House of Commons Hansard #208 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pipelines.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Perhaps the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London would like to clarify which way he is intending to vote.
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting against this.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I thought now would be an appropriate time for me to designate Friday, May 8, as an allotted day.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
It being 6:46 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-638, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (wreck), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for bringing Bill C-638 to the House of Commons. It is an important bill. It addresses an important series of issues. I will take a few minutes to explain for Canadians who are following the proceedings around this debate.
It is our view in the Liberal Party of Canada that a federal government has to show leadership in an area that crosses jurisdictions that involve such a variety of important issues.
In my remarks I want to also acknowledge the incredibly good work that my colleague, the Liberal member for Cardigan, is doing as a long-time supporter of action in this area and as someone we look to in our own caucus for leadership when it comes to issues around ports and waterways and of course, ocean policy, as a long-time fisheries critic.
The bill deals with the challenge of derelict and abandoned vessels, which are a very serious concern for our shorelines, harbour authorities, property owners, communities, and orders of government. They can create real problems in our waterways. They can cost all kinds of money in terms of having them repaired or removed. They create obstacles in our waterways. There are of course the implicit and explicit environmental issues that surround this question of abandoned derelict vessels.
This is also an expensive issue for Canada, and it is not one that is going away. There are 2.6 million pleasure craft licensed in Canada today. This is a problem that is not going away. The order of magnitude is simply growing.
There is a financial burden that is falling on community organizations, on municipal and provincial governments, and even on property owners.
One of the problems we see when we look at what the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is trying to address in the bill, which we support, is the issue of who is in charge. It seems like everybody's job is nobody's job when it comes to this important issue, which is on both the west coast and the east coast and which I am sure is in play as well when it comes to our northernmost shorelines.
It is important to clarify which agency, order of government, or body is in charge of different situations. We need to make sure that we identify all possible measures that can be taken to identify and locate the owners of the wrecks, for example. Confusion reigns in this area.
Sometimes it is Transport Canada. The Minister of Transport can become involved if a vessel is causing obstruction or is blocking navigation, for example. Other times it is the Canadian Coast Guard, when it is called in to deal with threats around pollution, as we saw recently on the west coast of Canada in another episode. The Coast Guard was dispatched to play a role when there was a major leak. Of course, it is in a position to recover the cost of its expenses to deal with that pollution from the ship source oil pollution fund. The problem is that once the pollution has been dealt with and the sources of the pollution have been dealt with, the Coast Guard does not have the authority itself to then move and deal with the derelict vessel, the abandoned vessel, the problem vessel, and this is a real situation for so many of our harbours around the country.
Then again, if this abandoned or derelict vessel, this problem vessel, as I might describe it, is not a major environmental concern and is not posing a problem when it comes to navigation, most of the time there is no action taken by the government, and it can remain a real problem.
It is not just because they are eyesores and not just because they affect local residents in one way or another. It is because they could very well be hazardous. They are hazardous for the good folks who administer and run our harbours, the harbour authorities.
They also become very expensive. This is a very expensive proposition for harbours across the entire country. In fact, one of the most powerful voices I have heard in this area is the voice of the National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee. Ben Mabberley, from the National Harbour Authority Advisory Committee, said:
The truth is that one sinking of a derelict vessel at your harbour can bankrupt the harbour authority. It's that simple. We need to find a solution for it. This is going to be an issue right across the country.
He is right. This is a very important issue.
I understand that there was a study done several years ago by the fisheries committee. It was a very important foundational study that examined very carefully this whole question. The report was entitled “Small Craft Harbours: An Essential Infrastructure Managed by and for Fishing Communities”. It dealt with this very issue and specifically recommended that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans make changes, legislative changes in particular, so that the removal of abandoned and derelict vessels from harbours would be facilitated. As a result of that report, frankly nothing has happened. The government has done nothing.
We have just come through a budget cycle. We are still in the midst of it, in fact. There is nothing significant in the budget to deal with this issue as many of our harbour authorities struggle with these particularly expensive problems. It is hard to reconcile that with the fact that at DFO, since the current government has come to power, there has been $1 billion of unspent resources. In our view, that could have been properly applied to provide assistance to these harbour authorities and other parties that are involved in trying to do right by their communities and citizens by taking action. Nothing in the budget was brought to bear to address the specific challenges for our harbours and wharfs when it comes to this issue.
There is still a lingering problem with the fact that harbours themselves do not have the authority, and more importantly, do not have the budget to deal with wrecks and abandoned and derelict vessels. We need legislative changes, because we need to help with the removal of such vessels.
Given the fact that there are 2.6 million pleasure craft licensed in Canada today, with numbers growing and fleets aging, we need a long-term plan. It is something that has been asked for by the committee's report, by harbour authorities, by communities, by municipalities, by stakeholders, by NGOs, and by civil-society actors. People are rightly concerned, and there is no long-term plan to deal with this, after almost a decade of Conservative government.
It requires leadership, and leadership means we have to pull together different orders of government to work together to come up with a plan that allows us to respond to this nationally, as a country.
This bill would go some distance in contributing to legislative improvements, and for that reason we support it. It would help by designating the Canadian Coast Guard the receiver of wrecks and by requiring the receiver of wrecks to take responsible steps to determine and locate the owners of wrecks. That is important. Who owns these things? They cannot simply walk away. They cannot abandon them. There is a responsibility.
The bill would give a new power to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to bring in new regulations that would have to be followed by the owners of the wrecks. They would have to remove, dispose of, or destroy them.
The bill is a positive step. For example, it would require the Minister of Transport to file a report every five years before each House of Parliament, so we would have a better idea with respect to part 7 of the act and the operations it governs.
