Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 43 - Evidence - November 7, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 7, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, met this day at 6:43 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, before we get to the minister, we have been referred a couple of sections out of the budget bill, Bill C-86. After the session is over tonight, do not run away. We will stay a couple of minutes and rework our calendar because of this, to fit it in. We have a deadline day of December 4 when it has to be reported. I am sure that even Mr. Garneau understands how important that is to us.
Excuse me while I do a bit of internal business while you are here, minister.
This evening, we are beginning our study of Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.
We are pleased to have appearing before us today the Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P. He is accompanied by officials from Transport Canada, Michelle Sanders, Director, Clean Water Policy and Marc-Yves Bertin, Director General, Marine Policy.
From the Canadian Coast Guard, we have Marc Sanderson, Acting Director General, National Strategies and Julie Gascon, Director General, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard.
Thank you for attending this evening.
We have one hour, I understand, Mr. Minister. We will then go on to the officials who have agreed to remain here after. Minister Garneau, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Hon. Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to appear before the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to speak about Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.
As you know, there are a large number of abandoned and wrecked vessels in Canadian waters.We do not have the exact figure, but we are in the process of obtaining it.
While most vessel owners are responsible and properly maintain their vessel, there are some individuals who are negligent. When owners fail to take appropriate care, the vessel’s condition worsens, which can increase its risk of becoming a hazard to the environment, to the economy and to the health and safety of the public.
It also becomes a burden on local communities, harbour authorities, and taxpayers when vessel owners shirk their responsibilities.
[English]
Bill C-64 is a core element of the federal government’s national strategy to address abandoned and wrecked vessels, which was announced as part of the Oceans Protection Plan in November 2016.
Our collective efforts under this national strategy will improve marine safety and responsible shipping, while further protecting Canada’s marine environment. At the heart of the national strategy is a strong emphasis on vessel owner responsibility. This ensures that those vessel owners who are negligent in their responsibilities are held accountable under the law and liable for vessel removal or remediation costs and expenses.
Bill C-64 serves as a notice to owners that the federal government will not tolerate the abandonment or irresponsible management of vessels and that clean-up costs of abandoned, dilapidated or wrecked vessels, including vessels that pose or may pose hazards, are not the responsibility of coastal communities or Canadian taxpayers.
The proposed bill reflects the extensive multi-year and countrywide consultations on abandoned vessels and wrecks that my department, along with the Canadian Coast Guard, conducted with marine industry stakeholders, provincial and territorial partners, vessel owners and key Indigenous groups.
[Translation]
In February of 2018, the proposed bill was carefully studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The committee heard from over 20 witnesses from the marine industry, Indigenous groups, civil society, as well as other levels of government. I am delighted with the committee’s work and collaboration, which included adopting six amendments, of which one amendment was put forward by a member of the opposition.
Moreover, an important issue raised by Merchant Navy Captain Paul Bender and other witnesses led to a committee report recommending protections for Canada’s ocean war graves.
In response, my department, together with Parks Canada and the Department of National Defence, have indicated support for an amendment to Bill C-64 that would ensure that the authorities to develop regulations for wrecks of heritage value would also extend to wrecked Canadian and foreign military vessels and aircraft. This change would grant the federal government authority to extend protections to military wrecks that have heritage value.
With these initiatives under way, I am delighted to be your first witness today, as the committee undertakes the study and consideration of Bill C-64.
[English]
Bill C-64 addresses the issue of abandoned, wrecked and hazardous vessels, also known as problem vessels, in a comprehensive way and seeks to fill the gaps in the existing federal legislative framework.
The federal government currently has limited authority to address problem vessels. Existing authorities are limited to addressing some of the harmful impacts from problem vessels, such as pollution discharge or obstruction to navigation. However, there is currently no authority to address the vessel itself and limited ability to take proactive action on these vessels.
You may be surprised to know that there is nothing in law today that prohibits an owner from abandoning their vessel. Furthermore, there are no requirements for vessel owners to carry wreck removal insurance, nor do we have the sufficient authorities to order vessel owners to address their hazardous vessels or wrecks.
