Debates of Nov. 6th, 2025

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with $78 billion, we could rebuild his entire community, every house, every hospital. We could rebuild everything. For $50 billion in interest, we could rebuild the member opposite's entire community as well.

Instead of spending money on debt and deficits and helping the people at Brookfield, let us actually help Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my colleague's speech further highlights the issue of fiscal imbalance. He said that the money is in Ottawa, but the obligations and commitments are in Quebec City.

Earlier, I asked one of my colleagues a question about health transfers, which are not in there. They are putting $5 billion into hospitals, but, as health care workers told me this week, that is a hospital-centric vision and is not going to provide the health care system with the means and human resources it needs. Another area that contributes to this fiscal imbalance is infrastructure. I am not the only one saying this. Even people in Quebec City are saying it. We are also hearing it more and more from municipalities, especially with climate change impacting municipal finances and infrastructure. We are far from where we need to be. This is nowhere near what cities and Quebec have asked for in terms of infrastructure.

What does my colleague think about the fact that this budget increases the fiscal imbalance?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that, as the government continues to grow its debt and deficits and mortgage Canada's future, Quebec and the rest of the provinces will see decreasing amounts of investment in them. The money will just run out.

If we squeeze and squeeze the private sector, eventually it will stop producing golden eggs. We need to reinvest in the private sector. We need to reinvest in Canadians, not the Canadian government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what really caught my attention about this budget and the member's speech is the missed opportunity to repeal bills like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. These bills are barriers to the success of our economy.

What the Liberals like to do, and this is what they always do, is make it so the entire Canadian economy is dependent on a decision that one or two people over there make. There used to be pipeline projects. Over 18 LNG export terminals were inherited by Justin Trudeau in 2015. All of those are gone.

The Liberals put all these barriers in place, and then they spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to partner with somebody they might find in the private sector in order to do something. They chased away Kinder Morgan, for example, which was going to build a pipeline for less than $10 billion, and it blossomed to over $30 billion.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government basically just wants to control every single aspect of the Canadian economy? What is that doing to ruin the hope and future—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the government picks winners and losers, the ultimate losers are Canadians. It is individual Canadian businesswomen and businessmen who are in the best position to make those decisions.

With respect to Bill C-69 and other pieces of legislation like it, the reality is that in Canada we have a GDP-per-hour problem, a productivity issue. The average in Canada is about $50 to $60. In oil and gas, it is $500. If we want to solve our productivity problem, it goes through Alberta, Canadian energy and Canadian oil and gas.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak in support of budget 2025, a budget that lays out a bold, forward-looking plan to build a stronger, more resilient Canada. At its core, budget 2025 recognizes that Canada stands at a turning point. Around the world, we see shifting trade relationships, rising global uncertainty, an increasingly competitive international economy and increasing international turmoil. These challenges require a plan that strengthens our foundations and builds for the long term. That is exactly what this budget delivers.

It is a plan that builds Canada strong by spending less on government operations and more on the people, industries and infrastructure that will define our future. It is a plan that balances fiscal discipline with ambition. While maintaining the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, our government is making historic, nation-building investments in housing, infrastructure and innovation.

Budget 2025 is a plan to catalyze $1 trillion in investments over the next five years. Central to that plan is building major infrastructure, more homes and stronger communities. This $1 trillion in investments is going to change Canada and who we are.

Over the next five years, budget 2025 commits nearly $280 billion in new investments to improve Canada's economy and empower Canadians to succeed. This includes $115 billion for infrastructure to modernize our cities, expand our trade corridors and ensure that every community across Canada has the tools it needs to grow. It includes $110 billion to boost productivity and innovation through investments in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and clean energy. It includes $30 billion for defence and security, ensuring that Canada can protect its sovereignty and play a leadership role in the world. It also includes $25 billion for housing through the new Build Canada Homes initiative, which is a program that will double the pace of construction, lower costs for first-time homebuyers and create good-paying jobs.

Not only that, but as I have a history in this House, I can tell members that for the last decades, we have not seen a single dollar invested in health care capital investments. This budget includes $5 billion for health-related infrastructure. Whether I travel to Edmonton or am in Surrey, British Columbia, I see that people are looking for hospital infrastructure. This fund is going to help not only the people in Surrey, but people from coast to coast to coast.