We think this can be a very powerful next step. It could help to deal with these prohibitively high costs.
Funding will be key. If we are to see any kind of national leadership in this regard, coupled with some of the legislative changes that my colleague from the NDP has brought forward, we can make improvements. However, it does require national leadership, something which heretofore simply has not materialized under the Conservative government.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-638, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (wreck), introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
This bill addresses three wreck-related issues. Canada is known as the country with the longest coastline. This is therefore a important issue for Canada.
First, wrecks compromise navigation safety. Second, when they are abandoned, they can cause environmental damage. Finally, they represent an economic challenge. When these wrecks are located near major tourist hot spots, they can detract from the scenery. I will get into the economic aspect a little later and propose a way we might use these wrecks to benefit the economy.
A boating association estimates that there are 4.3 million boats in Canada. What is more, in November 2012 alone, 240 boats were abandoned. There does not seem to be an accurate count of these wrecks or any monitoring of them. There is a lack of coordination and leadership. The federal government could play this role, since some of these wrecks may be in interprovincial waters or along the coastline. This would be an appropriate role for the federal government.
As has been mentioned, municipal authorities sometimes do not have the necessary resources or technical means to deal with wrecks. The federal government is well positioned to play this coordination and leadership role.
That is a problem, but there are solutions. For example, Washington State changed its system so that the vessel registration fee, whether it be for pleasure craft or other vessels, helps cover salvage costs. The state also made the Department of Natural Resources responsible for administering the program, which allowed it to salvage 500 wrecks. That is an interesting way of dealing with this problem. The federal government could learn from what is being done in the state of Washington.
I would now like to go back in history a little. I am originally from the Bois-Francs region, which was the first area of Quebec to have a recycling program in the 1970s. That was quite some time ago, and I learned the three Rs—reduce, reuse and recycle—very early on.
At the time, there was a visionary named Normand Maurice who said that there was gold in our garbage cans.
Members may be wondering where I am going with this, so I will talk right away about a course I took in agriculture and the environment to become an agronomist. The name of the course was waste resource management, and in our case, we were often talking about manure. These courses were really interesting. What we consider waste, scrap and wrecks are actually resources that are not in the right place. I think everyone can agree that those resources can be used and repurposed.
This bill talks about wrecks. My riding runs along the St. Lawrence River and so the issue of wrecks is very important to me and my constituents in LaSalle—Émard.
How could we salvage these wrecks and repurpose them in a safe, economical and environmentally friendly way? It must not be done in just any old way. We need to do it in an environmentally friendly manner. There is value in those wrecks because they contain metal and other materials that could be salvaged and repurposed.
This is also about job creation, given that 4.3 million currently registered vessels could be salvaged and repurposed, and there are many others. This could create jobs, especially local jobs, and stimulate our economy. This could be a great opportunity to take a wreck, repurpose it, salvage it, and at the same time, do so in an environmentally friendly and economical way. Let me give a couple of examples of these kinds of wrecks.
In the Montreal region, a boat that was more or less abandoned, that did not run, was transformed into a spa. A private company purchased the boat, which is in Montreal's Old Port, and turned it into a spa. Now that is innovative: to take a wreck and turn it into something useful that will not cause environmental problems, something more attractive that will not spoil the tourist landscape, for example. This challenge presents a unique opportunity to make the most of wrecks and take care of them.
As a final point, I would like to talk about a very interesting project. It is a project of the future, a business opportunity with incredible possibilities, because while ships become wrecks, there are also many planes at the end of their life cycles. There is a company called Aerocycle that specializes in dismantling aircraft at the end of their life cycles and recycling the parts. For instance, that company dismantled two Air Transat planes in Mirabel as part of a research project with École Polytechnique in Montreal and the Consortium for Research and Innovation in Aerospace in Québec.
That is how a ship and an aircraft at the end of their life cycle were transformed. They were recycled in an environmentally friendly way, jobs and opportunities were created, and various parts were salvaged and repurposed. This is very worthwhile.
Let us move forward with something that could turn out to be extremely valuable by allowing for the salvage of wrecks and aircraft at the end of their life cycle.
Wladyslaw Lizon Conservative Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-638, which would amend the Canada Shipping Act.
I would like to provide the House with an overview of the current provisions under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, pertaining to wrecks and their cleanup. I would like to speak to the history of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and how it has evolved over the years to further enhance the safety of navigation in the marine environment, and Transport Canada's plan for a proactive solution to the issue of abandoned vessels and wrecks.
As members are aware, Transport Canada's role under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, is vast in nature. The Canada Shipping Act is Canada's principal legislation governing safety in marine transportation and recreational boating, as well as the protection of the marine environment. It applies to Canadian vessels operating in all waters and to all foreign vessels operating in Canadian waters, including recreational boats, cruise ships and large tankers. The act promotes the sustainable growth of the marine shipping industry without compromising safety and is responsive to the needs of Canadians in the global economy.
Transport Canada plays a large role in the administration of the provisions under this act, including the receiver of wreck functions under part 7. In addition, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, represents a greatly updated and streamlined version of the old Canada Shipping Act, including enhanced safety provisions and better protection for the marine environment, with more focus on owner and operator responsibilities, ultimately strengthening the requirements for spill prevention and spill preparedness.
In this vein, Transport Canada continues to work closely with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the administration of the provision under part 8 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, pertaining to ship-source pollution, including prevention and response regimes, in Canadian waters.
As previously stated, the current federal government regime for the removal, disposal and destruction of wrecks in Canadian waterways is Transport Canada's responsibility under the receiver of wreck provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, part 7. The receiver of wreck functions are administered by Transport Canada navigation protection program, which is also responsible for the removal of obstructions to navigation, including wrecks in Canada's major waterways.