Honourable senators, when a car reaches the end of its useful life, we don’t accept owners leaving it by the side of the road — at least not anymore — for someone else to deal with. So it should not be acceptable in the case of vessels in the water, either. Our waterways should not and cannot be treated as junkyards for vessels that have reached the end of their life or have been abandoned by irresponsible owners.
Honourable senators, this is why we have introduced Bill C-64. Bill C-64 will strengthen owner responsibility and liability by prohibiting vessel abandonment. This means that, going forward, owners cannot walk away from their vessel without facing repercussions.
The proposed legislation not only prohibits abandonment but also prohibits an owner from intentionally allowing their vessel to become a wreck, leaving a vessel adrift for more than 48 hours without taking measures to secure it, and leaving vessels in very poor condition in the same area for more than 60 consecutive days without consent from proper authorities. These measures are meant to target vessels that are most at risk of becoming abandoned or wrecked.
Another important aspect of the bill enables the federal government to address problem vessels before they pose greater risks of becoming more costly to address. One of these proactive measures is the ability to direct owners to take actions as soon as it is determined that a vessel poses or may pose a risk.
If the owner is unknown, unable or unwilling to respond, the federal government would be authorized to take any measures deemed necessary to address all types of hazards posed by the abandoned, dilapidated or wrecked vessels and the owner would be liable for all costs.
[Translation]
The proposed legislation will also bring the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, into Canadian law.
This will strengthen the “polluter pay” principle by requiring that owners of vessels that are 300 gross tonnes or more have insurance or other financial security to cover the costs related to the removal of a hazardous wreck.
It also makes owners responsible for locating, reporting and removing their wrecks should they be deemed to be posing a hazard. The proposed legislation also extends these requirements to all Canadian waters, in addition to within Canada’s exclusive economic zone.
The Nairobi Convention sets international rules on the rights and obligations of vessel owners, coastal states, and flag states with respect to wrecks. It also provides state parties with a global regime governing liability, compulsory insurance and direct action against insurers.
[English]
Bill C-64 also consolidates existing provisions that deal with wrecks and salvage into a single act by incorporating existing Canada Shipping Act, 2001 provisions that pertain to the International Convention on Salvage, dated 1989, as well as the functional role of the Receiver of Wreck.
Several important amendments have been made to the long-established and critical function of the Receiver of Wreck housed within Transport Canada to better protect and preserve the rights of owners of found wrecks and of salvors. For example, to effectively fulfil the role as a custodian, the Receiver of Wreck needs to be aware of a wreck that a salvor has found and has interest in keeping. New provisions under Bill C-64 would therefore prohibit a salvor from taking possession of a found wreck without first obtaining authorization from the Receiver of Wreck unless the wreck is in danger or in need of immediate protection.
Honourable senators, this bill will provide the national strategy with the teeth it needs to address abandoned, wrecked and hazardous vessels. Bill C-64 includes administrative monetary penalties to deter noncompliance and regulatory offences to punish those who fail to abide by the law. This enforcement regime will cover everything from pleasure craft to commercial vessels, both domestic and foreign flagged, in all Canadian waters and, in certain cases, in Canada’s exclusive economic zone. The penalties are higher than in other marine legislation to provide an effective deterrent that reflects the high costs of addressing these vessels.
[Translation]
Enforcement of this new proposed legislation will be shared between Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. This sharing of responsibilities takes advantage of the distinct roles, responsibilities and capacities of both departments. In particular, the Canadian Coast Guard will serve as the first point of contact to facilitate the reporting of problem and hazardous vessels.
To support the effective implementation of this proposed legislation, the Canadian Coast Guard is developing a national inventory and a risk assessment methodology, to allow us to understand the extent of the issue nationally and help prioritize our response to problem vessels based on the risks they pose.
Furthermore, vessel owners will now be liable for costs incurred for remedial measures undertaken by the government or for clean-up. Owners will be held accountable. Bill C-64 also provides the federal government with broad and clear authorities to address vessels and wrecks that pose or may pose hazards. This will allow the federal government to proactively intervene and take action on any vessel, no matter its size or type or where it is located in Canadian waters.
