Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

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

My understanding of this legislation—perhaps the officials can correct me if I'm wrong—is that the minister already has the authority to designate any person, including an official within the Canadian Coast Guard, as the “receiver of wreck”. Is that correct? Okay.

Would this amendment then not add to the confusion and ambiguity? The general public would wonder who is responsible. Ultimately, the Minister of Transport is responsible, correct? Therefore, we already have a designated person who looks after all of it.

[Ellen Burack]

Just to kind of build on that, there may be some confusion about “single point of contact” versus “receiver of wreck”. Receiver of wreck is a long-standing concept in maritime law. There's a designated official to look after the interests of an owner of a vessel, of a wreck, when they are unable to be reached or have yet to be contacted or identified.

It's true that we have made great strides in further coordinating the efforts between Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard on this issue, and have agreed to have the Coast Guard serve as that public single window, but that's not to be confused with the concept of receiver of wreck. The Minister of Transport designates receivers of wreck, individuals who are charged with doing certain things under the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Is the Coast Guard already the lead in regard to this?

[Ellen Burack]

The Coast Guard is the lead on certain elements and Transport Canada is the lead on certain elements. When it comes to the public wanting to ask a question, report a situation, report a vessel, it would be through the Coast Guard's 1-800 service that it would be done.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So it's already there. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

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

Just to confirm, then, a receiver of wreck won't necessarily be the single point of contact. There are in fact currently two different functions in two different places.

I just heard you say that there is a 1-800 number that people can call for the single point of contact in order to report. Is that right?

[Marc Sanderson]

Yes, I can confirm that public reporting for problem vessels will be done through the Canadian Coast Guard's 24-7 regional operations centres. They cover all coasts and all inland waters. That's the system that's currently in place for reporting of other marine incidents, such as pollution incidents.

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

It would occur, then, that really, if there is confusion, it's simply because we maybe haven't publicized that fact enough to ensure that people know precisely who they can call in order to get something reported.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Malcolmson.

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

People have been calling the Coast Guard for 10 years, asking for action on abandoned vessels, and they've been given the runaround, told that they need to talk to somebody else. This is a change in the government's direction but it's not enshrined in legislation. My concern is that this is a mechanism that Minister Garneau agreed with when the vote was in the House two and a half years ago. My strong advice to the committee is to still enshrine that in legislation in some way so that it's locked in for future governments and is not just a program offered through this government right now.

I'll ask for a recorded vote when we get there.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

I will call for a vote on amendment NDP-4.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 57 agreed to)

(On clause 58)

On NDP-5, Ms. Malcolmson.

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

In the same vein, we're looking for the receiver of wrecks to have the responsibility and accountability to determine the owner of the wreck instead of shifting that responsibility to a third party.

I appreciate that the intention of the legislation is for the federal government, based in Ottawa in many cases, to be able to work with coastal communities and get that local knowledge. So the ability to delegate, if that local government or that local environmental organization is willing to receive the delegation of responsibility, is an important flexibility in the legislation and something that we appreciate. It's something we certainly heard from coastal communities, that they want to see their own local knowledge reflected.

On the other end of the spectrum, because of the abandonment, I would argue, of the federal government in not supporting local communities and coastal communities to deal with abandoned vessels, there is also a sensitivity to it not being completely downloaded, especially where the tax base isn't there. The proposed amendment would make the receiver of wrecks responsible and accountable to determine the owner of the wreck but not to have the responsibility shift from the receiver of wrecks to a person without that body being willing to take that. We think this is consistent with what used to be in the Canada Shipping Act in subsection 155(2).

I urge the committee members to vote yes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Jordan.

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

I was just wondering if the officials could comment on this with regard to the cost burden. I'm concerned that, if this amendment is accepted, there will be a higher cost for taxpayers, and I just wondered if you could comment on that.

[Ellen Burack]

This amendment removes any discretion on the part of the receiver of wreck to not take action to determine the owner of the found wreck, and the time when that sort of thing might be important is perhaps when there's a wreck that someone else has already reported, and so that's not necessary. It might be a frivolous situation. There might have been an error made.

The amendment, in the way that it's done here, removes all discretion to act appropriately on the part of the receiver of wreck. It also removes the discretion from the receiver of wreck to use some of the other tools in the legislation, such as perhaps, if the person who reported the wreck is very close to where the wreck is, it might be useful to ask that person to post a notice in that area, in that physical location. The way this amendment is proposed limits the flexibility of the receiver of wreck to take those sorts of actions as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Malcolmson.

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

The way that this is written, it says that the receiver of wreck must take necessary steps to determine the owner of the wreck. If that is done, then that gives the government the opportunity to send the bill to that owner of the vessel. This is what this is all built on, this polluter pays principle, and there's nothing in this proposed amendment that would say the step that the receiver of wreck takes is to ask the person at the next dock or to ask somebody else to post a notice on their behalf. There's something that says that it has to be the receiver of wreck who goes out and does the work, so I'm concerned that the witness' interpretation is unnecessarily narrow. I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

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

This change looks redundant. Isn't it kind of a fundamental principle of this whole legislation that the idea is to find out who the owner of the wreck is? That will happen automatically. There would always, you would think, be some effort, even if it's very obvious, to determine who the owner of the vessel is. That will always happen in one form or another, will it not?

[Ellen Burack]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Shall NDP-5 carry? Would you like a recorded vote, Ms. Malcolmson?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

(Clause 58 agreed to)

(Clauses 59 to 66 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 67)

We have NDP-6, Ms. Malcolmson.

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

In the same vein as the first amendment that we proposed, we want the minister of Fisheries and Oceans to act, so the wording is “must”. Again, this is something that is focused on environmental hazard to the coast. We heard testimony from Anna Johnston from West Coast Environmental Law Association expressing concern that the minister's and receiver of wreck's powers under the act to deal with wrecked, abandoned, and dilapidated vessels are discretionary in nature, calling into question whether or not these decision-makers will take the necessary actions to address the backlog. A change to “must” and “may” removes discretion, increases accountability, and gives coastal communities more confidence that the act as written will be implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.