Evidence of meeting #92 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
February 26th, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
In discussion, there seemed to be some confusion on whether or not this topic would fit in with Bill C-64, or if it would actually be better as a stand-alone piece of legislation because of the different areas it actually implicates. That's why we thought if we could do a separate study on it, that might give us a chance to really focus and shine a light on this particular issue in such a way as to give it the appropriate attention it properly deserves. Hopefully it will be tabled in the House, I understand, and from that tabling we will see some legislation come forward, either from the government or through a private member's bill that would take up this cause.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
To respond to Ms. Malcolmson's suggestion, the intent of the witnesses was to note the fact that there are sunken warships and sunken merchant marine ships now sunk for many years, and disturbing those wrecks, because they are gravesites, should be dealt with. It should be addressed. That's why, as the chair mentioned, there was general agreement around the table that this needs to be addressed. This isn't necessarily the right place to do it. I'm very happy, in fact, that we're headed in the direction to address that because we do have to honour those people properly.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
We can also draft [Inaudible—Editor] that says we don't want to associate these gravesites to wreckages. I think they deserve more than that. It would be best to split the two matters and give it proper and honourable attention.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Exactly. Good.
Shall clause 110 as amended carry?
(Clause 110 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 111 to 118 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 119)
Mr. Badawey, would you like to speak to G-5?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Does the department want to comment on this? If not, all those in favour of G-5?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Hardie.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Chair, I just wanted to go back to amendment CPC-1. I think you asked us to vote on the clause as amended, but in fact we were—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Shall clause 119 as amended carry?
(Clause 119 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 120 to 128 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 129)
On clause 129, we have amendment G-6.
Mr. Fraser.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Again, it's just a drafting issue. As drafted currently, there's a risk the government could not go after the owner who's responsible for the collateral costs of removing a wreck. Let's say a fence needed to be removed and there's damage done during the removal process. Keeping in line with the polluter pays principle, the legislation would make the person who abandons the vessel responsible for the cleanup.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Any comments?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 129 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 130 agreed to)
Amendment CPC-2 on clause 131 was withdrawn at the request of Mr. Hoback. It goes back to the same issue of war graves.
(Clause 131 agreed to)
We are now looking at amendment NDP-9.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
This is a piece imported from my private member's bill, Bill C-352, which was stopped in the House back in the fall. It would require the minister, every five years, to review the operation of this bill, Bill C-64, and report to the House about the efficacy of the act, and the resulting review that had happened.
We had a number of witnesses talk about the serious backlog. Andrew Kendrick, from Vard Marine, for example, talked about “starting from a bad place.” We need to address the backlog of abandoned vessels. They are a growing number. Having some transparency and accountability, and reporting to Parliament on how well this legislation worked, would certainly help with future amendments or regulatory changes as we modify.
There's very good precedent for this. The Aeronautics Act has a requirement “within two years after the day on which this subsection comes into force and every five years thereafter, commence a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this section”. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has an “every five year” review, and then several acts in this Parliament require periodic re-evaluations. That includes the Employment Equity Act, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, the Lobbying Act, the Canada Small Business Financing Act, the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, the Export Development Act, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act. Washington state again has a very good legislative model, and we heard directly from.... Their legislation has been in place for 15 years and they use this period review.
I urge my fellow committee members, for the sake of transparency and accountability, to vote yes to requiring a five-year reporting and review.
5 p.m.
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Elsewhere in Bill C-64 is a requirement for a five-year review by one or more parliamentary committees. That would of course include all political parties in the review. The view is that this would be redundant as a result to have another five-year review, five years after the legislation is in place. Certainly, the act can be reviewed when that's necessary over its lifetime.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Not seeing any comments, we'll call the vote on NDP-9.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 132 agreed to)
We are now looking at NDP-10.
5 p.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
In this case, we heard quite a bit of testimony. Other states, Washington state in particular, have very successful abandoned vessel programs. They have a system where they put conditions on crown assets that are sold, so that the seller, in this case the Government of Canada, is confident that whether it's a naval vessel or an old Coast Guard vessel, they're going to a dignified end, but also the person receiving them has the means to look after them.
On the British Columbia coast we've got vessels all over the place that still have the government logo, whether it's BC Ferries or Coast Guard. Certainly, on the Atlantic coast we have a great number of people, with maybe good intentions, purchasing surplus navy vessels, but nevertheless they become great liabilities for coastal communities and municipalities. We heard from some of them directly at this committee.
Our recommendation is:
...if the accepted surplus Crown asset is a Canadian vessel, within the meaning of section 2 of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, that is capable of being used for safe navigation, the Minister must take the measures that are necessary to ensure the vessel remains in that condition until it is disposed of under this Act.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
If I understand the intent of the proposed amendment correctly, it's to prevent a social harm, which is important to me, but I'm not sure it captures it. The problem that I'm thinking of is one where the government doesn't sell a dilapidated vessel, but sells a vessel that's in decent condition, and it subsequently becomes dilapidated, potentially because the new owners didn't disclose the purpose for buying it. Maybe they had great plans, and the bottom fell out of the market they had plans for, I'm not sure.
When I look at the act we have before us, this would apply equally, I understand, to the government and private owners. Perhaps I'll get some clarity on that, because the harm is already protected against as the government couldn't allow its own vessel to become dilapidated. I don't know that this would prevent the harm in the sale of a good vessel, in working condition, that would subsequently become dilapidated. Could you comment as to whether the harm I'm trying to describe, perhaps inarticulately, is captured by the proposed amendment?
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
My understanding, in fact, is that the conditions-of-sale issue is dealt with in NDP-11. NDP-10 is aimed at retaining vessels that are surplus and intended for sale, and are in good working order. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
They're certainly related. In NDP-10 we're particularly trying to get at the vessels in possession of the government. We heard testimony from the towns of Shelburne and Bridgewater that some of these vessels originate from the federal government. The example of the Farley Mowat is a famous one, where for a while the vessel was held by the government and they had an opportunity then not to be able to pass it on. NDP-10 and NDP-11 are related issues, but the Farley Mowat, for example, was not originally a crown asset, but nevertheless, having confiscated it, it did hold it at a certain point and had the ability to prevent it from going into even worse hands.
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
The amendment as proposed to the Surplus Crown Assets Act would require the duplication by the Minister of Public Services and Procurement of activities that currently exist elsewhere. If a department, say the RCMP, has a boat of a certain size that they want to surplus, generally they would retain it in situ until the actual sale took place. This amendment suggests that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement take responsibility for maintaining that vessel in good working order from its acceptance as surplus to its disposition. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement deals with all assets across government and cannot have the expertise to maintain all those assets in that way.
