Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

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

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

From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Froozan Housany, senior policy analyst; Kathy Nghiem, acting director, preparedness and response; Marc Sanderson, acting director general, national strategies; and Yvette-Marie Kieran, legal counsel, legal services.

From the Department of Justice, we have Jaime Bishop, legal counsel.

From the Department of Transport, we have Marc-Yves Bertin, director general, marine policy; Ellen Burack, director general, environmental policy; Jeffrey Johnson, manager, clean water policy; and Michelle Sanders, director, clean water policy.

You are all here to answer questions from the committee, to comment on the various amendments, and to provide the committee with that information. Thank you all for being here.

We will move right into the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title is postponed.

The chair calls clause 2.

If I have the support of the committee, when there are no amendments, I would like to group the clauses so that we can move along swiftly. Otherwise, we could be here until eight o'clock, and we do have a vote.

Do I have unanimous consent to group them when there are no amendments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

There is a government amendment, moved by Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Fraser, would you like to speak to it?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Very briefly, since I don't want to take up much time, you'll see that a series of government amendments have been put forward. They largely amount to corrections of drafting errors or potential oversights.

It's a fairly complex bill. I think the consequences are straightforward. I'd be happy to let the department officials explain, but when I saw the reasoning, it made eminent sense to adopt these. I don't expect them to be controversial, but I don't want to prejudge the analysis of my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would the departmental official like to comment on it, please?

[Ellen Burack, Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport]

This amendment is to deal with an oversight in importing the provisions from the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. In that legislation, the government had existing authorities that enable regulations to deal with heritage wrecks. This amendment will allow the retention of those authorities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further questions or comments?

All those in favour of amendment G-1?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We can now group clauses 6 to 20.

All those in favour?

(Clauses 6 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 21)

We will now move on to NDP-1.

Ms. Malcolmson, would you like to speak to it?

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

Maybe I'll describe it first, and then I will certainly appreciate the government witnesses' advice.

The first one would change it so that the minister “must” take the measure. This was based on testimony from Anna Johnston, from West Coast Environmental Law. Her interpretation was that the legislation was discretionary in nature and called into question whether the decision-makers would actually take the measures necessary. Her recommendation in a number of places was that where it says that the minister “may”, the wording instead be changed to “shall” or “must”.

We pulled out the sections that had a clear environmental impact. That was our criterion for which ones to recommend.

This would give more accountability and more confidence to coastal communities that actions outlined in the legislation would in fact be taken, and if not, that there would have to be some rationale provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could we ask a department official to comment, please?

[Marc Sanderson, Acting Director General, National Strategies, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I'd submit that not all wrecks that are a result of maritime casualty necessarily pose a hazard that warrants federal intervention immediately. What's important is that government officials have the ability to establish priorities based on the degree of hazard or risk, as determined through science or other evidence, in consultation with local communities, indigenous groups, and other jurisdictions in the case of flag states for international vessels. Removing the minister's discretion would require the federal government to intervene in all cases, even those in which the owner is willing and able to act but needs more time to address the wreck, without creating additional risk.

This is contrary to the principle of polluter pays, one of the central objectives of this legislation. This amendment would also impose a significant burden on taxpayers, because it would require action on all wrecks, not just those that pose hazards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

Go ahead, Ms. Malcolmson.

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

What we've been hearing from coastal communities is very much that they want the polluter to pay, that they want the vessel owners to take responsibility for their pollution problem, but without the minister being willing to act and to enforce the regulations and force action upon the vessel owner, we may end up not so far ahead of where we are right now.

The actions described here are not that the minister himself will in every case go out and remove the vessel and pay the bill—that's not it all—but if there are no teeth to this measure and no accountability, then we're going to continue on as we have on our coasts for decades, with people who will push the limits of the law and not take responsibility for their possessions and pollution. They'll continue to be a problem for our environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All those in favour of the amendment proposed by Ms. Malcolmson?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 21 agreed to)

(On clause 22)

Ms. Malcolmson, would you like to speak to NDP-2?

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

Again we'll say that for the sake of accountability, transparency, and the government actually taking action to enforce abandonment, and again not intending that the full cost of cleanup always will fall to the taxpayer—not at all—some of the measures that have been proposed by coastal communities need the government to actually push the owner of the vessel to follow through. That's why, based on the recommendation of the West Coast Environmental Law Association and a great number of witnesses who indicated how long coastal communities have been looking for action on this issue, “must take the measure” is a very important change.

Otherwise, too much ministerial discretion means that this “may”, especially by future governments less committed to a solution than this one, will mean that we will continue to have vessels on our coast.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could the department officials comment?

[Marc Sanderson]

Madam Chair, I'd offer that one of the other central tenets of this legislation is vessel owner responsibility. Vessel owners bear the responsibility for their vessels and, where possible and when possible, should be compelled to take immediate action before the federal government intervenes. Most vessel owners are responsible, and changing “may” to “must” removes the possibility of having those vessel owners manage their vessels appropriately.

The amendment could have the effect of the government stepping in to take action in every case, before the vessel owner has had a chance to take the appropriate action. It could also send the wrong message, I'd suggest that when the federal government is obligated to intervene, it signals that the responsibility is on the federal government alone.

As I mentioned, one of the central tenets of this legislation is vessel owner responsibility for the entire life cycle of the vessel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That said, would it go without saying that the financial burden may end up on the taxpayers?

I have to say that when I look at NDP-1, NDP-2, NDP-6, NDP-10, and NDP-13, and at the Green Party-1 amendment, it appears that the amendments do steer the financial responsibility, based on the burden that you just outlined, toward the taxpayers. Would that be true?

[Marc Sanderson]

Indeed, I would submit that this could be the case, and likely would be the case, if the minister were compelled to act in every instance without first giving vessel owners the responsibility, as polluters, to take the action that they are required to do.

Education around the legislation, if passed, will need to make sure that all vessel owners understand what their responsibilities are. We need to be consistent in that message, I would suggest.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may, when we look at the legislation, we see that it puts great emphasis on signalling that people who should be taking responsibility are the ones who, in fact, are expected to take responsibility.

[Marc Sanderson]

Yes, indeed, that's the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I think my friend Vance Badawey misspoke when he said Green Party-1 had the effect of moving any responsibility to government. My amendment 1, which I get to speak to in a moment, is about vessel owners taking out insurance. I think that may have been just a casual error.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's fine.

Go ahead, Ms. Malcolmson.

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

Can I ask the witnesses...? This bill is largely based on the minister ordering that fines and penalties be issued to the vessel owner. My concern is that the legislation makes that a discretionary decision. I don't understand the reluctance to say that the legislation requires the minister to act, or how asking the minister to send a fine or a penalty to someone who's in violation of this legislation puts an increased burden on the taxpayer.