Debates of Feb. 13th, 2026

Clean Coasts Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must interrupt the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak as the member of Parliament for Victoria in support of the clean coasts act, put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

Those of us who live in and represent coastal communities know that the ocean is our lifeline but also our responsibility.

Even before being elected to the House, I heard from people in my community daily about the negative effects of derelict vessels in our waterways. After every storm, we see more and more vessels that have fallen into disrepair and been abandoned by irresponsible owners for others to deal with. These so-called “dead boats” do not just serve as an eyesore for our community; they pose serious safety and environmental risks, often with no one around to be held accountable. There is not one perfect solution to this issue, but I commend my colleague for putting forward Bill C-244, which would take important steps in the right direction.

The bill would target the irresponsible transfer of vessel ownership. In Victoria, I hear of these instances far too often. An owner sells a rotting hull for a dollar, sometimes less, to somebody who they know cannot maintain it, effectively washing their hands of the environmental liability of responsibly disposing of that vessel. By prohibiting the transfer of vessels to those who lack the resources or the intent to actually maintain them, we would help stop the cycle of abandoned and wrecked vessels before they end up on our beaches and in our marinas. We would be demanding accountability at the point of sale, not just when the taxpayer is forced to foot the bill for a clean-up or removal of a derelict vessel, and not simply relying on the goodwill of local organizations and hard-working volunteers.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the often thankless work by organizations in my riding, such as the Cadboro Bay Dead Boats Society, the Royal Victoria Yacht Club, the Veins of Life Watershed Society, and the Dead Boats Disposal Society, as well as others who have given their time and energy to address this issue, often taking on personal costs and liability. I would also like to thank the Canadian Coast Guard's western region and Transport Canada for their role in environmental response but acknowledge that they do not have the capacity or the mandate to single-handedly shoulder this burden.

As always, we also wish to express our thanks and our appreciation to the Lekwungen-speaking peoples of southern—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, while I find the commentary interesting, I cannot hear it because of constant crackling. I think perhaps the member has an issue with his mic or computer. Perhaps we can move on to the next speaker while he fixes his IT issues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will invite the hon. member for Victoria to perhaps move the microphone just slightly out from his face. Hopefully that will solve the issue. Of course, we do need interpretation to function correctly for the House to operate, so we will see if that works.

I will invite the member for Victoria to resume from where he left off, and if there are more challenges, we will address them when they come.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, we also wish to express our thanks and our appreciation to the Lekwungen-speaking peoples of southern Vancouver Island, the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ nations, whose stewardship and care for these lands and waters since time immemorial set a high bar for our communities and our governments to uphold today—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am getting word that the interpreters cannot interpret due to sound quality.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

I was hearing the interpretation earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I am not seeing any technical issues on this side.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am going to ask the member to pause for just a second. I am going to consult the table.

We are going to have an IT ambassador reach out to the hon. member for Victoria to hopefully remedy the situation. We will then return to the remainder of the hon. member's intervention, hopefully later in the hour.

Until then we will move on to the next person in the rotation.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to offer my intervention on Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

The bill proposes to strengthen Canada's ability to address abandoned, derelict and hazardous vessels; close the gaps in the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by expanding liability for owners who cause or allow vessels to become hazards; clarifies that it is illegal not only to dispose of pollutants but also to allow someone else to do so; tightens rules on the transfer of ownership, preventing owners from offloading vessels into vehicles or onto individuals who cannot maintain or safely dispose of them; reduces long-term marine environmental risks, oil leaks, contamination and wrecked debris; protects public, environmental and navigational safety; ensures owners can be held liable where they are reckless in transferring a vessel to an unqualified buyer; and encourages proactive prevention, consistent enforcement and polluter pays principles.

I do have some concerns, though, with the bill as drafted, specifically about the transfer of ownership amendment, because it uses broad and open-ended language in stating, “if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent”.

This would create legal uncertainty and potentially unfairly impact individuals accused of reckless vessel ownership transfers. Where my concerns lie is with regard to how a seller could guarantee or truthfully know the purchaser's intent and means. How would DFO and/or the courts deal with the ambiguities, litigation costs and burden of proof issues?

I am hoping that the drafter, the member who has put the bill forward, could maybe provide some clarity with regard to this, even during debate today, or that, should the bill get to committee, this could be addressed with an amendment.