Together, these investments will not only strengthen our economy but also improve the quality of life for Canadians in every region.

This budget is also about efficiency and accountability. Through a comprehensive expenditure review, our government will save $60 billion over five years by cutting red tape and modernizing operations. Is that not what the Conservatives are looking for? I think that is what they are looking for. That $60 billion in savings is right there.

In doing so, we are shifting from a model of endless operating growth to one of strategic investment, focusing every dollar on projects that build productivity, competitiveness and resilience. By 2028-29, our goal is to balance day-to-day spending with revenues, while maintaining a modest deficit entirely tied to long-term investments that grow the economy.

The vision of budget 2025 is guided by four key objectives.

First is focusing our strengths and recognizing that Canada has what the world needs: clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, advanced technology and a highly educated workforce. We are an energy and innovation superpower, and we are investing in our ability to lead in both.

The second objective is building our nation. We will be delivering on major projects that connect our regions, create high-paying jobs and support Canadian industries like steel and softwood lumber. The Build Canada Homes initiative is one example of how we are creating growth that Canadians can see and feel in their daily lives.

The third objective is unifying our economy. Through the One Canadian Economy Act, we will break down interprovincial trade barriers, open new opportunities for workers and businesses, and ensure indigenous communities are full partners in Canada’s growth.

The fourth objective is diversifying our trade. We are expanding beyond traditional markets and developing a more flexible, resilient network of partners. With initiatives such as the trade diversification strategy and other major projects, Canada would strengthen its trade corridors, open new markets and build a more resilient export economy.

While these are national goals, they are felt most directly also at the local level. In communities like Surrey Newton, or Richmond Centre—Marpole, these matter. Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. It is a place of opportunity, diversity and entrepreneurship, but as we grow, we need infrastructure that keeps pace. We need parks, transit and community spaces that improve quality of life. Contrary to what the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole was saying earlier, that cities do not need investments in their parks and in their sports, that is not acceptable.

When we go to the mayors of cities, I hear appreciation for what we have done in this budget. That is why I am particularly proud that budget 2025 includes federal support for upgrades to Newton Athletic Park. This investment would deliver new artificial-turf fields, practice areas, tennis courts and walking paths, which would provide families and young people in Surrey Newton with safer, more accessible and modern recreational spaces.

This is not the end. In fact, in the whole of British Columbia, the Filipino community has been advocating for a long time for their community centre. When they met with me, I went to the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his advice because he is very involved in the Filipino community. In fact, he was a strong advocate that we need to get something like that done, and that was delivered, the Filipino cultural and community centre in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. That is what our government is doing and will deliver.

The list goes on. In fact, White Rock, which is the riding next door to me, will get a pier as well. These are the kinds of community investments that make a difference in people’s daily lives: spaces where children can play, where families can gather and where newcomers can feel part of our community.

That is what the budget is all about: building a stronger Canada, not just through national policy but also through local action on the ground. Budget 2025 also strengthens community safety, an issue that residents in Surrey Newton care deeply about. We are investing in 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers, and 150 of them will be assigned to deal just with financial crimes.

These are the kinds of investments we need, so I would request that all members, the Conservatives, the Bloc, NDP and Green members, support this budget and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment now before the House.

The question is on the subamendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the subamendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The question is as follows.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #48

The Budget

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

Clean Coasts Act

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

moved that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the 5.5 million Canadians who has the privilege of living on Canada's coast, I know it is not just where we live; it is part of who we are, from learning about the life cycle of salmon as a child to fishing in our rivers and oceans and experiencing the incredible feeling of seeing a whale in the wild. It is what brings residents and visitors together, drives our economy and puts food on the table.

Today, these same coastlines face mounting pressures from marine pollution and abandoned and derelict boats. Coastal residents see these impacts every single day. They have written letters, raised petitions and met with every level of government, saying the same thing: Our laws and policies are simply not getting the job done. They want us to do something about it. They know that our oceans are for the common benefit, but they are not a common dumping ground. They are frustrated because they see what happens when governments act too late when a vessel sinks, fuel leaks and community bears the cost of a problem that should have been prevented. That is why I am honoured to rise today to speak to my private members' bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act.