It is important to note that under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the receiver of wreck may deal with a wreck, generally speaking, when the owner is unknown and if the person who reported the wreck finds and takes possession of a wreck in Canada, or brings a wreck into Canada. In addition, the role for the receiver of wreck is to try to locate the owners of wrecks within a reasonable time period, which is 30 to 90 days, depending on the circumstances. If, within that period of time, the owner is not known, the receiver of wreck may authorize the removal, disposal or destruction of the wreck by a third party.
Currently, under part 7 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the receiver of wreck assesses each wreck on a case by case basis to determine whether action is required. Due to technical considerations, such as location, depth, size, or condition of the wreck, the most appropriate response may be to leave the wreck in its current location and, if applicable, remove pollution threats.
A review of Bill C-638 raises concerns regarding some of the proposed provisions.
Bill C-638 would require the receiver of wreck to take action on every wreck, including the requirement to take reasonable measures to locate the owner of the wreck, regardless of its location and condition.
Our government understands the importance of the issues surrounding abandoned and wrecked vessels, but the proposed bill focuses solely on the remediation of wrecked vessels and does not include requirements for vessel owners to prevent a vessel from becoming a wreck.
Be assured that Transport Canada has made efforts to research existing programs that deal with derelict and wrecked vessels, including the Washington State derelict vessel removal program. Washington State program officials shared what they learned about their experience in the initial implementation of a remediation program. It was concluded that remediation without prevention can have unintended consequences, such as encouraging vessel owners to abandon their unwanted vessels, relying on the federal government for their disposal.
Today, the program's success is attributed to measures to increase the accountability on the part of the owners of vessels and robust enforcement and engagement with partners.
I would like to reiterate that the Government of Canada recognizes that vessels of concern, including abandoned vessels and/or wrecked vessels, can pose marine navigation hazards, public safety risks, environmental threats and economic costs. In response to this issue, Transport Canada, in partnership with other federal departments such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is currently examining the gaps in the existing system to deal with these types of vessels.
Together, we will build an approach that will focus on prevention. It is important that owners take responsibility for the full life cycle of their vessels. This is why Transport Canada will develop and implement a public outreach strategy targeting vessel owners, advising them about responsible vessel ownership and life cycle management. As mentioned previously, prevention is key in achieving a positive end result.
In closing, the current Canada Shipping Act, 2001 regimes for receiver of wreck and pollution prevention and response continue to effectively deal with those abandoned vessels and wrecks that have an immediate safety and environmental impact. Bill C-638 is intended to address all vessels, including those that do not pose a risk to navigation safety or the environment. The bill would impose mandatory measures to deal with all wrecks at the cost of taxpayers, instead of placing the obligation where it belongs, with vessel owners. It is for these reasons that the government does not support Bill C-638.
We are confident that our government's proactive approach to educate vessel owners on the prevention of abandoned vessels and wrecks will assist in addressing the broader issue of vessels of concern and wrecks in Canadian waterways. Furthermore, we will continue to work with international partners in support of a global vessel life cycle management approach to dealing with wrecks.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-638, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. I want to express my thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her work on the problem of derelict vessels. This is a particular problem around Vancouver Island and in my riding, but also along all of our coasts and, increasingly, in the rivers and lakes across the country.
This is an important issue as more and more derelict vessels are being abandoned. While they may start out as something that people see simply as an eyesore, many go on to become hazards to safety or to the environment. The intention of Bill C-638 is to give the Coast Guard the regulatory power it needs to take action before derelict vessels become problems.
Municipalities, port authorities, regional and provincial governments all want to work with the federal government on an effective system that might include fines and the recovery of costs for removal, but, of course, that is beyond the scope of what a private member's bill can do. However, at the same time, Bill C-638 would preserve the principle that owners are responsible for the costs incurred in damages done by, or in cleanup and disposal of, abandoned vessels. It would not, as some Conservatives have argued, automatically transfer all those costs to the public. What the public does bear is the cost of inaction. Therefore, when these derelict vessels are neglected and ignored, they eventually end up costing all of us damage to our environment, possibly navigation and other safety hazards.
Ideally, Canada would create a derelict vessel removal regime similar to that of our neighbour in Washington state. In Washington state, there is a system that has a fee as part of the annual vessel registration, which helps pay, ultimately, for the costs of removal of derelict vessels. It also makes a single agency, the department of natural resources, responsible for administering the program.
Unfortunately, as I said just a moment ago, this is beyond what a private member's bill can do in the House, because that would require a royal recommendation. However, this bill is an important first step in providing a single agency, the Coast Guard, with the authority to deal with derelict vessels.
My predecessor, as the member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Keith Martin, introduced a similar concept in his Motion No. 554 in June of 2010. This is not a new problem in my riding and one that my predecessor did his best to get the House to recognize. His motion simply expressed the principle that the House support efforts to deter the abandonment of vessels by imposing fines and a regime to make sure that cleanup costs were recovered from the registered owners. It is very consistent with the principles in this private member's bill.
I would also to commend the work of Sheila Malcolmson as chair of the Islands Trust in bringing attention to this problem of derelict vessels. I will say as an aside that she is someone who I hope will be joining us in the House of Commons after the election this fall as she is the NDP candidate in Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
The Islands Trust is a federation of local governments in the Salish Sea off the inner coast of Vancouver Island. It is an area that covers 450 islands and thousands of kilometres of sensitive and scenic coast. Ms. Malcolmson's advocacy resulted in the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities adopting four resolutions in its annual meetings in 2010. These call for action like that suggested in Bill C-638 to fill the gap in our existing regulatory regime.