I would note that the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, enacted in 2019 under the Canada oceans protection plan, is designed to prevent vessel abandonment and hold owners accountable for the environmental and safety risks posed by their vessels. Under that act, it is illegal to abandon a vessel in Canadian waters or on federal property. Owners are responsible for the costs to remove and repair, and for mitigation. The Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada have the authority to order owners to take action. If owners fail to comply, the government can intervene and recover those costs.

The act also establishes significant penalties, including fines and potential imprisonment, and supports a national inventory of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels to monitor and manage the issue. Overall, the act does hold the owner responsible for vessel-related hazards. I know I can speak on behalf of Conservatives. We supported the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act in the 42nd Parliament, and we emphasize the belief that individuals should be responsible for their actions and their property.

I want to lay out in my speech why this is so important for my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. In the community of Stokes Bay, I have been dealing with this issue for a couple of years now. We have had a fishing vessel sink at a government dock. Unfortunately, it released diesel and pollutants into the harbour. The Coast Guard deployed containment booms and conducted a helicopter overflight to monitor the spill.

The vessel was seen afloat on September 14. The contaminants were contained with provincial assistance. Despite the federal response, the vessel was then refloated but, again, left at the dock. That same vessel sank again in the same location a couple months later. The Coast Guard was again deployed with environmental response equipment. The vessel was refloated, towed to Southampton, just outside my riding, and dry docked, but the recovery had to remove approximately 25,000 litres of pollutants from the water.

The Ontario Provincial Police reported no evidence of criminal activity related to the sinking. However, community frustration increased due to the inaction between the first sinking and the second sinking.

Even more recently, in March 2025, at another location in Howdenvale, a fishing boat was reported sinking at, again, a federal government dock, releasing diesel fuel into the water. Local residents indicated the vessel had been neglected for many years by its owner. Fortunately, the diesel pollution was contained through a joint effort by the boat owner, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Nawash, one of the first nations in my riding, fisheries assessment program team. The vessel was then pulled ashore, ending the immediate environmental risk.

Again, this incident demonstrates that hazardous or neglected vessels are not isolated to just one area in my community, and that similar issues are unfortunately occurring across multiple federally operated docks in my riding. Here is the challenge for the constituents and what the community is reporting. They stated that they reported the second sinking in real time with photos. They asked why the vessel was allowed to remain after the first sinking and questioned the lack of clear accountability. A local business owner emphasized that the community's sheltered, marked harbour is having trouble now being used by transient boaters seeking refuge during storms, when these vessels are left at the docks.

Historically, this harbour, in particular in Stokes Bay, has a shared responsibility between the indigenous commercial fishers and recreational boaters. However, multiple fishing tugs have now been occupying the dock, three unmoved for years, which again limit access for everybody. This dock congestion has been described as an eyesore, which harms tourism, recreation and businesses in the local community. Basically, here is what the residents are saying: “Someone needs to do something. This cannot keep happening.” Many noted that this vessel, which has fortunately been removed, had even sunk five years previous to the incident in 2024, so this has been an ongoing concern.

In summary then of the local impacts, cottage bookings ended up being cancelled; tourism declined; boaters and swimmers avoided the federally operated harbours after the contamination; local businesses, guides and operators lost income during peak season; wildlife and nearshore habitat concerns increased; municipal staff were forced to take on responsibilities despite this being a federal jurisdiction; and there was widespread communication frustration over these unclear federal responsibilities. The most common question I get is this: Who is responsible and why was it not removed after the first spill?

It is impacting transient boating traffic and marine tourism and creating lost revenue for local small businesses and operators, with long-term risks to property values, insurability and economic reputations. There is heightened anxiety over water safety and environmental contamination, and tension has also increased due to the limited dock access. The residents feel that they have no federal mechanisms available to trigger these vessel removals. There is overlap that creates confusion between the Coast Guard, Transport Canada and DFO, and residents really feel that the federal response is reactive instead of proactive, allowing this environmental harm to repeat.

In conclusion, I just want to offer that Bill C-244's goal of reducing barriers must also apply to federal operations. It must shift from a reactive cleanup to proactive prevention. The polluter, not the public, must pay. Communities like Stokes Bay in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound deserve federal systems that work the first time. As our Conservative Party of Canada policy declaration clearly states, the government has an obligation to “establish and enforce safety standards for local and foreign vessels which operate in Canadian Waters for the well-being of workers as well as the environment.” It also states that, “The Conservative Party stand[s] by its commitment to facilitate rehabilitation or demolition of abandoned and derelict vessels.”