The legislation strengthens Canada's ability to prevent and respond to marine pollution by closing two critical gaps in our laws: First, it clarifies that marine dumping is a strict liability offence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and second, it amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to prohibit the transfer of vessels to individuals the seller knows does not have the means to maintain or dispose of them safely. Together, these two measures will deter the reckless behaviour that endangers our coasts and ensure that those who pollute our oceans, not the public, are responsible for cleaning up their waste.

These amendments respond directly to challenges that coastal communities, particularly in British Columbia, face every day. Coastal residents see the cumulative impact of marine pollution, derelict vessels and infrastructure that is breaking down.

Nowhere is this happening more than in Porpoise Bay, where long-time residents, such as Angelia, have watched this decline unfold over their lifetimes. She grew up swimming and digging clams with her family, but today, she does not believe she will ever swim there again. The bay, where her neighbour's grandchildren now play, is scattered with derelict boats and floating debris that leach oil, fuel and waste into the water. What was once a clear, healthy inlet has become clouded with pollution and garbage from decaying vessels. The same children who may have spent their weekends searching for shells now spend their time picking up plastic and broken foam that washes ashore

For Elaine, who runs a small waterfront bed and breakfast that was once featured in The New York Times as one of Canada's most scenic coastal getaways, this has become an economic issue as much as an environmental one. Guests no longer see a pristine bay; they see a flotilla of abandoned boats and improvised structures. Tourism suffers, and all the local businesses that depend on it do as well.

When governments are slow to act, people like Don McKenzie, a 90-year-old marina operator, take matters into their own hands. Don has spent years pumping water out of sinking vessels at his own expense because he knows that once they go down, the cost is 10 times greater to deal with them, which ultimately falls to taxpayers. I thank Don for all that he does.

Beyond derelict boats, other forms of marine pollution are also taking a toll. Along the coast, we see styrofoam from decaying docks and aquaculture facilities that are breaking apart into thousands of small fragments that spread across beaches and into fragile habitats.

Community groups, such as the West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society, Átl’ka7tsem/Howe Sound Marine Stewardship Initiative and the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, as well as their volunteers, dedicate countless hours to cleaning up what stronger laws could have prevented from entering the ocean in the first place. Cleanups across British Columbia's coasts can cost thousands of dollars per kilometre. These are costs borne not by polluters but by local residents and volunteers.

These are not isolated frustrations; they are symptoms of a system that reacts only after the damage is done. While communities such as Gibsons, Sechelt and Bowen Island see these impacts up close, the same legal gaps are evident on a larger scale. When pollution reaches the ocean, the effects ripple far beyond one bay or harbour.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is the most important environmental law in Canada. It protects people and the environment from toxic substances, but given how the court has interpreted the marine dumping provisions of CEPA, only intentional discharges into the ocean are now prohibited. This means that even when careless acts, omissions or poor maintenance lead to dumping in our oceans, individuals or companies can escape responsibility.

The 2015 Marathassa oil spill in Vancouver's English Bay makes this very clear. A newly built bulk carrier leaked more than 2,700 litres of bunker oil into the ocean, coating nearby beaches, marine life and shoreline habitats. The cleanup costs were in the millions of dollars. It took weeks and involved volunteers, municipalities, first nations and the Coast Guard. Even after all these efforts, we know that the oil spilled continues to have a long-term impact.

Despite dumping oil into the bay for days, the ship's owners were ultimately acquitted of all charges. This case revealed a critical flaw. It placed the burden on the public to prove intention rather than on the polluter to demonstrate responsibility.

The clean coasts act would correct that imbalance. It would establish a strict liability framework that would shift the onus of proof from the Crown to the polluter. Under this model, if a vessel releases pollution into the marine environment, the owner or operator must prove that they took all appropriate steps to prevent it. They must do what a reasonable person would do in the same situation and simply act responsibly. This is what was always intended by the act, and this bill clarifies that that would be the case going forward.

This is not about criminalizing accidents. It is about ensuring that those who operate in our waters meet the highest standards we expect of them. It would encourage better maintenance, safety protocols and planning, saving both money and our oceans. By placing accountability where it belongs, on those in control of the vessels that could cause harm, the clean coasts act would make prevention the rule rather than the exception.

The Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, passed in 2019, was an important step forward. WAHVA made it an offence to abandon a vessel, rather than what someone should be doing in these cases, which is properly dispose of it. Incredibly, this was not prohibited before then.

In creating this new prohibition to abandon a vessel, we created an incentive for people to avoid it. Some vessel owners now try to sidestep accountability by transferring boats, usually at the end of their useful life, to people who they know cannot maintain them. These transfers are easy to find. Residents have shared screenshots of online listings on platforms like Craigslist, where boats are offered for a dollar or free to a good home. In some cases, the same sites advertized “off-grid moorage” or “tie-ups on makeshift floats”, inviting others to live on the water without proper facilities, order, permission or oversight.

Some might ask who would voluntarily take on this type of liability. Too often, it is some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as the unhoused simply looking for a roof over their head. They have more immediate things to worry about than the cost of properly disposing of a vessel.

Some might ask why this is a problem. These vessels are often not seaworthy and are at risk of sinking. In Porpoise Bay, that danger became real when a man who was living on an unseaworthy vessel tragically lost his life when trying to reach the shore in a small dinghy. Beyond the danger to human life, these vessels pose ongoing navigation hazards and increase the risk of waste being dumped into coastal waters, factors that degrade the water quality in the surrounding region.

In speaking with organizations like the Coastal Restoration Society, which has removed over 100 derelict vessels from B.C.'s coastline since 2017, I have heard first-hand how costly it is to remove these vessels once they have sunk. Safely removing a single 45-foot wooden vessel can cost upward of $40,000, costs that small port authorities and boat owners simply cannot afford, and this is on the cheaper side. Without accessible disposal options, many vessels are stripped for parts and then left to deteriorate in the water, leaking pollutants into the nearby ecosystem.

The clean coasts act would close an important loophole. It would prohibit the transfer of a vessel to anyone the seller knows lacks the means to maintain it safely and would ensure that accountability follows a vessel throughout its life cycle so ownership cannot be off-loaded to avoid responsibility.

The clean coasts act would build on progress that Canada has already made in oceans protection. It would strengthen existing tools rather than creating new ones. Through the oceans protection plan, we have improved spill response and habitat restoration and have provided funding to remove sunken boats through the abandoned boats program.

This is about getting ahead of the problem and dealing with it in a much cheaper way, but those efforts can succeed only when the laws that underpin them are enforceable. The clean coasts act would provide that clarity, ensuring that both CEPA and WAHVA work effectively. This is not a radical reform but a practical fix that would deliver results on the water and better value for taxpayers.

Protecting our oceans is not just a national duty; it is a shared responsibility across every level of government. Right now, responsibility for derelict and abandoned vessels is scattered. Transport Canada oversees navigation safety, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages small craft harbours, Environment and Climate Change Canada responds to pollution, and the Coast Guard steps in during emergencies. Provincially, jurisdiction extends over the inshore seabed and shorelines, and municipalities are left managing the impacts within their boundaries.

The result is too often a finger-pointing exercise, with no single body clearly accountable for prevention and enforcement. Communities like Sechelt have seen what happens when this patchwork approach fails: Pollution worsens, vessels sink and coastal communities and taxpayers bear the cost. The clean coasts act is about ending that cycle. It focuses on prevention, ensuring that responsibility could not be passed from one owner, one jurisdiction or one ministry to another.

There has already been strong leadership from local organizations and from volunteers who are stepping up to do the work that should not fall to them. Groups like the Dead Boats Disposal Society show that Canadians are ready to act. They need the federal government to back them up with the right tools.

I would also say that the issue is not partisan. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in its bipartisan report on abandoned and derelict vessels, offered important recommendations to address the issue, including thoughtful suggestions in the Conservatives' supplementary report. I want to recognize the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, the Conservative Party critic for fisheries, for his work in this space and particularly for the recommendation that I deeply agree with and that the government should adopt: to require boat sellers rather than boat buyers to register the transfers of boats.

I would also like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for seconding the bill and for his long-standing advocacy on dealing with the issue of derelict vessels, which absolutely plagues his riding as well.

We would not have the WAHVA framework were it not for the private member's bill that former fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan brought forward. More locally, the former MP for my riding, John Weston, has also long been a champion of this issue.