[English]
Let me conclude by restating that Bill C-64 is one piece of the national strategy to address abandoned and wrecked vessels. Other measures of this strategy include two short-term funding programs that support communities in assessing and removing abandoned or wrecked vessels. The establishment of long-term owner-financed funds to address problem vessels is another aspect of it that we will be following up on, and the enhancement of vessel owner identification, as well as initiatives to increase awareness of the new legislation, vessel recycling and design.
This broader strategy aims to ensure that all causes, pathways and impacts of irresponsible vessel management are addressed. Our coasts and waterways are symbolic of Canadian life and culture and these measures, together with Bill C-64, will help prevent and reduce the number of abandoned, dilapidated and wrecked vessels in Canadian waters for the benefit of future generations.
Again, I would like to thank you, honourable senators, for your thoughtful consideration and I look forward to receiving your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here, Minister. Clearly, the ideal situation is for the vessels that sink to have insurance. So we could claim the money back and everything would be fine when the new legislation is applied. If not, what will be the measures for the provinces? In some cases, I am thinking of Quebec, you could delegate the powers of the legislation to Quebec to deal with the shipwreck. Then who will pay the bill?
Mr. Garneau: Thank you for the question. Under the Nairobi International Convention, all vessels weighing more than 300 tonnes must have insurance with the coverage required to deal with a wreck or a sunken vessel. Below that weight, it is not required.
Small boats also include small recreational and fishing boats. We want to work with the provinces and territories to implement a provincial registration system similar to the one used for vehicle registration. We would like to do the same for small pleasure craft and other small vessels to identify vessel owners.
If a vessel sinks and its owner does not have insurance, does not want to pay or has gone bankrupt, we are proposing the fund that I mentioned briefly at the end of my presentation. It is a consolidated fund to which all vessel owners would contribute. We are in the process of determining how it could be developed. When the owners buy their vessels, they would pay a small amount into the fund that they can use, especially when they do not have insurance, which will prevent the costs from being passed on to taxpayers. There is a sort of similar name in English, the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.
If there is a spill, the costs are sometimes covered by that fund. All vessel owners contribute to the fund so that an amount is available when there is a spill and there is not enough insurance or the owner does not have the money to pay all the clean-up costs and compensation for victims. We want to create a similar fund for wrecks and abandoned vessels.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Until it is set up, if there are operations that you delegate to Quebec —
Mr. Garneau: We do not intend to delegate this to the provinces at this time. The responsibility lies with the Canadian Coast Guard and the federal government. For example, we just got rid of the Kathryn Spirit in Beauharnois. That was a project involving a large vessel. The Canadian Coast Guard took over the project and, fortunately, has just completed it. It was one of those situations where the money was not there and the federal government had to pay. We do not want to do this all the time. Eventually, we want a program that is funded either by the owners’ insurance or by the fund I mentioned.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Mr. Garneau: You’re welcome.
Senator Gagné: Welcome, minister. Welcome, everyone. My question is about governance and the allocation of power. The bill defines the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Agreements need to be reached to ensure that the law is enforced.
As I understand it, Canadian port authorities already have certain powers under the Canada Marine Act. I believe they would also be called upon to enforce the law. In this context of shared governance, how do we ensure smooth but rigorous coordination of compliance and enforcement activities?
Mr. Garneau: That is an excellent question. I tend to think that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada are working very closely on various projects. If we go back far enough, the Canadian Coast Guard was once part of Transport Canada. There is a history there. We work very closely together and the responsibilities are well defined.
For example, if Transport Canada considers a wreck to be a problem for navigation, it is their responsibility. However, if a wreck has half-full or full fuel tanks and a puncture in those tanks causes a spill, the Canadian Coast Guard will handle it. Our responsibilities are well defined and I don’t think we’re in a situation where we’re wondering who has to do what.
Senator Gagné: How will the Canadian port authorities be involved?
Mr. Garneau: As for the port authorities, I will turn to my team. Of course, they have a mandate to act as commercial ports. They have responsibilities toward vessels entering those ports. Let’s say, for example, that a dilapidated vessel is docked at a wharf in a port authority. If that vessel is still there after 60 days and it may sink, the owner would be first required to talk to the port authority about what measures to take rather than leave it there.
