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.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The question becomes, would the government then be in a position of having to maintain something in a seaworthy condition even though it's surplus, or is the situation where the government, when it's time to sell, can establish the terms and conditions of sale so their vessel might not be able to be used for certain things because it is no longer seaworthy?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
I'm looking to the chair for guidance. The conditions-of-sale issues are in NDP-11. I'm not sure what I'm providing technical support on.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Where I was going for the first part of the question was, would we potentially be looking at significant cost to the government to maintain a surplus vessel in seaworthy condition? If there was no requirement for the government to keep a vessel in seaworthy condition and the government knew it was not seaworthy when it sold it, could it then not, through the terms of sale, ensure that it was not going to be sold as though it were seaworthy? Is that clear?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Certainly the government wouldn't sell an asset suggesting that it was seaworthy when it wasn't.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I think the intention here is to prevent an un-seaworthy vessel from going out. If the government knows at the time of sale that a vessel is not seaworthy, can it then apply conditions to the sale that say a vessel is not seaworthy and therefore certain things cannot be done with it?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
You asked if there was significant cost. The significant costs associated with this amendment are to duplicate the maintenance and technical expertise associated with maintaining vessels within Public Services and Procurement when they already exist in the departments that own and operate these vessels. It's highly unlikely that an operational government vessel that is desired to be sold will be left to deteriorate so it cannot be sold as an operating vessel. That seems to be the scenario that this amendment is seeking to address.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
To that point, I think this legislation covers government vessels, therefore they're not allowed to become derelicts. Is that not boiling it down to the basic...? This legislation says you can't have an abandoned, derelict, or dilapidated vessel, so therefore the government could not have that. Is that not correct?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
This legislation does not cover government vessels.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Again, to some extent it's an amendment that may be redundant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does Treasury Board not already have the ability to prescribe conditions on the sale of assets under the Surplus Crown Assets Act?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, they do. Section 3 of that act gives them the authority to do that. That would be relevant for amendment NDP-11.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay. We will call for a vote on amendment NDP-10.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP-11 has already been spoken to a bit, but Ms. Malcolmson, would you like to speak to it?
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The previous one was about trying to keep the asset in good shape so that the worst-case scenario doesn't then happen, around disposal of crown assets. I did partly speak to this when I was introducing amendment NDP-10. The intention is that we don't have irresponsible owners take on crown assets that then deteriorate some of our highest-profile abandoned vessels in this country, which were originally government assets.
My question to the witnesses is, given that Treasury Board is already able to put limits on the sale, what's the remedy? How will we, as representatives of this government, not continue to be embarrassed by seeing Coast Guard and navy vessels, or as in the case of the Farley Mowat, a vessel that had been in the possession of government that they then sold to a third party that did not take care of it, and it became ruinously expensive for the taxpayer to address? Bill C-64 does not regulate or cover government vessels. How can we prevent this major source of high-profile abandonment?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
There are a few different things. It's already been mentioned that Treasury Board has the ability to deal with conditions of sale. I will note that it's very difficult. In talking to our colleagues at Public Services and Procurement, we learned that it's extremely difficult to impose conditions that can't be verified at the time of sale. They do impose conditions, such as that if you're going to tow the vessel, you need to have insurance from a certified insurer, because they're able to verify that at the time of sale. Things that might happen later, beyond the point of sale, are more difficult to address. Often the problem with these vessels tends to be on resale as well, not just on that first, initial sale.
We heard, when we were here as witnesses to your deliberations in the past, the Coast Guard speaking to the more active approach that they're taking to the management of the end of life of their own vessels. We've been talking to National Defence as well, who are also taking a different approach to its vessels at the end of life than they have in the past. It is fully our intention to be looking at what needs to be done from the perspective of the management of the government fleet. It's very much on the radar, if you will, and is being actively addressed. It's just not within the scope of this legislation.
Liberal
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'll note two things. One, that Washington state does have provisions intended to prevent this major source of abandoned vessels. I'll also note that this amendment proposes that then, if the terms of the sale are not upheld, if the third party owner does not honour the conditions that were established by the crown at the time of sale, the crown has the ability to prosecute. That's the intention. I hope committee members will vote yes.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All right.
I will now call for a vote on NDP-11.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 133 to 150 inclusive agreed to)
We'll now go to NDP-12.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
This proposal is reflecting on a great number of witnesses who described the vessel registry as being full of errors, not current, and not accurate, and the licensing database as being out of date and of very little use in tracking down owners, in many cases. Everybody is agreeing that polluter pays is a good principle, understanding that the intention of the minister's legislation here, Bill C-64, is to send fines and penalties to those who abandon their vessels, but without being able to actually find the owner, there's no way to send them a bill.
This amendment is intended to fix that vessel registration, to ask the Canadian registrar of vessels to have a reporting function, which has never been done. We weren't able to find any evidence of it. Although that person is in that position, he's never actually issued a public report. It's not only vessel registration but also pleasure craft licensing. At a minimum, it's to report on the number of vessels that are registered. If we don't get this kind of reporting to Parliament and this kind of transparency, I'm not sure we will really have a good handle on the backlog of abandoned vessels and the current legitimate and responsible owners who are out there doing the right thing with their vessels. Without this, we may not get a sense of whether we're really tackling the problem.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I think based on what we've heard, Madam Chair, there is not a lot of confidence right now in the registration system. Clearly, if we're looking back to especially pleasure craft abandoned on the west coast and other issues that have come up, a more robust registration system will be required if we're to pre-empt this kind of issue off in the future.
First, does this legislation lead us toward a more robust registration system? Second, are there already provisions in the legislation that would require the kind of reporting that Ms. Malcolmson is looking for?
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
As part of the national strategy on abandoned vessels that was introduced under the oceans protection plan, the government is exploring enhancements to both the pleasure craft licensing system and the commercial vessel registry, the large vessel registry, both of which are regulated under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. The reason they remain under this act is that these systems are not exclusively dedicated to supporting abandoned and wrecked vessels. They have a broader purpose, a marine safety purpose, so it's appropriate that they continue to be regulated within the context of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
In terms of reporting, the performance of the Canadian Register of Vessels and the pleasure craft licensing regime is already captured in Transport Canada's departmental performance report, where the compliance of marine safety regulations is assessed annually. As part of reporting on initiatives under the oceans protection plan, reporting on the enhancements that are under way to the licensing and registration systems will also take place.
Liberal