Transport Committee on Feb. 14th, 2018

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

I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of this 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 5, 2017, we are resuming our consideration of Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.

Welcome to you all.

Witnesses, I apologize for starting late, but that's Ottawa and Parliament. We're never quite sure.

Recognizing that it's also Valentine's Day this evening and that people possibly have some other plans, we'll try to put this into two 45-minute sessions. We'll have five minutes for each of our witnesses and then we'll have the remaining time in that block for a round of questions. Then we can go on to the next one, and hopefully we can be completed by 6 p.m.

In the first panel of witnesses, from the Town of Bridgewater, we have David Mitchell, the mayor. Welcome.

[David Mitchell, Mayor, Town of Bridgewater]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

From the Town of Shelburne, we have Dylan Heide, council-chief administrative officer, by teleconference. From Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, we have Chris Wellstood, director, marine operations and security.

Welcome to all of you.

Mayor Mitchell, would you like to lead off with your five minutes? I will signal when you come to the end of your five minutes.

[David Mitchell]

Yes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me the privilege to speak to you today about the impact that derelict vessels have had, and continue to have, on our community. While I am speaking for the Town of Bridgewater, our situation, sadly, is one that is repeated many times over across our great country. For you to fully understand where we're at today, you do need to know how we got to where we are.

In October 1998, Transport Canada divested itself of the port of Bridgewater and transferred ownership of the wharf to the Artificial Reef Society. I want to make sure that I am clear on the following point. The Town of Bridgewater does not own this wharf, and it is now owned by the individual who was the head of the Artificial Reef Society. I say this to drive home the point that had that not happened, I would not be speaking to you on this topic today and you would have saved a few dollars by not having to bring me here.

During the first two years of port ownership, the Artificial Reef Society brought the HMCS Fraser, a Canadian Navy frigate, up the LaHave River with the intention of sinking her for an artificial reef. When that didn't go anywhere, the plan was to turn the Fraser into a floating hotel and museum, and in 1999 it was designated a national historic site.

In 2009, after it had rotted at the wharf for a decade, the navy repossessed the Fraser and took her to be scrapped. While this should have been a joyous occasion for the people in my community, sadly it was not. That's because sitting behind the Fraser since the year 2000 was the Cormorant. Unfortunately what should be another celebrated piece of Canadian history, its being an integral part of the expedition to recover the ship's bell from the Edmund Fitzgerald, the Cormorant has sat abandoned and rotting in our town.

In 2015 the Cormorant began to list so severely and sink that the Coast Guard had to be called in to slowly right the ship at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of over $1 million. This was a year after the Cape Rouge, one of the two trawlers behind the Cormorant, also sank, both spilling various lubricants and fuels into this tidal watercourse.

The Cormorant still sits at the port of Bridgewater today, rusting away in the LaHave River. These derelicts have had a very large, very real, and very negative impact on my town. They depress property values along the river resulting in reduced tax revenue for my town, which has had a direct impact on the services that I'm able to offer my citizens. As the Cormorant sits at the wharf, there is a risk every day that this vessel will tip over again and, along with the other derelicts, leak and leach the various contaminants still inside them into the river—a river that the federal and provincial governments, along with our neighbouring municipality, have committed $15 million to clean up.

The Town of Bridgewater has worked very hard to get to where we are today as the fastest growing town of our size in the province of Nova Scotia. With the help of the federal government, we've undertaken a massive downtown revitalization plan, which beyond the 100-year-old underground infrastructure that was replaced, saw the addition of two parks on our waterfront over the last number of years. Across from the port of Bridgewater is a very large recreational green space that holds many family events throughout the year, yet always looming in the background is the Cormorant.

Despite having to endure over two decades of these derelict vessels at this wharf—and I'm sure some cursing by those who had wished the port of Bridgewater was never put into private hands—I have hope in being here today that one day this ship will be gone and legislation will be put in place to ensure that this will hopefully never happen again.

I've seen the action taken by this government in the Town of Shelburne to remove the Farley Mowat, and the support from all parties in the House to rid our wharves and waterways of these dangerous eyesores. This is not a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, or Green Party issue. This is a Canadian issue, and I'm proud to be able to tell my residents is being taken very seriously by all members of Parliament.

Irrespective of the level of government we represent, we were elected to improve our community, economy, environment, health, and the lives of the people we represent. These ships, whether they are in Bridgewater or elsewhere in Canada, impact all these things in a very negative way.

