Transport Committee on Feb. 14th, 2018

[Chris Wellstood]

What I specifically said was that the port authority's navigational jurisdiction is a specific jurisdiction within Canadian waters. What I don't see in the act is anything that allows port authorities to do specific things in relation to derelicts or proactively address derelicts within their waters. I would hope to see that in the regulations that are made pursuant to the act.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 15 to 20 seconds.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Are there any final amendments that any of our guests would like to see made to this legislation?

[Dylan Heide]

Could we comment quickly?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[Dylan Heide]

It may not be with regard to amendments, but we just wanted to point out that the Farley Mowat, the vessels in Bridgewater, the Coast Guard example that was given, and many of the other derelicts around the country all originated with the federal government. They were either federal disposals of vessels, or seized vessels disposed of. Perhaps there needs to be an onus on the federal government to ensure that they are disposed of responsibly.

[David Mitchell]

I have just one quick thing, and maybe this is a provincial issue. As a town, we're not able to tax a public wharf that's owned by a private individual. Not only do we have to deal with these ships, but we get zero revenue that we could build into a fund to deal with them. That's another issue, but I think that's probably a provincial issue..

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all very much.

Ms. Malcolmson, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We found that Washington state's abandoned vessel legislation does have a limit on agencies' ability to sell agency-owned vessels that are in poor condition, but there's nothing in this legislation that limits the disposal of federal assets in that area. There was recently the sale of Canadian Forces' auxiliary vessel the Firebird, for which, again, the contract didn't do that due diligence to make sure that the person purchasing had the means to carry it on.

Mayor Mitchell, we had a good conversation this summer on exactly this case. I imagine Shelburne is in the same situation. If you were to see, in this next version of the legislation, something that would put protections like that in place, would any of the witnesses be glad to see such responsibility being taken on by the federal government?

[David Mitchell]

Yes. I think that does make sense. It goes back to my original point about having a business case in order to bring the ship up. If you're going to divest yourself of a ship, as a government, you should make sure that the person who takes on that responsibility can.

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

Thanks.

I note that neither Bridgewater nor Shelburne applied to the abandoned boats program for 2017-18. In fact, nobody outside of British Columbia did, no town. In fact, only seven applications were entered.

Do you want to identify quickly, from the perspective of either of the local governments with regard to barriers, why you didn't apply to the program for specific removals?

[David Mitchell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that only apply to vessels at a public wharf, not a privately owned wharf?

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

There are two programs, and municipalities do qualify for one of them—but not the small-craft harbour one maybe. We've found in other local governments that there were barriers. The take-up wasn't as big as we expected, and the transport minister said the same in his testimony. So you could have applied, but many local governments didn't. In Bridgewater or Shelburne, are there any specific barriers you've identified?

[Dylan Heide]

With regard to the town's jurisdiction over the Shelburne Marine Terminal, we hope that we've set a bit of an example through the Farley Mowat case, and currently we are fortunate not to have any derelicts at our terminal. That said, the reason that we didn't apply with regard to derelict vessels within the Shelburne Harbour, which, unfortunately, does have at least a couple derelict vessels, is that we do not have jurisdiction over the harbour. It's a federally regulated harbour under Transport Canada, and the town is not clear on its jurisdiction to make an application, since the federal government could potentially take action on vessels in a federal harbour.

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

We also noted that the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg decided not to proceed because of liability and concerns about legal responsibility.

[Dylan Heide]

Yes, that would be associated with our concerns.

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

Turning to the port authority, we heard some concerns. In fact, the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union and BC Ferries both rang the alarm on the unmanageable hazards of abandoned vessels in their operations. They wrote a joint letter endorsing my legislation, saying that a major ferry on a scheduled night-sailing between Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay struck a semi-submerged abandoned vessel. This caused the ferry to stop and investigate. It deployed a rescue boat and crew. They cited risks to their employees and disruption to the schedule of the ferry service. This is a major, huge passenger ferry. From the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority's perspective, have you also found disruption to your operations and to the economy from abandoned vessels like this?

[Chris Wellstood]

Abandoned vessels can pose a threat to the environment, which I think is a major point. If they go adrift, they can pose a navigational hazard to deep-sea vessels and can cause the port to be shut down to avoid a bigger accident, as was described in the BC Ferries case.

It's great that we're looking at derelict vessels, but it all starts with preventing vessels from becoming derelicts. If we look at British Columbia, it's predominantly in the registration systems and the insurance requirements for vessels, from small recreational vessels to the larger vessels. Even the larger government vessels, BC Ferries or chip barges, are being sold to owners who don't have the means to support them but can pick them up, and then the previous owner basically absolves himself from responsibility and the new owner can't fulfill the requirements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wellstood.

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you Madam Chair, and my thanks to our witnesses for being here.

Mr. Wellstood, are there graveyards outside of the port authority area, especially on the Fraser River?

[Chris Wellstood]

There are areas outside of the port authority's jurisdiction that see a congregation of derelict vessels up in Mission and around the corner in Howe Sound.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Would the jurisdiction there still be federal if they're out in the water? How much do you know about them?

[Chris Wellstood]

Howe Sound is in provincial waters, so it becomes a provincial issue up in Squamish, Howe Sound. I know that the derelicts seem to congregate where there's the least amount of issues that they can come across. Within a port authority's jurisdiction, there's a lot of scrutiny and a lot of eyes on it, whereas if you're around the corner in a smaller community there are less eyes on it and it's easier for people to abandon vessels.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

To Bridgewater and Shelburne, given your experience, which hasn't been very positive in many cases, do profiles start to emerge with respect to the vessels themselves or the vessel ownerships where you can say, “Oh, boy, here comes trouble”?