Here is the problem Bill C-638 is really trying to address. Now Transport Canada is responsible for derelict vessels if, and only if, the abandoned vessel presents a navigational hazard. If such a vessel presents an environmental hazard, then the Coast Guard is responsible, and this presents the obvious problem of overlap, since derelict vessels can present both challenges. However, if there is no immediate navigation or environmental hazard, then no one is responsible. Therefore, derelict vessels that present no immediate hazard for navigation or to the environment may do so in the future as they deteriorate or as storms blow them around the environment. Clearly, leaving these derelict vessels in place does nothing to enhance the very important tourism industry in my riding.
Derelict vessels are problems at both ends of my riding, I have to say.
In the Gorge Waterway, community groups have spent years trying to restore the water quality after decades of industrial use. It is just on the edge of my riding and in an area that I share with the member for Victoria, who has also done a lot of work to try to deal with this problem of derelict vessels. I am happy to say that the Gorge Waterway is now swimmable for the first time in over 70 years and the salmon run has returned. Small numbers in that run so far and very vulnerable, but the salmon are back. Do we want to let derelict vessels undo all the hard work that has been done in this community to restore the water quality, the environmental quality and the salmon run in the Gorge Waterway?
At the eastern end of my riding is Tod Inlet, a beautiful fjord-like body of water with a very interesting ecology due to its great depth combined with very shallow waters at its mouth. This creates a very special environment indeed.
In 2012, more than 20 abandoned vessels were identified in this environmentally sensitive area. This is home, among other species, of B.C. spot prawns that are one of the very successful, sustainable, ocean-wide food sources in our region, again, threatened by derelict vessels.
Some of those have since been removed, but unfortunately, like the old hiker's adage where garbage attracts garbage, derelicts seem to attract derelicts. Somebody has dumped a boat and somebody else sees what a great spot to get away with the same thing.
This is especially true around Saanich Inlet when it is such a short distance from Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo, yet it is relatively secluded and so therefore easy for people to think they can get away with dumping a vessel there.
At the western end of my riding, the District of Sooke has been dealing with the issue of derelict vessels most recently at its January 12 council meeting. The council members, under the leadership of its new mayor, Maja Tait, agreed that they would write to the federal government to lodge a formal complaint about the lack of action in dealing with derelict vessels in the Sooke Basin.
Let me give an example of a challenge that just a single derelict vessel can present to local government. This example is the tugboat Florence Filberg that was built for the U.S. Army in 1944, a 38 metre long boat that served the U.S. Coast Guard for many years. The coast guard decided to sell the boat to Canadian owners and spent $40,000 cleaning up the vessel before selling it.
Unfortunately those Canadian owners moored it in the Sooke Basin and then abandoned it. In 2007, it broke loose from its moorings and wedged itself on a sandbar. Who is responsible for its removal when owners have disappeared? Here is where the legal problem arises which Bill C-638 would fix.
Sooke's jurisdiction of the municipality extends only to the land between high and low watermarks, not the sandbars in the harbour. The B.C. government is only responsible for derelicts that have been tied up to provincial docks.
The federal Coast Guard checked and said since the boat had been cleaned up, there was no environmental hazard. Transport Canada said that since it is on a sandbar, then there is no additional navigation hazard. There it sat for more than four years, an unsightly wreck in the middle of a beautiful harbour, but it also presented additional challenges.
One man actually died exploring this wreck in 2008 and arsonists, some suspect those whose view it was sitting in, tried to remove the vessel in 2009 by setting it on fire, leaving a burnt-out vessel with additional environmental hazards created by the fire.
It was finally removed in 2011 at a cost of over $100,000 in an ingenious deal that Sooke worked out as part of the construction of a new boat launch jointly funded by the federal and provincial governments. This was four years later, at a cost of $100,000 and the death of a citizen for a single derelict vessel. This is one that had previously been cleaned up, $40,000 spent by the coast guard cleaning up the environmental hazard.
I know I am going to run out of time very quickly, but I would say Bill C-638 takes the first step in solving the problem with derelict vessels in Canadian waters. It established that the Coast Guard is the responsible agency, responsible for move and cleanup, but also for finding those owners and making sure the previous owners are held responsible for the cost of abandoning their vessel.
In my riding this would help protect the environment. It would help protect marine safety. It would help protect fishing grounds and recreation. It would help protect the natural landscape and seascapes that are the basis of our very important sustainable tourism industry.
For that reason, I am a very strong supporter of Bill C-638. Once again, thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her very important work on this private member's bill.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-638, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, brought forward by the member from Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Our government is committed to the safety of mariners and the protection of the marine environment. We have ensured that responders are able to take action when dealing with the unique condition each wrecked vessel presents. The management of wrecks is certainly an important item. However, the private member's bill we are discussing today is unfortunately flawed in its approach to the management of wrecks.
I will use my time today to highlight the fact that the proposed amendments to the act from this bill will not result in an improved approach to managing vessels of concern. In fact, due to the new mandatory actions and the lack of owner responsibility contained in this bill, these changes could instead hinder Canada's management of these kinds of vessels.
As the member's bill proposes changes that will also impact the Canadian Coast Guard, I will also take this opportunity to inform the House on how the current system addresses environmental concerns from ships.
The Canada Shipping Act authorizes the Minister of Transport to designate persons or classes of persons as receivers of wreck. Bill C-638 proposes to make significant changes to part 7 of this act.