Port authorities have responsibilities and it is in their interest not to have dilapidated vessels that are simply abandoned or that take up a dock for a long period of time. In that sense, if they are not responsible for abandoned vessels, it is once again up to the two departments. However, they have a role to play with the vessels in their port. In the case of small craft harbours, the Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for any small vessels that may sink.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for appearing before us, Minister. I also have a question about governance, but first, I have a request for clarification on the terminology used. I’m referring to sections 32 and 5.
With respect to abandoned vessels, subsection 32(2) states:
An owner of a vessel is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to have abandoned it if they leave the vessel unattended for a period of two years.
There is a clarification in subsection 32(3) that, and I quote:
. . . it is not necessary for an owner to leave a vessel unattended for a period of two years for the owner to be found to have contravened. . .
How is an abandoned vessel defined? In subsection 5(3), I would also like to better understand how to determine whether or not a vessel is a heritage vessel.
I’m also going to ask you a question about governance. It is in line with Senator Gagné’s question. I am from Caraquet, which is a small seaport. Suppose there is a wreck, in the past—
[English]
The Chair: I am trying to keep it to two questions. The minister has to leave at 8:45.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I will ask a question about governance. I would like to have a better understanding of the process. If there is a wreck in our country, its owner is in Florida and we can’t reach him, what is the process? Who has the first responsibility? Is it the port, the municipality, the Coast Guard? How is the process established to ensure that the wreck is removed?
Mr. Garneau: Right now or with the legislation?
Senator Cormier: The process when the legislation is in place.
Mr. Garneau: When the legislation is in place, it will be a matter of finding out who the owner is and that’s who will be responsible for it. It will be very clear that the owners will be responsible from the time their vessel is purchased until they dispose of it. They can’t just leave it there.
If the Canadian Coast Guard is required to clean up because it is a risk, then the owner will be responsible for the costs. If the person refuses to pay, additional measures, such as penalties, can be taken to dispose of the vessel.
Senator Cormier: Is the local port financially responsible?
Mr. Garneau: No, the owner is responsible. The local port, if it does its job, does not put itself in this position, at least we hope not. The owner is responsible. We are most concerned with the responsibility of the owner.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you for being here, minister. It has been awhile, but welcome back.
Mr. Garneau: Good to see you, senator.
Senator Plett: I find myself in a rather unique and good position in that I am supporting one of the bills that you are presenting, minister.
Mr. Garneau: I knew that if I was Minister of Transport long enough, that moment might happen.
Senator Plett: We find ourselves in that position. As we know, the genesis of this bill was Bill C-695, a private member’s bill introduced by MP John Weston.
Indeed, I believe it’s a good bill, minister.
My question is related to the Nairobi Convention, which you’ve touched on a few times in your remarks. In a discussion paper published by Transport Canada in April of 2010, the department noted that there were three options regarding the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks.
The three options were: first, the status quo, where Canada would not ratify or accede to the convention; second, ratify the convention without extension to Canada’s internal waters and territorial sea; or third, ratify the convention with extension to Canada’s internal waters and territorial sea. The department recommended the third option, that Canada ratify the convention and apply the convention to its internal waters and territorial sea.
I’m assuming, minister — and maybe I shouldn’t — that the government has chosen to implement what the department has recommended. Will the bill address problems with wrecked or abandoned vessels in Canada’s internal waters and territorial sea in addition to what was prescribed by the Nairobi Convention?
Mr. Garneau: For example, if there were a wreck on Lake Winnipeg, the answer is yes.
Senator Plett: Thank you. That was a very quick answer. Look at that, chair, I’m asking questions that don’t take a lot of time.
Transport Canada, in 2010, released a discussion paper on part of the public consultation process and one of the questions that was put to the stakeholders was: if Canada were to accede to the convention, should Canada apply the Nairobi Convention to the internal waters and territorial sea?
Can you tell me how the stakeholders have responded to this question? Were they primarily in favour? Have they been positive? What stakeholders were consulted?
Mr. Garneau: We consulted a vast number of stakeholders, including the shipping community and Indigenous peoples, because many wrecks are along the coasts and sometimes in coastal waters that they use. Communities are affected because sometimes a wreck is not only a potential environmental or navigational hazard, but it’s also an eyesore that can affect tourism and simply doesn’t look very good.