I believe the intent of the member proposing Bill C-244 is absolutely in the right direction to address derelict and abandoned vessels. I am not sure as drafted it will achieve this, but I look forward to hearing the continued debate. As I said, if this bill does get sent to committee, amendments can be made that will make the bill even stronger in terms of addressing this important issue not only in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound but across Canada in all our waters, whether they be lakes, oceans, etc.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-244. It is a bill that delivers real accountability and takes a proactive approach to preventing marine pollution and abandoned vessels.

I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, for bringing this bill forward, which shows great leadership.

The first thing the bill does is amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make it clear that when pollution ends up in our oceans, the owner or operator of the polluting vessel is responsible, even when that pollution results from negligence, poor maintenance or foreseeable failure, not only when the intent can be proven.

Second, it amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to stop vessel owners from off-loading end-of-life boats onto people they know do not have the means to maintain or safely dispose of them. It closes a loophole that allows responsibility to be transferred on paper while the pollution risk remains in the water.

These two changes are practical. They respond directly to what coastal communities live with every day. From the perspective of a coastal riding, where I live, the problem this bill addresses is not occasional; it is structural. Our system too often intervenes only after damage has already been done. We mobilize the Coast Guard once fuel is already in the water. We rely on volunteers, especially indigenous guardian programs, once debris is already on our coast. We scramble for funding once a vessel has already sunk. That approach costs more, harms ecosystems and downloads the responsibility onto communities that did not cause the problem.

Bill C-244 moves us toward a prevention-first approach. It strengthens accountability when pollution results from negligence, poor maintenance or foreseeable failure, not only when intent can be proven. Anyone who works around these harbours knows that some of the most damaging pollution comes from aging vessels or deferred maintenance and weak oversight. The ecological harm is the same whether a spill is deliberate or caused by neglect, so if we want to change behaviour, we have to change incentives.

Clear liability rules encourage better maintenance, safety planning and proper end-of-life management. When the costs of failure are real, prevention becomes cheaper than cleanup.

The bill also addresses a pattern that coastal communities see repeatedly, which is responsibility being passed along until no one is left holding it. Vessels nearing the end of their useful life are transferred, deteriorate and eventually sink. The community that then inherits that problem has to deal with the navigational hazard and the cleanup bill. That is not just an individual failure but a huge policy failure that the bill will address.

It is also important to be honest about why some of these transfers happen. Many vessel owners want to avoid the costs of the proper deconstruction of the vessel or the recycling of a boat at the end of its life rather than pay for responsible disposal. Some of them off-load these vessels cheaply or literally for free onto vulnerable or desperate people. A lot of people take these vessels just for housing. I have seen this first-hand in Tofino, where I lived for almost 25 years. With limited affordable housing, people ended up, and still live, on aging vessels tied to makeshift moorages. Those vessels are often not seaworthy, and the people living on them often do not have the resources to maintain or even safely dispose of them. The result is predictable. The vessel deteriorates, pollution increases, and when it finally sinks, the costs fall onto the community.

The bill helps close the loophole that allows responsibility to be pushed onto the most vulnerable. This is not about blaming people who are struggling to find housing; it is about ensuring that those who profit from vessels and control their disposal cannot avoid and evade responsibility by passing the problem down the line to someone who really has no realistic ability to manage those risks.

Marine pollution is also an economic issue. It undermines fisheries, tourism and working waterfronts. Clean waters are the foundation of coastal communities. Every abandoned vessel that sinks in a harbour imposes costs on local governments, first nations and taxpayers. Strong rules are not anti-economic but pro-community and pro-future. We know how sacred wild Pacific salmon is. The bill would protect it as well.

For these reasons, the NDP supports this bill at second reading. It improves accountability and strengthens prevention, which are things for which we have been calling for a long time, and it moves us in the right direction.

The bill also highlights how much further the federal government still needs to go. Even with the stronger liability rules, as the Transportation Safety Board has rightly pointed out in the past, Canada still has no coordinated response system for dealing with shipping container spills and marine debris incidents. We have seen the consequences of that over and again, and I would like to see it addressed.

Containers were lost from the Hanjin Seattle in 2016. More than 100 containers fell from the Zim Kingston just a few years ago. More recently, a large barge off Bella Bella nearly went down with a full load. Each time, first nations and coastal communities were left to respond. Volunteers cleaned debris from beaches, and local governments and indigenous guardians dealt with the long-term impacts to ecosystems, fisheries and local economies. The lack of a coordinated response leaves our coast exposed incident after incident.