Currently, employees of Transport Canada are designated as receivers of wreck under the act. This bill proposes to expand this power to also designate the Canadian Coast Guard as a receiver of wreck as well. The Canadian Coast Guard's objective is to keep our waterways safe and accessible across the country. The brave men and women of the Coast Guard save the lives of countless boaters and sailors through search and rescue missions. Our fleet provides icebreaking services to keep commercial traffic and ferries moving across Canada. In the north, the Coast Guard delivers vital supplies to isolated communities.
The Coast Guard is currently the lead federal agency for all marine pollution from ships or mystery sources in Canadian waters.
When it comes to environmental response from the Canadian Coast Guard, our government has taken real action to protect Canadians and the environment. We have ensured that the Canadian Coast Guard has the capacity to respond quickly to marine pollution incidents across Canada. For example, the Coast Guard has official environmental response managers located across the country, in addition to approximately 80 equipment depots nationwide.
The Coast Guard is involved in all aspects of a response, actively engaging with its partners and stakeholders. Through this program, the Coast Guard's environmental response regime is world-class and ensures safe and accessible waterways for Canadians. When a ship is determined to be an environmental threat, the Coast Guard is there to protect our rivers and oceans. Responders consider the best course of action to address the threat, keeping sure our waterways are safe and healthy.
This brings me to my first point regarding this bill, which is the proposal to designate the Canadian Coast Guard as a receiver of wreck. The fact is that the Canadian Coast Guard cannot be designated a permanent receiver of wreck. Under federal legislation the Coast Guard is not a separate legal entity in and of itself. It is considered part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Therefore, the Canadian Coast Guard, as an organization, cannot be a receiver of wreck or make regulations regarding their management.
My second concern regarding this bill is that it negatively impacts the ability of responders to determine the best course of action for a vessel. The current legislation allows receivers of wreck to assess each wreck on a case-by-case basis. This gives them the ability to determine the right course of action, depending on the realities on the ground. This is important to safeguard the ability of the responders to do a thorough risk assessment in order to understand the condition of the vessel, and to determine the best action to take. Each wreck is a different case, each with its own unique considerations. The reality is that these situations demand a tailor-made response. As this bill lacks a mechanism for responding to the most serious situations, it may cause responders to divert their attention and resources from more pressing vessels.
These amendments call for a sweeping change that would not address the real issue that many of these vessels are abandoned or uncared for in the first place.
That brings me to my next point. The bill does not require any additional responsibility to be borne by the vessel owners. The bill only focuses on the removal, disposal, or destruction of wrecked vessels. It does not include any requirements for vessel owners to prevent a ship from becoming a wreck or falling into disrepair.
It is important for there to be a balance between mandated government action and personal responsibility, the absence of which would cause the Canadian taxpayer to become the collector of wrecks. This bill does not contain much-needed additional requirements.
Without consideration of the obligation of vessels owners to mind their ships, this change could attract those who no longer want their vessels.
In conclusion, I cannot support this bill. It is flawed in its drafting regarding designating the Coast Guard organization. It mandates new obligations while not considering the unique conditions of these vessels. Finally, it does not offer any new requirements on owners for keeping their boats in good order to begin with.
The management of wrecks is an important discussion to have; however, this bill would not achieve results for Canadians. These sweeping changes would not result in better services for Canadians or improve protection of the environment.
For the reasons I have discussed this evening, I ask that members of this House join with me in opposing the bill.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
I have to advise the member that he will only have eight minutes for his speech, in order to be able to give the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan her five minutes of reply.
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill at second reading. This is an important issue for the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges who live along the shores of Lac Saint-Louis and Lac Saint-François, where a wreck, the Kathryn Spirit, recently sat.
Lac Saint-Louis is located at the confluence of the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa River. In the past 40 years, a number of developments have posed a threat to the health of our lakes. These threats to our rivers and lakes include very worn pipelines and urban sprawl. Wrecks are another threat to our lakes and rivers. A wreck is very likely to pose a threat to safety and the environment sooner or later.
I have already mentioned the wreck of the Kathryn Spirit, which is a real-life example of why this bill is needed. This ship was built in 1967. In 2011 it was decided that the ship would be scrapped and that it would be dismantled in the Beauharnois region. The mayor of Beauharnois opposed the idea of dismantling the ship in Beauharnois, and the city managed to block the work. However, the wreck remained where it was from 2012 to the end of 2014. It was discovered that the ship had leaked oil into the waterway, and the mayor of Beauharnois, Mr. Haineault, wanted the federal government to intervene. He was the mayor of a municipality and this issue did not fall under his jurisdiction since the ship was in federal waters. The federal government did not take action.
We are choosing to take action this evening by way of this bill.
This bill would give the Canadian Coast Guard the regulatory power it needs to take action before a derelict vessel becomes a problem. If this bill had been around in 2012, the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges and Beauharnois—Salaberry would not have been frustrated by the federal government's inaction. This bill would have given them some tools.
This is what the mayor of Beauharnois had to say:
Quebec's most precious resource is the beauty of the St. Lawrence. We have to protect that. Allowing this type of activity makes no sense.
We will not create a better future by working in isolation; we have to work together. The time to act is now. Municipalities, port authorities, regional authorities and provincial governments want to help the federal government develop a more robust regime that includes fines and removal costs. A regime like that cannot come from a private member's bill.
It is time that the government acted in the interest of citizens living in coastal regions. What the Conservatives have done and have in place right now simply is not working.
The Kathryn Spirit in Beauharnois is proof of the system not working. Years and years have passed while the Kathryn Spirit has menaced the environment. The wreck has been floating for more than three years in the waters of Lake Saint-Louis and its deterioration poses a threat to the environment, biodiversity of the watershed and the health of local residents. The boat's owner delayed work to get the ship back afloat and continued to delay the process. Meanwhile, the federal government did nothing. The Conservatives abdicated their responsibilities.