We consulted with all of these sectors and there is a recognition that it’s a responsible thing to do. It’s not fair to put that load on the taxpayer because if we’re going to do the clean-up, there is already going to be a load on the taxpayer for some wrecks that have been around for a very long time.
In the future, once Bill C-64 becomes an act, I think the Nairobi Convention kicks in automatically three months later, and stakeholders are supportive of this. I’m not aware of anyone who said they don’t want to take responsibility for their own vessel.
Senator Dawson: I’m happy to see you’re happy, Senator Plett. I want to say that the average mandate of ministers of transport in the previous government was less than two years, and now we’ve had one who has been there for three years. We had to wait for three years, but you can be satisfied that you got your question.
[Translation]
My first question is about the clarification of the exclusive economic zone, and the second is really a question —
[English]
— I’m not used to the language here. The minister is saying in his text that he would love for us to make an amendment. Normally when we try to get amendments, sometimes there is resistance. How would you want us to proceed on the amendment concerning the ocean war graves? What happens when we send it back to the House of Commons? Do you think you will get the support?
There have been some past experiences where amendments made by this committee were rejected by the other place, and I wouldn’t want to put you in a situation where our wording was not clear enough and would be badly interpreted. This is an offer of co-operation in the spirit of Senator Plett.
Mr. Garneau: There is an application in Canada’s economic zone and with respect to the amendment, we felt that it would be good to add it to the bill. We’re not concerned that there will be any arguments from any of the parties. They are all supportive of it.
You’re right in that if there is an amendment proposed, we approached Senator Campbell and we asked him if he would introduce it.
Senator Dawson: Larry?
Mr. Garneau: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Manning has already offered to introduce it and he’s a member of the committee. We would prefer that we work on it here and make sure that the department and the committee are talking the same language before we refer it to the Senate. We’d like to address it in committee.
Mr. Garneau: We can work with that as well, and yes, you’re right: if you introduce this, we consider it to be a friendly amendment. It would have to come back to the House of Commons and go back to you, but I can assure you it would really just be a formality.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, minister. I have a few questions for you.
In subsection 74(1), you refer to an enforcement officer who may enter places for verification purposes, but there is no specification as to whether it is a peace officer. Is the definition not too broad under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
There is a whole procedure to follow when entering a private place. Will that section go beyond the power of a peace officer? Will this violate my rights as an owner under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
As a vessel owner, I would challenge such an intrusion since the powers of the officer, who does not appear to me to be a peace officer, are not established.
[English]
Michelle Sanders, Director, Clean Water Policy, Transport Canada: In order to enter a private dwelling, you would request a search warrant unless you have reason to believe there has been a violation of the act. These are standard enforcement powers that are present in most marine environmental legislation for an enforcement officer. They have similar powers to a peace officer but they are not considered peace officers. However, they have certain powers to search, to enter dwellings, to enter places if they have reason to, if there has been a violation. But in entering a private dwelling, there would be a requirement for a search warrant.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: So the officers will have to get a search warrant before entering, if I understand correctly.
Mr. Garneau: Unless they think there has been a violation of the legislation.
Senator Boisvenu: The Civil Code of Québec provides rules on civil liability. Have you consulted the Barreau du Québec or the Department of Transport about the occupancy of a territory where the rules are determined by the Civil Code of Québec?
Mr. Garneau: Before choosing this wording, we checked with the Department of Justice. We feel that they have checked what happens in Quebec or in other provinces. We have reason to believe that this has been checked and that it is acceptable to Quebec as well.
Senator Boisvenu: However, there was no formal consultation.
Mr. Garneau: The Department of Justice would do that.
[English]
Senator Manning: Welcome to our guests. I believe it was yesterday that we passed third reading in the Senate on the kindness act, and I can see it’s having an effect on our members already. I’m delighted with that, and I certainly look forward to moving an amendment to the bill. Thank you for accepting that.
Back in 2001, two Lithuanian vessels came into port in Bay Roberts, Newfoundland and Labrador, and it took seven years to have them removed because, as you mentioned earlier, eyesore was an understatement, along with environmental concerns. I realize that the act has a 60-day window. When we hit the 60 days, how do we go about the process to move these vessels and what happens if the vessels are flags of convenience, for example, registered in one country owned by somebody in another country? Will the fund be in place to take care of that situation because you might not be able to track down the proper owners and talk to them. I’m trying to get a hold of the process.