For decades our town has looked at options to deal with these vessels, but I cannot do this alone. As communities across Canada we cannot do this alone. However, being here today I can say with confidence that we are no longer alone in this. I can look around this room and I know that we are being heard and that the days of idle words are behind us and legislation is coming to protect our water, which is in reality our most valuable and vital resource. This is not just encouraging, but a demonstration of co-operation that we need when too often all we read or hear about is division and negativity when it comes to government, regardless of which level it is.

I'd like to thank my MP for being a champion of this topic, and I'd like to thank each of you for your willingness to work together to clean our waterways from coast to coast to coast. I look forward to seeing the result of your efforts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mayor Mitchell.

We'll now move on to the Town of Shelburne and Mr. Dylan Heide and Mayor Karen Mattatall.

You have five minutes to speak to the committee, please, so we can then ask questions.

[Karen Mattatall, Mayor, Town of Shelburne]

Thank you. My name is Karen Mattatall, mayor of the Town of Shelburne. The CAO, Dylan Heide, and I will sort of be tag-teaming this.

We certainly agree with Mayor Mitchell and many of his comments. However, Shelburne is a coastal community; we have about 1,743 residents; we're sitting on one of the best natural harbours in the world; and our county has about 14,500 people. Most of our economic activity—pretty much all—is marine-based. That includes fishery, marine industry, and tourism. Though the Shelburne harbour is federally regulated, we actually are unique in that we operate the marine terminal. It is a commercially operated facility in Shelburne harbour, heavily used by Clearwater, local aquaculture operators, and other independent fishermen. As with Bridgewater, this facility was divested to the town a good 20 years ago, which as Bridgewater has said, certainly has not been very favourable to the town.

Go ahead, Dylan.

[Dylan Heide, Council-Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Shelburne]

Hi. We're playing tag team with the phone. As Mayor Mattatall said, I am Dylan Heide, the chief administrator officer for the town.

I just want to go a little bit into the background of derelict vessels in our harbour. As the mayor noted, it's one of the best natural harbours. Both Karen and I have been with the town for the past six years, and in that time we've had about half a dozen derelict vessels arrive in our harbour. Generally they have gone to the Shelburne Marine Terminal, which is a divested facility similar to the port in Bridgewater, as noted by Mayor Mitchell. It continues to operate as a commercial facility, heavily used by the local fishery.

We've had vessels of all sorts abandoned. Some have had residual value. Some have not. We have, as the operator of the terminal, had to take action on these vessels. Obviously, the one that is most known is the MV Farley Mowat, which got a considerable amount of media attention. The six vessels prior to that essentially were covered only in the local media and were of concern to residents. Yet those vessels still on occasion caused environmental contamination in our harbour, were significant eyesores, interfered with fisheries operations, and generally impacted the viability of our local port to the extent that over the years it did lose significant business.

That said, we have always taken aggressive legal action and tested the limits of the courts to deal with derelict vessels, which has led to a clear realization on our part as to the necessity of the legislation that the federal government has recently been pursuing. When vessels have had a residual value, we've been more able to dispose of those vessels and recoup some costs, something that has really only been available to us because the vessels have been abandoned at an operating commercial facility with a legal berthage agreement and tariff, not necessarily something available to most communities.

I'll move on to the MV Farley Mowat briefly because it is such a well-known story. The Farley Mowat, as Mayor Mitchell mentioned, like a lot of derelicts, has a storied history. Obviously, it had been seized by the federal government back in 2008 and let go for salvage. In 2014, it made its way into the Shelburne harbour under cover of darkness and without permission. I think this evidence is an important concern around derelict vessels, in that the vessel was derelict when it arrived. It had been removed from the port of Lunenburg halfway through salvage, with the top decks fully removed, and posed an incredible hazard from the moment it arrived. The town took action against the owner of that vessel for several years without success. In the summer of 2015, it sank at the terminal and the Coast Guard refloated the vessel, but it continued to remain at the Shelburne marine terminal until the summer of 2017.

All throughout this period the town was engaged in legal action with the vessel owner, who was known to the town. This evidences the importance of understanding that a derelict vessel may have an owner but the owner may be irresponsible and unable to affect removal or unwilling to affect removal. I should acknowledge that over this period we had significant support from our federal member of Parliament and also from neighbouring communities, including Bridgewater.

In 2017, the vessel was eventually removed and disposed of by the Coast Guard. The town residents and, obviously, the council are very grateful for the federal government's involvement with that vessel; but at the end of the day the three-year fight to get to that point clearly demonstrates the need for legislation.