The member from the government side referenced the Canada Shipping Act. Well, in this case, the federal government did not use that authority to have the owner remove the boat that was clearly posing a risk to the environment and the health of the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lac-Saint-Louis and all of the communities downstream along the St. Lawrence River.
The Conservatives need to take action. It is disappointing to see that they do not intend to support this bill from the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
I am proud to have lived in the member's riding for a short time, in 1989 and 1990. I also worked in the riding of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca at the repair and disposal facility at the naval base in 1992 when I was a summer student. I know the people of their ridings are looking for solutions to deal with derelict vessels.
The Kathryn Spirit is one example of a wreck in my riding where the federal government did not act to have it removed, and it was posing a threat. There are many other examples of derelict vessels across the country.
In the riding of the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, there was the sinking of the SS Beaver in Cowichan Bay. As reported in an article, pollution from the ship leaked into the bay and the Coast Guard was called to the scene. The article mentions support for Bill C-231, which is now Bill C-638, to eliminate the jurisdictional confusion related to the responsibility for derelict vessels.
There needs to be a bit of clarity here in the regime that we have in place, obviously. Just in listening to the members across the way explain in their speeches that the regime is clear and efficient, I was confused about it. I could not really make sense of it. If it is difficult for a member who is very familiar with legal terms and jurisdictions to try to figure out the regime that is in place, think of what it would be like for a mayor of a small or medium-sized town to try to navigate the labyrinth that is the current regime which is in place.
The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has developed an excellent, clear proposal, which I think would give the tools to municipalities and regional governing bodies to deal with wrecks. We would like to see a derelict vessel regime similar to that of Washington State, which I think has been mentioned a few times in the debate tonight, to deal with this growing problem of abandoned boats in our waterways.
Our waterways are a legacy that we pass down to our children. We have to keep them clean. We have to keep them healthy. We would like to see the biodiversity in them continue. This private member's bill is just the first step of a new regime that is needed.
I am sure that in October we will flesh this out once we become government after the next election. We will have a regime in place that will provide a clear authority for who should deal with derelict vessels.
Even though I have heard members across the way say that they oppose the bill, we hope that they will listen to the voices from the coastal areas in Canada. These are people who are asking for action on the problem of aging fleets, the lack of recycling facilities for fibreglass, and a desire to protect waterways from potential environmental or safety concerns so that we can pass on this legacy to our children.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging many of my colleagues and also members from the Liberal Party who are speaking up in support of this important piece of legislation. I have to admit to feeling some frustration after listening to the Conservatives outline a program that is clearly not working. If it were working, I would not have to stand here in this House and propose a piece of legislation to deal with the problem.
Throughout Canada there are hundreds of derelict vessels, both on coastal waterways and on inland waterways, and this is a problem for many members in this House from coast to coast to coast. I am baffled as to why the Conservatives will not support this first step, and I acknowledge it is a first step. In my brief period of time I want to tackle a couple of concerns that they raise.
First, there seems to be four main areas where the Conservatives say they cannot support the bill. The first one, they say, is that this would force the Coast Guard to deal with every derelict vessel, which would adversely affect their operational capacity. If they had read the bill, they would understand that I included a provision that would allow the minister to set out in regulations the circumstances where the receiver of wreck was not obligated to take measures to deal with a derelict vessel. By doing so under the regulatory process, that would allow the public to have a say in when they think vessels should be dealt with by the government.
Clearly, the intention of the bill is not to have the receiver of wreck, the Coast Guard, deal with absolutely every derelict vessel, but we already know the problems that provincial governments and municipalities are having, which has been ably outlined by members like the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, how difficult and complex it is for other levels of government to deal with this and that we do need some clear definitions about when a derelict vessel needs to be apprehended.
Second, the Conservatives say that the Coast Guard is not a stand-alone department. It is part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, so it cannot be made a permanent receiver of wreck.
Actually, under the act and the regulations as they currently stand, the minister can designate any entity or individual as a receiver of wreck. The status as a stand-alone entity does not matter because the power to designate still resides with the minister. The bill does not change the ability to have the minister designate a receiver of wreck.
Third, the Conservatives are claiming that the cost of dealing with derelict vessels will now be borne by the government and ultimately by the taxpayer. That is nonsense. We have already seen that the government is already having to pick up expenses. Again, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca pointed out the $40,000 that was spent in cleaning up a vessel, and then an additional $100,000 had to be spent in dealing with the derelict vessel when it had been torched and otherwise dismembered.
Nothing in the bill removes the obligation on the owner of a vessel to pay for its disposal. That is why the receiver of wreck must take all reasonable steps to contact owners before taking action, because those owners are responsible for paying the cost. As currently happens, every effort is made to track down the owners and have them pay for those costs, but we also know there are many cases where it is simply not possible to identify the owner. They are deceased, out of the country or whatever.
It still is incumbent upon the owners to be responsible. If we wait for all derelict vessels to become navigational or environmental hazards, the cost of dealing with them goes up. Again, we have seen that in cases. The longer a vessel remains derelict, the more costly it becomes to remove it. By giving a receiver of wreck the ability to contact the owner upon observing a wreck, this legislation may help prevent vessels deteriorating to such a point that the removal or disposal becomes a costly burden.
Finally, the government is proposing a public relations exercise that will tell owners about their responsibilities. I have to say, many owners already recognize that there is a life cycle issue with vessels, but part of the problem is, there is nowhere to recycle these older vessels. Again, my colleagues have pointed out, there is actually a business opportunity in recycling these vessels.