Mr. Garneau: It’s certainly our plan in the future that we will at least know who the owner is because there will be a requirement for that. And if that period of time has gone by, the next step would be to tell the person that they have to move their vessel. If we can’t track them down and if we have reason to believe it represents a danger, we would have to take action. But our approach would be to find the owner and to make them accountable if the vessel is clearly abandoned. That would be an illegal activity to bring it to Bay Roberts and leave it there.
Senator Manning: It would take place more quickly than seven years under this legislation?
Mr. Garneau: Absolutely. This is the whole idea. We don’t want to have these eyesores around for years.
Senator Manning: The bill that we’re bringing forward deals with vessels of 300 gross tonnes. As you are aware, 3 per cent of Canada’s registered fleet are 300 gross tonnes. There are many in Newfoundland and Labrador that are much less than that, and I understand that you want to look at regulations to deal with the ones that are under 300. Are we going to see regulation where they will have to carry insurance on those vessels as well, even if the bill only addresses the ones with 300 tonnes or more?
Mr. Garneau: At the moment, the Nairobi Convention is for 300 tonnes gross weight or above. But the owners of those smaller vessels, and there are many of them, will nevertheless have the responsibility to dispose of their vessels. If they want to carry insurance, that’s fine. That’s up to them, but it doesn’t remove the obligation that they are responsible for it. Once we get above 300 tonnes, we’re starting to talk about very expensive disposal operations and we want to make sure that they do have insurance. But if it is smaller than that, it does not get them off the hook. They don’t have to have the insurance, but it doesn’t get them off the hook in terms of disposal.
Senator Manning: They will still be responsible.
Mr. Garneau: Yes.
Senator MacDonald: I really like this bill and I want to help you strengthen it. I saw a lot of shipwrecks growing up in Louisbourg. And there was loss of life in some of these shipwrecks. But I have also seen these rust buckets sit around the coast for decades and nothing being done with them. It’s good to see this initiative.
A couple of years ago, you will remember that the MV Miner went offshore off Scatarie, not far from my home town. My grandfather was the lighthouse keeper in Scatarie back in the 1920s, and I have been there.
That situation cost the Government of Nova Scotia about $12 million. If this bill passes and these provisions are in place, will the bill protect the Government of Nova Scotia from having to pay these costs from their own pocket?
Mr. Garneau: The intention is not to download the costs to taxpayers or provinces but to make the owners accountable for it. The MV Miner is a good example, the Kathryn Spirit. My own colleague from Nova Scotia, Bernadette Jordan from St. Margaret’s Bay, put in a motion and has played an important role in this legislation. That motion dealt with abandoned and wrecked vessels and it’s through her efforts that the Farley Mowat was removed in Shelburne.
The idea is that it will be either an insurance company or the owner that will be responsible for removal. Can I tell you that it will cover every possible situation if the owner totally disappears and is totally derelict? Unfortunately, sometimes that happens in the real world. At the moment, the federal government would have the responsibility but that’s why we’re creating this fund that everyone will contribute to. It is so that we will have this fund to use in a case where we’re in that situation.
Senator MacDonald: We already have some funds under the Oceans Protection Plan that was put forward, $1.5 billion allocated. What are the criteria for allocating this? And how do you determine what wrecks are going to be able to have access to this funding?
Mr. Garneau: The Oceans Protection Plan is a $1.5 billion plan, but it is for about 50 different things we are doing. It is not specifically focused on wrecked or abandoned vessels, but to improve marine safety, marine response. There are Coast Guard assets that we’re purchasing. There is involvement of coastal First Nations. We do have two small funds at the moment. There is one out of Transport Canada, the Abandoned Boats Program and there is one out of the Coast Guard for small craft harbours where there is money. We have already assessed or removed a little over 100 small craft vessels in some of the harbours where they have been littered for years. But that is just to get us going. There is some money there to continue this process for a number of years. Ultimately, those that are still there after that money has run out, we hope to then start tapping into this new fund to continue that process. I’m talking about the legacy of wrecks that have been around for decades.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to follow up with a couple of questions on that. How expensive will it be to clean the abandoned vessels and wrecks that are already known to Transport Canada?
