Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'd like to thank the member from Saanich—Gulf Islands as well, who always makes me think in this place. This is something that I was planning on proposing myself. I had a bit of a back-and-forth with some info from the department that gave me some heartburn, because I didn't realize that there were certain issues wrapped up in it. I actually expected our colleague Mr. Chong to bring this forward, because it was his line of questioning that tipped me off to this idea in the first place.

Of course, the point that my colleague Ms. Jordan put forth about local fishermen in Nova Scotia essentially bearing the brunt of the load is for me a big problem. One of the issues that I want to get a better handle on is the kind of consultation that you undertook as a department to understand, as you mentioned, that there wasn't necessarily a market for the insurance. I would hate to legislate something that is impracticable in the real world that we live in. Could you perhaps comment on the availability of insurance?

[Marc-Yves Bertin]

As part of our consultation process, we issued two documents, one in 2010 and one in 2015, in which we looked at the scope and, afterwards, operationalization. We consulted a range of stakeholders, including municipalities, where admittedly there was some support or an interest in the issue; however, more broadly, the considerations that this discussion reflects very much came to the fore. We did speak to representatives from the insurance market to get a better understanding of what existed.

In the end, what they were able to confirm for us was the sense that the 300 level was the lowest level possible in terms of gross tonnage to target, insofar as there was an understanding that the market could bear and support products or insurance solutions for vessel owners in that space. By the same token, they indicated that further analysis would be required, but that from their perspective there was a big question in their minds as to whether or not the market could shift towards this type of insurance.

That said, those owners who do have insurance tend to make that part of their business operations or their home. It's not specific to wreck: when they do apply it, they do so within their operating businesses or their home insurance.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Perhaps as a follow-up I'll ask a courtesy of the officials here. I remain concerned about this, and I'm not necessarily convinced that the reduction to 20 tons is the absolute answer. As the plan develops to establish the kind of group-financing program that Mr. Hardie's questioning led to, could you just as a courtesy update the committee so that we understand what the process is? I have a deep concern about ships being abandoned—both big and small—and the risks they pose. I would ask as a favour to the committee if you could keep us in the loop as things develop on that specific issue.

[Marc-Yves Bertin]

We certainly can. I would also note that the issue of the threshold is something that we recognize there's a conversation about. Because of that, the regulatory-making powers in this statute enable us to take a look at that issue down the road if, for various reasons, there's a desire to re-explore and reopen the issue of gross tonnage thresholds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Malcolmson.

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

I appreciate the spirit of the proposed amendment, but I do share the concerns about cost impacts. Also, my memory is not that there was a lot of testimony from all the witnesses we heard from that this was the remedy they were seeking. I think there was more encouragement in terms of small vessel and pleasure craft registration and actually capturing these within the system. We also heard testimony—I think it was from Rod Smith of the Ladysmith Maritime Society—that in fact there are some vessels that are voluntarily insured but are not registered, so we still have some pieces....

Like some of my colleagues, I'm open to looking at this in the future, but I would be concerned that in going ahead to approve this amendment we would be doing it without the information about what our stakeholders are looking for and what the cost may be to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would the department like to respond?

[Marc-Yves Bertin]

Yes. I can tell you that during the course of consultations with stakeholders they were quite clear in echoing some of the conversations and statements here about, in their terms, the significant financial impacts on vessel owners that this could represent if we were to lower the threshold. Because of that, we are encouraged to take a look at doing a full benefit analysis before moving into this space.

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

Getting back to the question about Denmark, I found information that says, and I quote, “Denmark has implemented this requirement for all Danish ships of 20 GT....” It comes from a Transport Canada document, so I'm a bit confused as to the status of the Danish 20 gross tonnes, since I got it from some of the folks who are sitting here today. However, it doesn't sound like my amendment will get a single vote from anyone with voting power around this room.