I am hoping that some members of the government will recognize that these derelict vessels are serious problems in their own riding and that they will actually have the courage to stand up and support Bill C-638 so that we could take the very important first step in dealing with a problem that the government has ignored for the 11 years that I have been elected.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, we Canadians are getting older. The percentage of Canada's population over 65 has nearly doubled since the early 1970s. As our population ages, the strains on our health care system continue to grow.
Dealing with this situation will not be easy. In response to my question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health spoke about innovation. Innovation is exactly what Canada's health care system needs, but it is not what we are getting from the Conservatives.
The Conservative approach to dealing with Canada's health problems has been to evade and download the issue onto the provinces and pray that the costs will somehow get better. The Conservatives refuse to plan ahead.
In Thunder Bay—Superior North, our seniors are being stacked up in temporary cots in hospital hallways due to a lack of beds. Our system is overburdened by inadequate federal funding and a total lack of long-term planning. Canada is the only country is the G20 with no national health care strategy. As Canada's population gets older, our health care woes will only get worse if we do not start making some serious plans and start taking action. We must invest in long-term solutions for our health care system.
Continuing care is now, incredibly, excluded from the Canada Health Act, if members can imagine. In contrast, Nordic and European countries have long-standing public, comprehensive, universal and tax financed continuing care programs.
Chronic disease management programs require a multidisciplinary approach designed to encourage adherence to medications and lifestyle changes, and promote prevention and patient self-management. Such programs can reduce complications, avoid costly readmissions to the hospital, and improve survival and quality of life.
The federal government needs to stop forcing those who need long-term care onto emergency facilities that are not designed and are not equipped to deal with their needs. Up to 90% of seniors deal with at least one chronic disease. Treating those diseases amounts to 67%, or two thirds, of all health care costs. On any given day, patients approved for hospital discharge who cannot access appropriate post-hospital care occupy about 7,500 beds across Canada.
The government needs to develop a national health care strategy with a focus on dealing with chronic diseases through investment in preventative, long-term and home care. There is a huge shortage of long-term care facilities in Canada and, as we get older, demand is only going to go up. Many provincial governments have recognized the need for these facilities and have begun investing in them. The Conservative federal government needs to step up and join them.
Investing in home-based care is a very practical strategy. An astonishing 13 million Canadians already provide some kind of home-based care to their own family members or friends with long-term illnesses. Some 96% of Canadians support public policy changes that would allow seniors to age in their homes, while receiving effective home-based care from professionals. The Canadian Nurses Association, as well as numerous health care experts from across Canada, have advocated heavily for long-term and home-based care.
Every time someone cannot find a room in a long-term care facility and is forced to go into a hospital, they are costing taxpayers. A hospital bed costs the taxpayer 6 times what a long-term care bed costs, and about 20 times what home care costs.
When will the government listen to the experts and invest in long-term care strategies that work and dramatically lower costs in the long run?
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the hon. member's comments regarding the performance of Canada's health care system in the face of an aging population and changing health care needs
Our government is committed to a publicly funded, universally accessible health care system. While provinces and territories have primary responsibility for delivering health care, federally, we will continue to provide significant support through fiscal transfers as well as targeted initiatives to foster improvement in critical areas.
Since taking office, our government has increased the Canada health transfer by almost 70%. Federal health transfers to provinces and territories are at an all-time high, on track to increase from $34 billion in 2015-16 to more than $40 billion annually by the end of the decade. This represents a record investment that provides the provinces and territories with the financial predictability and flexibility to respond to priorities and pressures in their respective jurisdictions. For example, this funding enables them to further develop their own home care and long-term care programs and services to respond to the unique needs of their senior populations.
Our government is committed to the health, well-being and quality of life of Canada's seniors and recognizes the importance of home care and long-term care as an effective means of delivering the type of care required, while reducing unnecessary pressure on hospitals. We recognize that many older adults would prefer to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. That is why budget 2013 announced expanded tax relief for home care, including services such as bathing, feeding and other personal care.
However, we also know that money alone is not going to enable our health care system to address the complex challenges posed by an aging population, increasing rates of chronic disease and slower economic growth. We know it is also important to explore innovation so Canada's health care system can adapt to this new reality, continuing to provide the quality care that Canadians expect over the long term.
The Government of Canada is the single largest investor in health care innovation, with more than $1 billion invested annually to support health research, knowledge development and positive change. For example, through budget 2015, we will enhance our ongoing support of Canada's strategy for patient-oriented research, or SPOR, increasing our investment by $13 million for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to expand this initiative. SPOR aims to align research, innovation and health systems to ensure that patients receive the right treatment at the right time.
Looking forward, we are committed to working with provinces, territories and stakeholders to strengthen Canada's health care system for all generations through research and innovation.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, our hospitals are not intended or well equipped to deal with preventing and treating chronic diseases. The government's lack of planning is forcing us to ship our seniors off to overcrowded and expensive emergency care facilities instead of providing them with appropriate long-term care. We must invest in long-term care and home-based care for seniors in Thunder Bay—Superior North and across Canada, partly in order to free up acute care beds in the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre.
Investing now will save the taxpayers billions of dollars in the long run. If the government truly believes in innovative policy, then when will it start investing in it? The feds and the provinces used to each pay 50% for health care costs. Today, the federal share is less than one half of that. When will we see some adequate funding? When will we see some real, evidence-based health care policies for Canada?
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to expand on our government's commitment to innovation in long-term care and preventative health care.
One example is economic action plan 2012. It provided $6.5 million over three years for a research project at McMaster University to explore how the use of technology in primary health care could improve continuity and cost effectiveness of care, particularly for at-risk seniors. In budget 2013, we also announced $3 million in funding to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training in palliative care to front-line health care providers.
