vessel disposal, and especially addressing the backlog of what we hear from Transport Canada are thousands of abandoned vessels across the country.

I'm seeing you nod. Those are the elements of a lot of those local government resolutions.

Can you talk in more detail about the imperative of dealing with the backlog and also some of the concerns that I think you heard the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board talk about on the previous panel? Although there is a program in the interim to work with local governments to remove some of the existing backlog of abandoned vessels, we heard from the minister last week that there have only been seven applications across the whole country so far.

What are the barriers to local governments participating in that program? Did Islands Trust Council make any applications for removal?

[Peter Luckham]

Thank you for the question, Chair Malcolmson—that's an old mistake.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I have a whole bunch of questions.

[Peter Luckham]

I think the backlog is a very serious concern. You can't go to any harbour, really, on any of the major islands, cast your eye about, and not see an abandoned or derelict vessel washed up on the beaches. They are in the playgrounds for our children. They are where we swim. They affect the nurseries and the eelgrass. These vessels must be removed. They just continue to deteriorate. The longer we leave them there, the most costly they will become.

With respect to the take-up on the removal program, I think there are some significant problems with the assumption of ownership, for instance, and with the application for funding.

There are too many questions about how the process will unfold for those parties to take on some significant responsibilities. I think 200 vessels were identified in the Vancouver Island and coastal British Columbia area. There is no doubt that there are vessels out there, but there are definitely concerns with taking on that responsibility. I am concerned about asking volunteer organizations to take on vessels that are essentially hazardous materials. Honestly, I don't think we should be encouraging private citizens to take on the cleanup of toxic chemicals, hydrocarbons, lead, asbestos, and all sorts of things that are contained in those vessels.

I think there is a necessity to have a point agency responsible for identifying these vessels and assessing the risks associated with them. Certainly if it's just a small boat with no toxins, we could probably do something there, but I am worried about the toxicity of the vessels that are there.

I'm also worried, quite honestly, about regional districts accepting these vessels into their landfill sites. We don't accept drywall and gypsum into our landfill sites, for obvious reasons. If these vessels are hazardous waste sites, which I would suggest they are, I think there needs to be serious consideration given to how we're going to handle these things, and it needs to be done professionally and efficiently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You can have a very short question, Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I'll just add that we had Washington State come up a number of years ago to the Union of BC Municipalities, and that's been the model for a lot of the advocacy that I've seen local government do. Would you urge this committee to look strongly at the results they've had over 15 years?

[Peter Luckham]

That is a shining example of a success story. They are addressing the issue. The public and those who own boats are seeing avenues to get themselves out from underneath vessels that they've gotten themselves trapped with, honestly, and it is definitely an avenue that this committee should be recommending and that we should be pursuing in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Luckham.

Ms. Jordan is next.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

My first question is for you, Ms. Johnston.

You talked about the clarification of roles and responsibilities. I thought I had a copy of the former flow chart showing what you were supposed to do if you found a derelict vessel. It was all different. It was call this person if the answer is yes, or this person if the answer is no, but this new legislation seems to break it down to be a lot simpler.

Can you comment on that in terms of who is responsible, where the responsibility lies, and how they go about making sure things are looked after?

[Anna Johnston]

If I understand the legislation correctly, if a vessel is in a port, DFO is responsible, and if it's in a harbour, Transport Canada is responsible. If it's on crown property owned by DFO, DFO is responsible, and if it's on crown property not owned by DFO, Transport is responsible. Generally, then, there's the receiver of wreck, I think, for vessels outside of those areas.

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

Do you see this, though, as simpler than it was previously if you found an abandoned vessel? The way it was worded, it was “if you find it here, then you have to call this person” or “if the answer is yes to this question, do this.” Ultimately what you had to do was find out who owned it.

[Anna Johnston]

I think my concern is for the average layperson. Nobody but a subsect of geeky environmental lawyers reads legislation. My worry would be that if a local government or a member of the public found an abandoned or wrecked vessel, they wouldn't look to the legislation to figure out what to do with it. They might not understand that it's a harbour, or a port, or property owned by....

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

Do you think it would be prudent, then, to have an education component to deal with how we go forward? One of the reasons I'm asking is that, as we've heard from Mr. Luckham, we've had abandoned vessels punted from municipal governments to provincial and territorial governments, and then to the federal government. We need to make sure that people recognize and realize where they're supposed to go with their concerns. Would an education component to this legislation be beneficial?