I just want to say clearly that I certainly have heard this from my constituents. There is a concern. Those who are bringing in...particularly a lot of the recreational vessels, the people who can afford it. One of my favourite lines from Gus Speth about neo-liberalism is that a rising tide lifts all yachts. Well, those are not the folks I'm worried about carrying the insurance. As for fishing, I have the same concern; I have a lot of fisher people and a lot of fishermen in my riding, but given all the other costs they carry to conduct fishing operations, I think carrying wreck insurance would be a very small component overall. There are other ways to deal with that in making sure that those who have the smaller vessels, who don't carry the insurance, aren't therefore swept up with as much of the responsibility that this act creates. Somewhere between 20 gross tonnes and 300 gross tonnes, there are a lot of vessels.

Unfortunately, we're only going through this clause-by-clause now. There won't be any other opportunity until this bill comes back to us some years from now to see how it's working. I think we all know that a lot of what will make this bill work will be subsequent regulations. This could be gotten at there, so I would urge that. The other thing, of course, that will make this bill work is the extent to which the budget is there to actually act—when the various ministers under this act with the power to act have the resources to do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Yes, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I just want to say that although there's an expectation that we may not vote for all the amendments that come from the opposition or the Green Party, like Mr. Fraser, I struggled with this one as well, but I have to reiterate what I said earlier. Point one is that all the vessel owners, as the staff said and confirmed, remain liable under the wreck removal convention regardless of the size of the vessel. Point two is about the consultations that specifically took place with insurers. There's a reality attached to that. Point three, again, is that although there's mixed messaging, I'm hearing there's still an implication—albeit, not what size that implication is—on taxpayers, a negative implication.

With those said, Madam Chair, I simply can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Shall amendment PV-1 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 24 agreed to)

(Clauses 25 to 31 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 32)

We have amendment NDP-3.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

We had some evidence from witnesses at committee that two years is an unreasonably long period of time for any community or the Coast Guard to monitor a vessel. The Washington state model is a 90-day period within any 365-day period. To be able to deal with the backlog, to be able to take quick action, my proposed amendment is to have action happen when a vessel is unattended for a period of 90 consecutive days, as opposed to the two years that is right now in the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I expect we may end up in a similar place with our comments here, coming from the same part of the world.

I am curious to hear the magic behind why two years exists. On the flip side of that equation, I know of boats at home that have been sitting around for more than 90 days that would be captured by this. I would suggest that if two years is unreasonably long, 90 days would be unreasonably short given the circumstances I'm dealing with at home. There are people who have boats that are in good shape, that they want to leave there, and that might be caught here.

I am curious as to why two years is the magic number on the flip side of that token.

[Ellen Burack]

I guess I'd say a few things. Two years was selected in part because in the Navigation Protection Act, there was a two-year presumption as well. The very important difference in this case is that never before Bill C-64 would there have been an actual prohibition on abandonment. That was more of a process question, to be able to act on the vessel, whereas now there's the prohibition associated with it.

The 90 days was considered to be not long enough given that it's quite normal for vessel owners to leave their vessel unattended but not abandoned for at least a season. The length of a boating season varies across the country, so the choice was made to stick with the two years. Of course, there's the possibility over time to adjust that, if evidence suggests that's too long.

It doesn't change the fact that if there's evidence of abandonment, you don't have to wait two years. When there's evidence that a vessel has been abandoned, that can be dealt with immediately. It's also important to remember that the prohibition on abandonment is only one of the ways in which this legislation enables action. There's also the prohibition on a dilapidated vessel being in the same location for more than 60 days without the approval of the owner or operator of the site, or on a vessel being adrift for more than 48 hours. There are other things that allow you to act quickly in specific circumstances and, more generally, if there's evidence of abandonment, it can happen at any time. The two years was chosen as the starting point for the presumption of abandonment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Jordan.