I'll just hand the phone back over to Karen to make a concluding comment.

[Karen Mattatall]

Thank you.

The lessons learned and the value of this legislation are, first, that a vessel can be derelict and cause extensive hardship even when the owner is known. Second, even if they have value, derelict vessels can be an enormous burden on our communities and marine facilities. Third, there are significant limitations to court actions. Court action is slow, allowing for significant problems like sinking vessels, as we experienced with the Farley Mowat releasing pollutants, and it is very costly, with little chance of recouping the cost directly from the owner.

Clearly, this legislation on derelict vessels is needed. The legislation must endeavour to place a burden on the owner, and ensure that the communities and facility operators cannot be victimized by vessel owners, and will need to include assistance for the costs incurred.

Thank you very much for hearing from us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, both, very much.

Next we go to the Vancouver Port Authority, and Mr. Wellstood, for five minutes, please.

[Chris Wellstood, Director, Marine Operations and Security, Harbour Master, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you.

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, like other Canadian port authorities, is established by the Government of Canada pursuant to the Canada Marine Act, and is accountable to the federal Minister of Transport.

Our mandate is to facilitate Canada's trade objectives, ensuring that goods are moved safely, while protecting the environment and considering local communities.

The Port of Vancouver is Canada's largest port by a wide margin. Our jurisdiction, for those of you familiar with B.C.'s Lower Mainland, includes the Burrard Inlet and the surrounding land in downtown Vancouver, and much of the Fraser River, for a total of 16,000 hectares of water, more than 1,000 hectares of land, and approximately 350 kilometres of shoreline. The port borders 60 municipalities, and intersects the asserted and established traditional territories and treaty lands of several Coast Salish First Nations.

The nature of the area is such that the issue of wrecks, abandoned, and hazardous recreational vessels is a significant one for the port authority. Within our jurisdiction, English Bay, Burrard Inlet, and the Fraser River are very popular for recreational and small commercial boating, and derelict vessels are a common occurrence. The problem has been particularly acute on the Fraser River, so much so that several years ago we completed a risk assessment of all derelict sites, including vessels, to determine the likelihood and severity of their potential impact on public safety, the environment and navigation.

We then started work on the eastside by trying to contact owners and, where possible, working with them to ensure safe removal. The port authority committed approximately $2 million over five years to the initiative, and to date we have cleaned up 144 of 151 identified sites.

The main challenge we have with recreational derelict boats has been the inability to trace ownership in the current pleasure craft licensing system. As you are aware, the system has required only recreational vessels that are powered by an engine of 10 hp. to be licensed. Larger recreational sailboats that become derelict are often not in the licensing system because many have engines that are just under the 10 hp. threshold. Further, it has been difficult to identify owners of vessels even if the vessel is in the licensing system because there is no real requirement to transfer the record of that ownership in the event that the vessel is sold.

Lastly, mandatory insurance has not been required for recreational craft, as is the case for automobiles. The absence of insurance often means that there are no funds available from the owner to remove derelict recreational vessels.

Therefore, the port authority welcomes appropriate regulation that would address the challenge of cleaning up derelict vessels and improve the port authority's ability to keep our waterways clean and safe.

In summary, I am pleased to say that the port authority fully supports this bill, and in particular the provisions to prohibit vessel abandonment, strengthen owner responsibility and liability for hazardous vessels and wrecks, and empower government to take proactive action on hazardous vessels before they become more costly to Canadians. These changes are much needed and will go a long way towards addressing the environmental and safety issues problem prevalent vessels pose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wellstood.

We move on to five minutes of questioning, and Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today and for being flexible, given the circumstances we face today.

I do want to thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for your comments regarding the fact that this is a non-partisan issue and has support from all members of all parties in this House.

I do want to keep my questions very brief because I do want to hear from all of you, so perhaps you'll answer my questions in the order you presented just so, for those who are on the telephone, you will know when you may want to provide your response.

Quite simply, do you have any concerns about Bill C-64? If so, I'm imagining that you might have some amendments, and I would like to know what they might be.

[David Mitchell]

Thank you.

My community doesn't really have any concerns, because we see this as a huge step forward from what we have in place now. I have spoken to my member of Parliament to express our support. We've seen action already, so I sense that this legislation will only see more action in terms of removing the derelict vessels.