The Zim Kingston spill also exposed a deeper accountability gap that is similar to concerns outlined in the bill. Under current rules, the owner of the Zim Kingston can be held liable for damages and cleanup costs for only up to six years from the date of the incident, but the debris from that spill continues to wash up on our shores and will for decades. Microplastics and polystyrene fragments will persist in the marine environment long after that liability clock runs out.

Pollution does not end when a legal timeline expires. Communities and ecosystems live with the consequences long after corporate liability has ended; this is why relying on after-the-fact liability alone is not enough. We need preparedness, prevention and a standing response system that is ready before the next spill happens, not improvised afterward.

Coastal and indigenous communities keep telling Ottawa the same thing: They are tired of holding the bag when debris hits their shores. A coordinated response system backed by industry through mechanisms like an ecosystem service fee on cargo units and on ships would ensure that the costs of protecting our coasts are not downloaded onto communities and volunteers alone.

Any coordinated marine pollution response would be incomplete without reinstating the ghost gear fund. It was one of the most important conservation initiatives in Canadian history, tackling up to 800,000 tonnes annually of abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear that is among the deadliest sources of plastic pollution. I think of the Ocean Legacy foundation, the Coastal Restoration Society in my riding, the Surfrider Foundation Pacific Rim, and many other groups that did that work. The bill before us might strengthen legal liability standards against marine pollution, but a multi-year, permanent ghost gear fund focused on prevention and rapid response remains essential to keeping our coast clean.

This brings me to another piece of the prevention puzzle that Bill C-244 points towards but would not fully solve: What happens to vessels at the end of their life? If we are serious about stopping abandoned and derelict vessels from becoming pollution hazards, Canada needs a responsible ship recycling system here at home. Too many Canadian vessels are sold off, exported to jurisdictions with weaker standards, or left to deteriorate in our waters until they become hazardous waste. That is environmental negligence and economic leakage. We lose the jobs and the materials, and communities inherit the pollution.

Canadian vessels should be recycled here in Canada to high environmental and labour standards. That requires domestic ship recycling infrastructure, clear federal guidelines, and investment in facilities and training so vessels can be dismantled safely and responsibly. This is not only an environmental necessity; it is also an economic opportunity to create good, local jobs in coastal communities while preventing pollution before it happens.

In Port Alberni, in my riding, the ship recycling leadership group that I have been working on has brought together local governments, labour, environmental organizations, industry, and indigenous partners to develop a model for responsible ship recycling. A core guiding principle of that group is that ship recycling must be grounded in indigenous leadership, decision-making authority and consent. Responsible ship recycling cannot be imposed on communities, and it must be done with indigenous nations as true partners with leadership at the table, real decision-making authority and free, prior and informed consent. This is the standard Canada should be embedding in any national ship recycling framework.

Bill C-244 would strengthen accountability when vessels are abandoned or cause pollution. That is necessary. However, if we want to stop the problem at its source, we must also build the end-of-life solutions that make responsible disposal the easy, affordable way for vessel owners.

Parliament should support Bill C-244. It would close loopholes and strengthen prevention, but the government must act on container spills and marine debris, implement the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations and invest in Canadian ship recycling capacity with strong federal standards. If we fail to do the full job, we will keep paying more to clean up pollution after the fact instead of preventing it at the source. Coastal communities deserve better than that.

Again, I want to thank my colleague the MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with him on these additional concerns and solutions, from marine debris and container spills to building responsible ship recycling capacity here in Canada. New Democrats will be supporting this bill and will continue to push the government to do the full job of protecting our coasts, our communities and the waters we depend on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will now invite the hon. member for Victoria to resume his comments.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to continue.

I want to start again by expressing the thanks and appreciation that everybody in my community has to the Lekwungen-speaking peoples of southern Vancouver Island, the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ nations, whose stewardship of and care for the lands and waters that we live on today since time immemorial sets a high bar for our governments and communities to achieve today.

The bill before us proposes important amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ensure that no person or ship can “allow the disposal” of substances in our waters. This is about proactive stewardship. It ensures that negligence is no longer a legal defence for polluting our marine ecosystems.

The Salish Sea, which surrounds my region and my riding, is an intricate ecosystem, home to species such as the southern resident killer whale and the chinook salmon. These species are put at risk when pollutants are introduced in our waterways, and we have a duty to act.

