Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

[Marc Sanderson]

One of the intentions of the legislation is to create a system whereby the owner understands the responsibility and takes the necessary action in the case of a hazard or a wreck resulting from a maritime casualty. Having discretionary power for either minister, their officials, and other designates and delegates ensures that all information available is taken into consideration in the determination of what must take place. Vessel owners need the opportunity to act if possible. The minister has the discretion. If the minister needs to act, that discretion exists. Discretion not to act by anybody is not necessarily the connotation that I understand from “may” that you're mentioning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote for future votes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes. Do you mean for all of the future votes or for the amendments? It's for all of the amendments. Okay.

Shall clause 22 carry?

Would the clerk please do a recorded vote?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have a a point of order. I'd like clarification.

Are we going to do a recorded vote on everything from this time forward, or are we just doing the amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Malcolmson has asked for a recorded vote on just the amendments.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It should be amendment by amendment.

I suspect that she should identify that before the amendment vote and not blanket it right across the entire report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

She's asked for that on the amendments.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I don't have to agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You don't have to agree, but it is her right to ask for a recorded vote on the amendments. It's her right to ask for it.

From here on in, it will be only on the amendments, not on the others that are being grouped. It's just on the amendments.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. I just want clarification, though. She has to ask for every amendment. She can't just blanket a recorded vote on every amendment when it's Green, Liberal Party, or our amendment. She has to ask before the vote on that particular amendment at that particular time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

We are about to vote on clause 22. We have already voted down the amendment. Now we're voting on clause 22.

All those in favour of clause 22, please raise your hand. Okay, it will start after clause 22.

(Clause 22 agreed to)

(Clause 23 agreed to)

(On clause 24)

Ms. May, would you like to speak to PV-1?

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

I do apologize to all of you, but when every single committee passed the same language that was used in the previous government to require me to show up at every committee at clause-by-clause if I had an intention to amend a bill—which is not expanding my rights but actually shrinking them, because otherwise I would have had the right to put these amendments forward at report stage—I made a pledge to myself. I put on the record my objections to the process in which every single committee has passed identical motions that substantially increase my already fairly serious workload.

However, I now am happy to address my amendment. As you all will know, because you passed said motion, my amendments are deemed to have been tabled. Because I'm not a member of the committee, I can't table them. My amendment is deemed to have been tabled, but I won't be able to vote on it. I can speak to it.

I appreciate the work done on this. I'm so grateful to Bernadette Jordan for her motion. I know that Sheila has done a ton of work on derelict vessels. I'm very grateful to Karen, the parliamentary secretary, for her work. This is a good piece of legislation, but it can be better. One of the things we heard from a lot of witnesses was that one way it could be better would be to have the bill apply to more vessels that would have a mandatory requirement to carry insurance. As it stands right now, it's only going to be the really large vessels of 300 gross tonnage and more—which we catch under the Nairobi treaty anyway—that we're going to require to carry insurance.

I looked at what kinds of additional requirements for insurance are found in other countries. As well, my thanks to parliamentary library research, which has been very helpful in looking at what's required around the world. When you look at Denmark, you find that they have taken the requirements of the Nairobi convention and of course have made them tougher. They've gone to 20 metric tons...I mean 20 gross tons, rather—I'm so used to carbon dioxide equivalents—for Danish ships. They must be required, if they're 20 gross tons, to carry insurance requirements. According to Transport Canada's information, if this were applied to Canadian vessels, it would mean a further 10,000 vessels would be required to maintain wreck removal insurance.

I think this would assist the bill in its robustness. I think it would ensure that we wouldn't have cases where the Government of Canada ends up having to fork out. We'd be able to find the vessels more quickly. We'd know who owns them because their insurance would have to be up to date. This is an entirely sensible amendment that is in the spirit of and in keeping with the intent of this legislation.

I hope the committee will seriously consider passing this amendment so as to improve the scope of the bill and the mandatory requirements that vessel owners are responsible and that they take responsibility by maintaining a level of wreck removal insurance on any vessel of 20 gross ton or more.

I think that suffices to explain my amendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. May

Ms. Jordan.

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

I want to thank Ms. May for the amendment and for her thoughtful work on this legislation as well.

I'll be honest. I struggled with this one, Ms. May, because I understand where you're coming from. However, I cannot support the amendment, simply because of the ability of small vessel business owners who operate in my riding and the adverse effect that this could have on fishers and the communities that support them.... I'm very concerned that the additional insurance costs would adversely affect the fishers in my community, of which I have very many.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I have two questions for staff. One, do all vessel owners remain liable under the wreck removal convention regardless of the size of the vessel? Two, on the same theme that I was outlining earlier, albeit that there may have been a perceived clarification needed, what would be the impact on the taxpayers if in fact this amendment were passed?

[Marc-Yves Bertin, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

To answer the first question, it bears repeating that all vessel owners do in fact remain liable under the wreck removal convention, regardless of the size of the vessel.

With respect to the issue of the burden on the taxpayers, I think the honourable member, the leader of the Green Party, spoke appropriately in correcting the facts on that one. This would not in principle affect the taxpayers' bottom line.

That said, this amendment would put Canada out of step with 41 other countries that are signatories to this convention, including Denmark, which has looked at 20, but has not moved on that issue. Further, there is no compulsory insurance requirement of any kind on small vessels under 300 gross tons, and our consultations with insurers suggest that the market may not be available for them to acquire such insurance. Therefore, to the point made by the member previously, this could indeed have implications for small operators, whether they're in the fishing sector or the tourism sector, and therefore would have implications for local economies.

Lastly, I would say that compulsory wreck removal insurance and focusing on it would in fact prioritize wreck removal costs over other types of losses, such as loss of life and other types of damages. That's a consideration to keep in mind.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may, Madam Chair, in regard to the question and of course to the clarification, I'll say to the honourable member across that I stand corrected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Mr. Hardie and Mr. Fraser with questions.

[Marc-Yves Bertin]

I'm sorry, but if I could just add...? In fact, from a certification perspective and the requirements to issue certificates, if we are in fact moving towards a lower threshold and if we were to do that, you're quite right in pointing out that there would be an administrative burden—a sizable administrative burden—on the department to execute on that.

My apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

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

I believe that Washington state has instituted something whereby there is an annual levy of some sort, right down to and including recreational boat owners, which creates a fund that can be used to clean up boats that have been otherwise abandoned.

Is there an opportunity in the regulation-setting process that will accompany this legislation to perhaps introduce that notion?

[Ellen Burack]

Part of the national strategy on abandoned vessels that was announced as part of the oceans protection plan is precisely to look at owner-financed funds, both for large vessels and for small vessels. The modalities of doing that have yet to be determined, but discussions are under way with the provinces and territories and others about how best to set up those types of funds. It may well be a regulatory approach under this legislation, but that is still to be determined.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Fraser.