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

My comments are similar to those of my colleague Mr. Fraser. It would not be unusual for someone to come to their cottage or their summer place in my riding, put their boat in the water in April, and then not come back until September. That doesn't mean the vessel is abandoned. My concern with this is that I feel 90 days is just way too short. I appreciate the comments on where the two years came from, because that was also one of my questions.

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

I'll flag that Washington state's abandoned vessel program uses 90 days. They've had their legislation in place since 2003 and have amended it several times, so they haven't found that this is a barrier. That said, two years does seem like a really long time. Communities have been waiting a long time already. If anybody has any other date suggestions that cut the difference, it would be great if we could get some change on that.

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

I recognize—and, Madam Chair, you're probably going to have to point this out soon anyway—that if Sheila Malcolmson's amendment NDP-3 is defeated, my Green Party-2 will also be since it is identical.

I drew up this amendment for 90 days from the testimony of the Ladysmith Maritime Society. It may be that down the road we will need to think in terms of regulations that are specific to the coastal situations we face.

I used to live there. I know exactly what our winters are like. There's not a recreational vessel left abandoned on the coast of Nova Scotia that's there in the spring. They're gone. But in the Gulf Islands, those fibreglass vessels just hang around; they build up; and they become dilapidated. They become refuges for the homeless. We have a housing crisis that leads people to live in unsafe, derelict vessels, and they're not only eyesores, they're dangerous.

I know my amendment will go down to defeat, as Sheila's will. There's always a chance hers is going to pass, and we'll be surprised, but if hers goes down, mine won't be votable, so I just wanted to say to please keep in mind as we go through this legislation that maybe we need to distinguish the regimes so that they're site-specific, as Washington state does. It works there. It works for them. Ninety consecutive days out of any 365-day period works for Washington. It might not work for Nova Scotia, so let's keep this in mind as the legislation is road-tested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thanks very much, all of you.

For the information of the committee, if NDP-3 is adopted, Ms. May's PV-2 cannot be moved. If NDP-3 is defeated, PV-2 is also defeated. We'll ask for a recorded vote on NDP-3.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)

It does not carry and, therefore, PV-2, as Ms. May pointed out....

Thank you for joining us, Ms. May.

Shall clause 32 carry?

(Clause 32 agreed to)

(Clauses 33 to 44 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 45)

Next is amendment G-2.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm happy to move government amendment number two.

Perhaps I'll save the officials some time. This is a pretty simple and straightforward one. Every other time, the legislation refers to “a vessel or wreck”, but this line simply refers to “a wreck”. This one would have this provision being consistent with the rest of the legislation. It was, to my understanding, an oversight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there further comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 45 carry as amended?

(Clause 45 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 46 to 56 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 57)

Ms. Malcolmson, would you like to speak to NDP-4?

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

This one must be easy for everybody to say yes to, because the minister already said yes to it. Whether the witnesses were from the West Coast Environmental Law Association, the Sunshine Coast Regional District board, the Islands Trust council, or Ladysmith Maritime Society, we've heard all of them ask why we cannot have one lead agency that is the filter through which any abandoned vessel complaint or concern goes through, understanding that in many cases there will be different government departments that would internally take responsibility, but there would be one-stop shopping. As an example, one of our witnesses asked why they can't just phone 1-800-receive-a-wreck.

This was the legislation that my predecessor, Jean Crowder, brought forward in the House. The Liberal government, when they were the third party, unanimously voted in support of it. The Conservatives, unfortunately, defeated it. I brought it into my legislation, Bill C-352, and then the the minister said, yes, if you go to the website now, if you look at our new organization tables, in fact you will see that the Coast Guard now is going to be the public interface.

I think that's a win for coastal communities. I'd love to see it reflected in this legislation. Again, it doesn't mean that the Coast Guard is the cleanup crew, but it is the single point of contact: if you think there's a concern with an abandoned vessel, you go through the legislation. That's what we heard from the minister in his testimony before the committee. If we could get this reflected in this bill, that would be an even better win for coastal communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Jordan.