The clean coasts act is a common-sense, preventative measure. It would protect our blue economy, save millions in future salvage costs and honour our commitment to maintaining the health, beauty and accessibility of the B.C. coast and all of Canada's coasts for everyone.

I sincerely thank my colleague the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for bringing this bill forward, and I urge all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation to keep our coasts clean, to keep owners accountable and to keep our oceans thriving.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today 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 want to thank sponsor of the bill for bringing forward an issue that coastal, river and lakeside communities across Canada have been raising for years. It is definitely on the right path. This is a huge problem throughout Canada and the interior of British Columbia, which I represent, and also in our beautiful lakes such as Okanagan Lake, where abandoned vessels have caused environmental chaos.

Abandoned and derelict vessels, which are commonly referred to as DAVs, are a growing and serious threat to our ecosystems, our fisheries, our aquatic habitats and the Canadians who depend on them. These vessels pollute our waters, endanger marine life, block navigational routes, pose real safety risks to workers, first responders and entire communities, and affect tourism.

Conservatives believe in protecting Canadian waterways and conserving our marine environment. We believe government has a responsibility to ensure the rules meant to protect our oceans and lakes are actually enforced. When vessels operate in Canadian waters, whether they are local, commercial or foreign, they must meet strong standards that keep Canadians safe and protect the environment.

Leaving abandoned vessels to rot and pollute our coasts and beautiful lakes is not an option. We have seen this over and over again in my riding and in the Okanagan Valley. Vessels have sunk at docks, leaked fuel into water or sat for years because no one could determine ownership or responsibility. In many cases, communities are left to manage the environmental and safety risks of these vessels without the resources or authority to act.

For small communities, whether coastal or lakefront, the cost is overwhelming. They are often forced to choose between letting a vessel sit and pollute or diverting scarce funds away from housing, infrastructure or essential services just to deal with a problem that should never have existed in the first place.

After nearly a decade in government, the Liberal response has been more spending and more bureaucracy, with very little to show for it. An example can be seen through the oceans protection plan, where over $300 million has been allocated to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels. Since 2016, that spending has resulted in the removal of just 791 vessels. That is an average cost of more than $379,000 per vessel.

Meanwhile, 1,355 derelict vessels remain on the Canadian Coast Guard's inventory list. At this pace, taxpayers could be forced to spend more than half a billion dollars just to clear the existing backlog. That is not value for money. It is not effective environmental policy, and it is certainly not responsible stewardship of public funds.

The problem is not a lack of legislation. The problem is a lack of enforcement, coordination and accountability. During testimony before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, witnesses, including government officials, made it is clear that federal departments are not working effectively together. Even basic functions, such as managing private buoy regulations, have fallen through the cracks after being transferred between departments. These bureaucratic breakdowns delay assessments, slow removals and leave communities waiting year after year for actions that never come. Municipalities want action, including municipalities in my riding that have been asking for this for years, while Ottawa continues to get in the way of being a partner.

Another major failure is the vessel registration system itself. Without reliable ownership records, enforcement is impossible. Vessels are sold, resold and resold again, often without ownership transfers being properly reported. When a vessel becomes abandoned or hazardous, officials cannot identify who is responsible and the polluter does not pay; the taxpayer does. The problem is that Bill C-244 attempts to address this issue but would not fix the root cause.

Clause 3 proposes to prohibit the transfer of ownership if the seller knows that the buyer is reckless or lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain the vessel properly. That would be impossible to know.

While the intention may be to prevent pollution, the language is vague and raises serious concerns. How is a seller expected to determine a buyer's intent or financial capability? Are sellers supposed to demand financial statements, conduct interviews or predict future behaviour? What happens in online auctions, which are increasingly common? What about cross-border sales? How long does the liability follow the seller after the sale has occurred?

These unanswered questions create legal uncertainty and risk punishing Canadians who are acting in good faith. Instead of clarity, this amendment risks adding confusion, litigation and unintended consequences, especially when existing regulations are already not being enforced.

Unfortunately, Canadians are now abandoning vessels simply because they cannot afford repairs, moorage or disposal. Even more troubling, many Canadians are being forced to live aboard old, unsafe boats because they have nowhere else to go. We see this constantly in Okanagan Lake and throughout the interior. Vessels are being used now as makeshift housing, but these are boats that were never designed to be lived in. Many lack proper sanitation or waste disposal, creating serious risks of pollution. Others pose fire hazards, safety risks and concerns related to criminal activity.