Mr. Garneau: It can range from $5,000 to $10,000 for a small pleasure craft that has sunk in the bottom of Ladysmith Harbour on Vancouver Island, to millions of dollars for the Kathryn Spirit and the MV Miner. It depends on the size of the vessel.
The Chair: Do we have an assessment of what the total would be if we cleaned it all up or is it impossible to clean it all?
Mr. Garneau: We could estimate it. At the moment the Coast Guard is trying to complete the inventory of existing wrecks in Canada. We have the largest coast in the world and lots of internal waters and it will take a while to get a count. However, once we have a list of all these wrecks, in theory we could probably estimate how much it would cost to clean it all up. Our approach is we will not suddenly put billions of dollars — I’m guessing, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions of dollars — to clean every single wreck in the country.
Ultimately, it’s a bit like the federal government’s funding for cleaning up waste sites. There are 4,000 waste sites in the country and we put a little money in every year to clean up these sites, such as abandoned mines and contaminated sites that belonged to the federal government in the past when people were not conscientious about disposal. It’s an ongoing thing. We could probably come up with a figure eventually. It would be hard for me to predict what that figure would be.
The Chair: Is the fund an actual fund that will accumulate in one place or is it part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and it’s just a bookkeeping entry?
Mr. Garneau: No, it will be a dedicated fund. It cannot be put into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It’s reserved for that. Will it grow? It will grow over time but it will be used over time, too, because there are still quite a few wrecks to get rid of.
Senator Wetston: I’m Wetston, not Weston, but I still think it’s a good bill despite the closeness of my name.
Like Senator MacDonald I grew up in Cape Breton, in the big town, Sydney, Nova Scotia. He was in a smaller community.
Senator MacDonald: A city slicker.
Senator Wetston: And he reminds me of that. I’m raising this issue not because I want to share my history, but I am very proud of Cape Breton even though I’m an Ontario senator, and I’m very proud of the Coast Guard College, which I used to visit from time to time. My question is related to this but indirectly, minister.
I’d like to ask you what kind of investment you’re making in the Coast Guard College, whether it’s growing, whether you’re investing in the organization, skills, training, et cetera? Do the graduates of the Coast Guard College participate in this area of activity that you’re moving forward with?
I think it’s obviously an important area. As you heard from other senators, I am personally supportive of this. I have seen some of these dilapidated wrecks off of Cape Breton Island and we want to maintain the beauty of it all.
Can you provide any information with respect to that particular area of activity that you’re responsible for?
Mr. Garneau: As you know, senator, the Coast Guard comes under my colleague Jonathan Wilkinson.
Senator Wetston: It is under the other, yes.
Mr. Garneau: It used to be under Transport decades ago, but it has moved around.
Senator Wetston: I knew I came too late, but you do have representatives from the Coast Guard.
Mr. Garneau: Perhaps my colleague can speak to that. I am not familiar with the details of the Coast Guard College, but I’m sure it’s a very fine institution. Perhaps Ms. Gascon can speak about it.
Julie Gascon, Director General, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, senator. I am a graduate of the 1998 class of the Coast Guard College and a navigator by trade. The Canadian Coast Guard College is continuing in its growth. We have a dynamic director at the helm. The programs of the Canadian Coast Guard College include all kinds of activities and training for our officers when they do graduate to be able to take part in all the programs the Canadian Coast Guard has.
What is great with this new program is we had the search and rescue, which you are familiar with, we have the environmental response, which you are familiar with, and now we are closing the loop with the vessels of concern and our ability to have new powers and authority to address those vessels.
From the perspective of the Coast Guard College it will be upgraded in terms of their program to ensure our officer cadets are well trained to participate in this program. We have large classes that are graduating and coming out to supplement a lot of folks who are retiring. We are proud of the progress of the Coast Guard College. We just hired a class of 80 students this year, so we are very pleased with the progress of the Coast Guard College. There has been a lot of investment and you may be aware as well, senator, that the Coast Guard College was home to the folks who were flooded during the Nova Scotia flooding. We brought in a lot of families and supported them until they were able to return to their homes. The college is well and alive.