We all care about clean coasts and know that the bill alone will not solve the problem. We need a modernized vessel registry system so we can effectively identify vessel ownership, and we need a sufficient and sustainable source of funding through the vessel remediation fund to remove and dispose of vessels for which we cannot identify the owners. These two regulations are long overdue, and I call on the government to act urgently to finalize them.

Furthermore, on the west coast, there is still no dedicated facility for dismantling or recycling end-of-life vessels. We need to change this. We need to make it both easy and affordable for boat owners to properly dispose of their boats. Pairing this with legislative reform, we can make a lasting difference of addressing the root causes of marine pollution rather than only its much more costly symptoms.

In conclusion, I want to add that a recent poll by Glacier Media shows that nearly 97% of respondents are in favour of stricter regulation of marine dumping and derelict vessels. The clean coasts act would respond to exactly that, so I invite all members to support this pragmatic step, to stand with coastal communities, to honour the people who have been calling for action for years, and to ensure that our oceans remain clean, healthy and productive for generations to come.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his concern for the environment and for derelict vessels on the coasts of British Columbia, and for pointing out, to quote the member opposite, that the government is “slow to act”.

Indeed it is a reflection of a failing economy that there has been an explosion of abandoned vessels that have gone from being just boats that are broken down to being ones that people are now turning into small towns to live in. Indeed there is a problem.

The member opposite indicated that the bill would put the onus on the seller, and that the seller would have liability for a boat and the actions of the new owner. Could the member opposite perhaps explain what liabilities the seller would then have, with the onus on them, as a new owner would take on that boat? Would it just be the environmental impact or other impacts as well?

The example I would like to give is that of selling a car. Once it is registered with the new owner, the new owner should take on the responsibilities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. With the changes proposed in the bill, there would be an obligation for the seller to take steps to ensure that they are not selling to someone who they know does not have the means to maintain it or properly dispose of it. There are a lot of ways that one can do that, such as properly disclosing the current condition of the boat and ensuring that the seller can also provide in written format how they can maintain it as well. This is one way of dealing with the loophole that is there. Subsequent to that, the seller of the boat would have no responsibility beyond that, because of course, what could they do at that point?

This is really addressing a critical loophole that was created when we introduced the prohibition of abandoning boats. This is something that we need to do to close that loophole.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work and for his speech. We will indeed be able to work across party lines on this bill.

My question concerns one of the clauses. The bill, which is fairly specific and targeted, includes four clauses. One of the clauses amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act prohibition that no person may dispose of a substance in the sea, which encompasses the sinking of ships, by adding “or allow the disposal” of a substance in the sea.

What purpose does this addition to the act serve?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

This amendment seeks to correct a problem created by a court decision. The penalty and the prohibition were always intended as a strict liability offence. The court's interpretation of the law altered its application. This amendment restores the original intent: Any act committed deliberately or by negligence will henceforward be prohibited.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, coastal communities across Canada see the impact of pollution and the dangers of wrecked and abandoned vessels all too often. The legislation would have a positive impact from my coast in Atlantic Canada to his on the west coast.

I would like to know how coastal communities, especially in his province of British Columbia, have responded to the measures proposed in the bill.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that this is something that requires multiple levels of government jurisdiction to address. The province has taken some actions, as well, to deal with marine pollution. It is very much something that we can work together on. We all realize that this is an issue. If it is in the water, it is typically the federal government's jurisdiction. When it washes ashore to land, we engage the provincial jurisdiction. We need to work closely together.

This is about getting ahead of those problems and stopping the issue from getting worse, stopping more and more derelict vessels from being out there. It is also about making sure that we are holding the folks and companies that are causing marine pollution responsible.

That is something that all levels of government and all members of the House should be able to agree to, because this is about a core value, personal responsibility, and ensuring that the polluter pays for actions.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the floor for this bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

I come from Kitamaat Village, which is at the head of the Douglas Channel on the west coast of British Columbia. I grew up around marine activities, hunting and fishing, but there was no recreation. We have had a private port for the last 70 years, but apart from the pulp and paper tankers, the aluminum tankers carrying bauxite and ore and those carrying methanol, we have not really seen marine activity or even been part of it, for that matter.