A housing crisis has now spilled into our waterways, turning a social crisis into an environmental one. That is not compassionate policy. That is a result of years of federal mismanagement.

Conservatives believe in caring for our waters and the people who depend on them. That means ensuring the polluter pays principle can actually be enforced. It means fixing the vessel registration system, so ownership is clear and accountability is real. It means coordinating across federal, provincial, municipal and first nations governments, instead of burying communities in red tape.

I am looking forward to the amendments that will come forward concerning this bill, because the issue is extremely important. Conservatives are ready to work towards practical, accountable and results-driven solutions, ones that would truly protect our coasts, our lakes and our environment for generations to come.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to recognize the profound loss being felt by the community of Tumbler Ridge. All members of the House grieve with the families who are mourning. We stand with the students, staff and first responders who are carrying the weight of this unimaginable tragedy. In times like these, we are reminded that in sorrow, we are united as a nation. Canada will hold them in our hearts, not just today and in the years to come, but always.

I want to thank all of the members who have participated in this debate on Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, for their local leadership and for sharing the all-too-familiar stories that I am hearing in my riding as well.

This bill is grounded in a simple principle. Canada's marine environment is not a dumping ground, and coastal communities should not be left carrying the cost of pollution that others create. In coastal regions across the country, residents see the impacts first-hand: abandoned and derelict vessels leaking fuel into harbours and marine infrastructure left to decay, spreading plastic pollution and releasing toxins into sensitive ecosystems. These are not abstract concerns. They affect navigation safety, local economies, indigenous food security and the health of our oceans and waterways.

Bill C-244 proposes two practical solutions to address these problems. First, it amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to clarify that marine dumping is a strict liability offence. Because of how this legislation has been interpreted to date, liability is limited to cases where the prosecution can prove that this dumping was intentional. That leaves a troubling loophole where pollution from reckless or negligent behaviour goes unaddressed. The clean coasts act addresses this gap.

Second, the bill strengthens the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by addressing a well-known tactic. Too often, owners avoid their disposal responsibilities by transferring an end-of-life vessel, typically for a nominal amount, to someone that they know cannot dispose of it properly. That is how vessels become hazards in our waterways.

Some members have raised fair and important questions about how these measures would work in practice, and I would like to respond directly to those.

One question has been about seller liability. Let me be clear: This bill is not about punishing good-faith sellers or ordinary Canadians making responsible transactions. The intent is narrow. Liability rises only where a vessel is transferred knowingly or recklessly to someone who lacks the ability or intention to manage it responsibly.

Related to that is the question of how a seller can assess whether a buyer is fit. This bill does not require intrusive measures like interviews, credit checks or financial investigations. It requires reasonable care, not a guarantee of the future behaviour of an owner. The objective is to create clear, practical expectations that are not onerous for good-faith sellers while discouraging bad-faith transfers to avoid disposal costs. I just want to recognize that these were questions that came from the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Members have also raised questions about enforcement and ownership tracking. We have good news. Since this debate started, Transport Canada has announced a modernization of the pleasure craft licensing system by introducing a five-year licence validity, a nominal fee for applications and renewals, and a requirement for owners to update their contact information within 30 days. However, the responsibility to report these transfers remains with the buyer. This has been a vulnerability that has been addressed by a number of members, including the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and it needs to be addressed.

While these licensing changes are a step forward, we need to make sure that there are sustainable long-term resources to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels where we cannot identify the owner. For that, we need the long-awaited vessel remediation fund, which will have a small user fee and will finance the removal and proper disposal of abandoned and sunken vessels. I just want to note that the member for Courtenay—Alberni brought this up as a need. I look forward to working with him.

There is also the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. These vessels should never linger in these places for five years or more.

Lastly, there was a concern brought forward by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley about the wording of the new strict liability offence. I just want to confirm that this will not affect people that would observe marine dumping. This is only for those who would lead to that by their acts or omissions.

I would just say that all legislation improves through study. If this legislation proceeds to committee, members will have the opportunity to hear from experts, examine the provisions carefully and propose amendments as they see fit, including any measures that are necessary to clarify some of the measures in this act.

With that, I know this is a problem that all members know exists. I urge all members to support this legislation being sent to the next stage at committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Before we adjourn, I will just wish everyone a very happy Valentine's Day and a happy Family Day next week, as we return to our ridings to serve our constituents.

It being 1:40 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 23, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:40 p.m.)