To summarize, our government is committed to Canada's system of publicly funded health care and improving care to seniors. We have placed health transfers on a sustainable and predictable growth path, and we will continue our investments in research and innovation in partnership with the provinces, territories and stakeholders.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the sad and seemingly inevitable events we witness every winter is an inordinate number of house fires on first nations that take people's lives. Often the lives lost are those of people who have been sacrificed due to the absence of a regulatory regime for fire services and inspections in first nations, which means there are no minimum requirements to be met.
The problems with fire services are only compounded by the persistent, and one could argue permanent, lack of suitable housing available on first nations. For too many of these communities the lack of adequate housing means that overcrowding only complicates the matter. In addition to the many health-related problems that arise from overcrowding, there are also risks related to fire safety. Crowded houses that are not built to be fire safe in the first place are then heated with rudimentary wood stoves, which result in the same sad headlines every winter.
It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different response. That is exactly what the government is doing. Either it is satisfied with runaway statistics that make house fires on first nations that much more deadly, or it is fooling itself that the federal response to the problem is adequate. The fact is that fire deaths are ten times more likely to happen on first nations than they are in other communities, which indicates there is a real problem with the government's approach.
When the Conservatives were elected, they liked to say that they would do things differently than the Liberals did, but apparently that does not extend to the 2% funding cap for first nations, which is at the heart of so many challenges on reserves across the country. It is responsible for getting nowhere on chronic problems, like those related to education, housing, and what we are discussing tonight, firefighting services.
The refusal to remove the 2% cap only handcuffs communities. Those that are lucky enough to have a fire crew are forced to respond with equipment that is old and outdated. That is because the money the government does allocate for fighting fires on first nations is a drop in the bucket when one considers how far $26.3 million goes once it is divided among more than 600 communities.
For the sake of an example, consider the situation on the Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation in Saskatchewan, where a fire this winter took the lives of two children. While that community does have a working fire truck, what it does not have is proper equipment or a crew with the training to use it. It had an agreement for fire services with the nearby community of Loon Lake, but that agreement had been cut by Loon Lake over non-payment of bills by the first nation, so when the call went out for the emergency on the reserve, the police responded to the 911 call and the fire crew did not. As one can imagine, this created friction between the communities that was totally avoidable, and the government could have avoided the problem altogether if it had chosen to fund first nation firefighting services to the level of need.
It is a matter of making the lives of people on first nations a priority instead of an afterthought. Therefore, I ask, will the government recognize this crisis and work with these communities so they get the protection they need and deserve, or will the government continue to turn a blind eye and continue to put people at risk?
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, of course the health and safety of first nation communities is a priority for our government. Our government is committed to supporting first nations and to providing community services on reserves that are comparable to the level of services available to non-first nation communities. This principle certainly applies to fire protection as well.
To ensure that first nations receive the same level of support for fire protection as non-aboriginal communities, our government will continue to provide funding to first nations for fire prevention and will work with willing partners to raise awareness of simple and cost-effective prevention and mitigation strategies. To that end, our government provides an average of approximately $26 million annually for fire protection. These funds are managed by first nations and are used to finance equipment and infrastructure, operation and maintenance of fire protection equipment, and firefighter training. This funding is provided directly to the first nations, which are given the authority to decide how to best use these resources to protect their communities. Funding is provided to first nations on an annual basis to prioritize their spending to meet the needs of their communities, including fire protection services.
Everyone has an important role to play in fire prevention. We all play a role in ensuring that all homes and families are prepared in the event of a fire and to ensuring that first nations have the tools they need to keep their communities safe.
Raising awareness about the importance of fire safety and prevention throughout the year is an important part of our government's efforts to prevent fires and fire-related injuries in first nation communities. Our government and the Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada have teamed up for the national year-round “BeFireSafe” awareness campaign. The “BeFireSafe” campaign features a series of seasonal fire prevention and safety tips that are promoted through radio features, various social media, and websites. The focus is to highlight the importance of fire prevention throughout the year, both inside and outside the home, with the aim of reducing fire-related deaths, injuries, and damages.
Raising the level of awareness about the need for fire safety in first nation communities is something this government takes seriously. Our government believes that all Canadians deserve to feel safe and secure in their homes, no matter where they live. That is why we are actively working with willing partners to ensure that first nations on reserve across the country meet this rigorous standard.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, first nation communities are willing partners; the government is not.
I include a quote from AFN Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy. He asked, “If there's no fire equipment on First Nations, if there's no reporting requirements for fire protection, if there's no fire inspections, how do you ensure you're meeting some standard to make sure there's safety?”
The answer is that one cannot ensure anything, and at best, one merely hopes all goes well, but statistics prove that things are not going well at all. There is a reason for that, and that is the current level of funding, which is handcuffing first nations who would like to beef up their firefighting capabilities but find that they simply do not have the money to do that. The problem is so bad that no first nation in Ontario has been able to purchase any equipment in three years. If that were happening in other communities across the country, people would be up in arms. The fact that so many of the communities we are discussing are remote only makes the problem more pressing.
First nation lives matter. Will the government do something about the crisis in firefighting capabilities on first nations so that we can put a dent in the number of preventable deaths that are the result of horrible house fires in those communities every winter?
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, our government takes the health and safety of first nation communities very seriously. Our government is supporting first nations to ensure that they have the tools and the education they need to keep their communities safe. That is why we are teaming up with the Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada to raise awareness of potential fire hazards throughout the year.
Our government understands that we all have a role to play in preventing fires on reserve. We know that fire prevention programs in aboriginal communities can make a positive difference in reducing the number and severity of fires on reserve and can certainly save lives.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8:08 p.m.)