As a small first nation community, we were trying to deal not only with derelict vessels sinking, but with the topics the member just talked about, such as spill response. More deeply, we went into industrial degradation with air, land and water. The more we dug into it, dating back to the 1970s, the more we realized that regulations and legislation had empty promises. They were not really living up to the limitations that had been put on by the permits and the regulators, whether it be in Canada or B.C.

In fact, by the time we got to the consultation in 2003, we realized that permits were basically rules to be broken. If a company could not abide by the limits put on it by a permit, the permit limitations would be expanded. We fought really hard to get the provincial government and the federal government to live up to the regulations and permitting requirements. In some cases we succeeded and in some we did not.

It was not until we started to engage fully in environmental assessments by Canada and B.C. that we realized we could kill two birds with one stone. We could make the standards for environmental protection higher for marine, terrestrial and air, not only in the environmental assessment process but within existing permits.

Being a small community, we still deal with vessels sinking today, not only in the Douglas Channel but also at our docks. The dock we are talking about in my village is actually owned by the federal government under the small harbours act. We really thought the existing regulations were going to not only help prevent vessels from sinking, but also help us remediate and get these vessels to stop polluting our waters. That was not the case.

When we look at some of the existing processes, such as the oceans protection plan the member mentioned, the $300 million that was earmarked for the oceans protection plan has removed 791 vessels to date to get the polluting factor out of our marine environment. However, there are still 1,355 derelict vessels on the list from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that are backlogged. We still have a long way to go. When we think about that and quantify it, with upwards of $300 million for these vessels, we need a better way to implement and enforce the existing regulations. We have to make it easier.

I agree with the member that it has to be a coordinated effort among the provincial government, the federal government, the municipalities and first nations, which are burdened with the cost and the pollution we are talking about. It is first nations like my band that struggle with this cost and with trying to figure it out. We had the same problems the member talked about. We had a problem with ownership and trying to track down who the owners were, to try to offset some of the costs the council was paying out.

At that time, we had no money. We were broke. We were trying to find some way within our Indian Act agreement to pay for these derelict vessels, not only to take them out of the water but also to clean up the damage. That is really hard to do when there is no money. Most of the time we had to let these vessels just sit there until we could figure out a way to keep them from being a risk, let alone trying to clean up the damage.

The intent of the bill is good. First nations and non-first nations all want to see a cleaner environment, whether it be terrestrial or marine. In fact, the record in my community over the last 20 years reflects that in all categories, whether we are talking about dumps or marine spills. During the preliminary oil and gas days, for proposals in our territory, we tried to engage with the idea of getting involved with the spill response. We wanted to be partners with Canada and B.C. to be the first responders in case of a spill, whether it came from industrial activity or residential activity, even on the highways, or even sewage.

Sewage is a big issue on the west coast of British Columbia. Prince Rupert, for example, has been begging the provincial and federal governments for some help because they have no primary treatment of their sewage. It goes directly into the ocean. They are under threat of fines coming from the provincial government. At the same time, Prince Rupert does not have the funds to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. They are in a really tough spot.

I grew up on the water, purchasing boats on my own behalf, as well as for friends and family. It is an interesting concept to say that the onus should be on the seller to basically ensure the new owner or prospective buyer has the ability, resources or intent to own a boat, and that before the buyer can purchase a boat, the owner has to ensure that prospective buyer has the ability, resources or intent to manage a boat. That is an interesting concept.

I do not know how that would be done. Are they interviewed? Is a credit check done? Is their bank account checked? I do not know how a buyer would ensure that the new owner could actually maintain a boat. We do not do that with vehicles or anything else. It is going to be interesting to see how the government or the regulator would ensure that that happens. I can see it being a legal mess. I can see it going before the courts. Unless there are some provisions that would come out in the regulations later to show the steps that a seller would have to take to ensure that the buyer is not reckless.

By the way, a lot of boats purchased in Canada come from the United States. That presents different problems. There are already different rules to be followed when purchasing boats from the United States. Now the seller in the United States would have obligations when selling a boat to someone living in Canada. That becomes a different issue altogether.

Canada is actually a seller of boats. British Columbia is a seller of boats. It is mostly done through surplus auctions. Canada would be in the same boat—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.