Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today as the representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, a riding that stretches from the continental divide in Yoho National Park, through the lakes and highlands of the Shuswap, to the grasslands of Kamloops.
Today I rise to speak to Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. I thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, for bringing it forward. I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with the hon. member, and I know that marine protection is a matter that is important to him and to the Canadians he represents.
Protecting Canada's waters and aquatic habitats is a priority that my constituents across Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and I share with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Having spent decades working with grassroots conservation organizations, I have experienced first-hand the value and importance of our waters. They are essential for aquatic species and wildlife, for biodiversity and for all Canadians who depend on fisheries and marine resources for food, livelihood and recreation. Our waters are also essential to our survival, and conserving our pristine waters is a priority we all can agree on.
As I mentioned, the sponsor of the bill and I serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, FOPO. On October 22, 2025, our committee tabled a report on the issue of derelict and abandoned vessels. The study was initiated in the 44th Parliament. During the study, multiple witnesses, including government officials, described difficulties in dealing with derelict and abandoned vessels, DAVs, because authorities are unable to identify the current owners of vessels.
I encourage everyone to read the report in order to better understand the challenge of DAVs, and I especially encourage them to read the Conservative supplemental report, which contains recommendations for a workable solution to the vessel registry issue.
Transport Canada operates a pleasure craft licence database, but transfers of ownership are not consistently reported to that database, so a vessel can change hands, sometimes multiple times, and the Transport Canada database does not reflect the changes in ownership if the transfers are not reported and the new owners fail to register vessels after purchase. This causes a major blind spot for enforcement of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act and regulations that flow from the act. Laws and regulations are in place, but enforcement of the laws and regulations is not possible when the current owner of a vessel cannot be identified.
Testimony that FOPO received from Transport Canada officials stated that regulatory changes related to the requirements for registering a transfer of vessel ownership are pending, but it is unclear what those changes will be. Will the regulatory amendments place the onus to report the transfer of vessel ownership on the buyer or on the seller of a vessel?
This is a very important question, because if the current owner of a vessel that is causing pollution or poses a threat to polluting waters cannot be identified, it is impossible to enforce laws and regulations that uphold the polluter pays principle, which is the current principle in federal statutes aimed at preventing and prohibiting pollution of our waters. The principle of polluter pays is essential to the sound policy to protect our environment, especially our waters and aquatic habitats.
In 2015, the Harper government formally established the polluter pays principle in legislation, through the Pipeline Safety Act, which enshrined the principle in law. The government also incorporated the polluter pays principle into other legislation, such as the Energy Safety and Security Act and international agreements. Conservatives also strengthened the polluter pays principle for the marine environment by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments for enhancing Canada's domestic ship-source oil pollution fund.
Since then, the Liberal government has taken additional steps to expand the application of this essential principle but, as I stated, when it comes to derelict and abandoned vessels, enforcement officials must know who the culpable party is before they can make a polluter pay. I certainly hope this blind spot for enforcement authorities is quickly dealt with in an effective manner.
Clause 3 of the bill proposes a prohibition related to the transfer of vessel ownership, specifically:
It is prohibited for an owner of a vessel to transfer ownership of it to a person, if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous.
I appreciate the intention of the bill, which I believe to be the prevention of pollution. That is an objective that we can all hopefully agree is worthwhile. However, I do have questions regarding the proposals of clause 3 that I just quoted.
For instance, how can a person who is transferring a vessel determine if the person acquiring the vessel is fit to care for the vessel? Similarly, in enforcement, how could the applicable enforcement authorities determine and prove that someone transferred ownership to someone unfit to care for a vessel knowing that or was reckless as to whether the person who acquired the vessel was unfit to care for it?
Does the sponsor of the bill envision sellers of vessels requesting financial statements from the prospective buyers or enforcement officials pressing the seller of a vessel as to whether the seller had compelled a buyer to produce financial statements demonstrating the means to care for the vessel in question? What about in an online auction sale, a more and more common channel for the sale of used vessels? For what length of time would the liability exist for the seller? How long would it go on after the sale?
I would also like to hear from my colleague who has sponsored the bill, who I know has a background in law, whether the proposals of clause 3 would be best delivered as a legislative or regulatory change.
From my previous occupation in the marine sector, I have seen the root causes for failures of the existing vessel registration system, which the government has failed to correct in any of the changes they have attempted over the years. This is the first hour of second reading, and I know that we have more debate ahead of us, so I hope the hon. member might be able to provide some clarity on these points.
Clause 2 of the bill states, “No person or ship shall dispose or allow the disposal of a substance in an area of the sea referred to in any of paragraphs 122(2)(a) to (e) unless”.
Regarding the part of the proposal that states “or allow the disposal of a substance”, it is unclear to me what kind of scenarios this proposal seeks to prohibit. Would the proposal establish an obligation, responsibility or duty for persons who witness a disposal occurring to intervene? For instance, if a recreational boater witnesses the disposal of a substance coming from a commercial cargo vessel in an area described, and that boater does not intervene, is that boater allowing the disposal by not intervening?
Again, today's debate is the preliminary stage of the bill's progression in the legislative process. I hope the sponsor, my hon. colleague, can further illuminate the proposals of the bill that he has sponsored. There are many questions I have about the bill as it moves forward, if it moves forward past the second reading stage.
As I stated, in my experience in the marine sector, I have witnessed boats being sold, re-sold, and re-sold to the point where it is impossible to find one's way back to who originally owned the vessel. I believe the answer to that is in the recommendations in the Conservative supplemental report that I mentioned earlier in my speech, and that would be to place the onus on the seller to simply report the sale of the vessel.
By placing the onus on the buyer, they take on a liability by reporting the purchase, the first liability being taxes. I have witnessed that. As a vessel buyer, if they register a vessel, the first thing that happens is they get a letter from the tax collector to make sure provincial taxes and the GST have been paid. It is a deterrent for buyers to report the sale. If is far better if the seller reports it and a small fine be paid if they do not.