My only comment is that because our municipality does not own the wharf, it would be nice to see something whereby the wharf owner could be penalized for having allowed those boats to arrive in the first place. As you've seen from the slide show that's been playing, from the HMCS Fraser to the Cape Rouge to the Cormorant, these boats just keep coming over and over again. A huge concern for me and my community is that if the Cormorant were removed tomorrow, there is nothing to stop the port owner from bringing another ship up on Friday.

However, we are so pleased that legislation is being brought forward are happy right now.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

The folks from Shelburne, go ahead.

[Dylan Heide]

It's Dylan here. We discussed it and agreed that I'd respond to this one.

We are also very pleased about the legislation coming forward. We have the opposite take from Mayor Mitchell's on the operator of the facility, just on account of its being a public facility in our case. Certainly, if the owner of a facility is inviting a vessel and knowingly causing a situation, I could understand that there may be some liability associated. Our concern is around the ability of a facility operator to refuse a derelict vessel.

Generally, all of our derelict vessels either arrive without permission or arrive with permission and then are subsequently abandoned. In those cases, we've taken every action that we conceivably could. In communication with other small-port operators—and we're a member of the Independent Marine Ports Association of Atlantic Canada—we hear that this seems to be a common issue. While I'm sure there are facilities that have recklessly encouraged the situations that have taken place, such as in Bridgewater, one of our big concerns is that a lot of the time a community such as ours may be left holding the bag, the costs associated with a derelict vessel, despite having done everything possible to remove it.

We would like the legislation to ensure that costs incurred by our communities can be compensated for, in particular acknowledging that the vessel owners may not have the means or be in a position to deal with the costs they have created for our communities.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Wellstood.

[Chris Wellstood]

As a port authority, we fully support the bill and we're looking toward the regulations that would be made pursuant to it. We hope it would be that they would help out the port authority in dealing either proactively or retroactively with the problem and not put any prohibitions on the port authority when it comes to dealing with these issues.

As a port authority, we have been very proactive in our approach toward the derelicts and we understand that this bill covers the entire country and all the waterways it encompasses. But the navigational jurisdiction areas within Canadian port authorities are specific bodies of water, and there's a specific entity that looks after them, so my main concern is that we don't get adequately integrated in the approach.

I don't see that in the bill, but I would hope to see it in the regulations.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll go to Ms. Jordan, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to start with you, Mayor Mitchell, because I know the situation in Bridgewater quite well.

Bridgewater has spent a lot of time and effort in the last little while developing its waterfront. We have Mariners' Landing, Pijinuiskaq Park, Shipyards Landing, and the outdoor classroom. What impact does having those vessels in the town have on all the work that the community has gotten behind? You spent a great deal of money fixing up our downtown core, but then we have those sitting in the background.

Maybe you could talk about that for a second.

[David Mitchell]

Sure. The expression may not be appropriate to say, but putting lipstick on a pig is kind of what we're doing here. We're beautifying our waterfront, yet sitting there is this giant eyesore. It's difficult to attract tourism. The things that leak out of these ships are a constant concern, as you've seen in some of the pictures that were scrolling—the booms that have to go around these boats because they continue to leak and leach their various fuels and whatever else is in these ships, for example, asbestos. We know that the Cormorant is filled with mould. It all has an impact on the enjoyment of our waterfront.

It's hard to get people to go down and enjoy the beauty of your waterway, and we have a tidal river that at the halfway point in our town mixes from freshwater to saltwater, so it's quite unique. It's hard to drive people down to those beautification projects if they're really not that beautiful because of these ships in the background.

There is definitely an economic impact.

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

You also mentioned that the assessments of houses along the river, across from them, have declined. Do you want to comment on that a bit further?

[David Mitchell]

Again, the assessments are done by people from the property value assessment services from the province, who also look at the surroundings. In the background to all the homes on the waterway are these ships in this wharf, which keeps bringing these ships up. The owners constantly appeal their assessments and they win on appeal because it's affecting their property. That goes into depressed tax revenue.

We're a very progressive town. We're very proud that we just launched a public transit service for our community of 8,600 people; and we presented last week to two federal ministers on our climate change action plan, which we keep winning awards for. All these things take money, and whenever I have something like these ships that are reducing property values, it has an impact on the services I can offer.

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

Mayor Mattatall and Dylan Heide, I'm going to go to you next.

You actually took the owner of the Farley Mowat to court. What did it cost the Town of Shelburne to do that?

[Karen Mattatall]

Hi, Bernadette. The cost was $148,000, which is pretty significant for a small community.