Senator Wetston: Thank you very much for that. I hope we both learned something here tonight, minister.
The Nairobi International Convention provisions, and taking a look at the importance of that convention with respect to how it affects Bill C-64 and its implementation is my next area of concern. I was wondering about an issue, and I may be incorrect here and you can correct me if I am.
During committee, it was noted that the convention’s provisions pertaining to the right of a shipowner to contract with a party of his or her choice to remove the wreck and the ability of the country or the state to establish conditions for the wreck’s removal only to the extent necessary to ensure safety and environmental protection are not part of this bill.
If this is the case, what is the policy rationale for not including the right of a shipowner to contract with the party of his or her choice to remove the wreck?
I’m happy for you to tell me I’m wrong.
Marc-Yves Bertin, Director General, Marine Policy, Transport Canada: I won’t start off by telling you that you are wrong. I will say you’re not completely correct, how about that?
Senator Wetston: Another politician.
Mr. Bertin: I try.
The proposed legislation does have the effect of taking an existing statute that deals with the salvage convention and moving it into this consolidated piece of legislation. The idea is to have an end-to-end, complete package.
That said, we are not suggesting making any changes to the existing legislation and the convention but the convention does provide for exactly that.
Senator Wetston: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Let me go back to my question about heritage. Canada has a great challenge of defining and, above all, preserving its heritage. I would like to know how you go about collaborating to determine what is a heritage vessel. In this sense, the definition of “dilapidated vessel” reads, “is not capable of safe navigation.” We see a lot of those vessels out of the water where I live. Are they in the category of dilapidated vessels or are they not?
Mr. Garneau: Out of the water? No.
Senator Cormier: If you go to Shippagan, you will see a whole host of dilapidated vessels.
Mr. Garneau: We are concerned about the vessels in the water or underwater.
In terms of heritage, Parks Canada has the mandate to decide whether a vessel is a heritage vessel.
Senator Cormier: That is because you say at the federal-provincial level in the description.
Mr. Garneau: If it is off the coast of British Columbia, it is the responsibility of the federal government. It is the same on the Atlantic coast. If it is in a lake, in the middle of the country, it is in our inland waters. So the federal government and Parks Canada will make the decision.
[English]
Ms. Sanders: To add to that, this is one of the reasons we are working closely with the provinces and territories in helping define not only the work we are doing on abandoned and wrecked vessels generally within the water and what role they can play but recognizing that a lot of them have been pulled up on to land, which is then a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. We have been collaborating with the provincial and territorial officials to figure out what their role is, how we can collaborate to leverage the work we are doing to increase our authorities and awareness of how to address these vessels to help them and how we can work together better to address the problem both in the water and on the land, recognizing their jurisdiction in that area.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to go back to the areas of jurisdiction. In terms of inland waters, some are under provincial jurisdiction and others are under shared jurisdiction. Earlier, you told me that you do not intend to delegate your operations to rescue or deal with a wreck. Will you consult with the provinces when the wreck is in inland waters under provincial jurisdiction? Will the provinces be involved in the operation? Have there ever been any consultations? Did they say to you, “Do what you want; we are closing our eyes”? I doubt it.
Mr. Garneau: No, no. We will certainly work with the provinces, but what I was saying is that the financial burden is ours.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: However, in terms of the operation itself, can you delegate the operations to the provinces or not in some cases, such as in the case of provincial inland waters?
Mr. Garneau: I am told that operations can be delegated if we choose to do so. However, in the example of the Kathryn Spirit freighter, a contract has been awarded to a company, and this is the case for the small wrecks that have been removed from the water. There is usually a call for tenders. A subcontractor is then chosen to do the work for a certain amount of money.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: During the operation, is there a consultation with the provinces beforehand or on a case-by-case basis?
[English]
Ms. Sanders: Currently we have authority where there is a risk to navigation for Transport Canada on the West Coast. We work closely, for example, within Victoria with the regional authorities at identifying what the risks are and where there might be opportunities to leverage their expertise in understanding the coastline and the areas where the boat might be as well as any expertise or resources they have in terms of equipment to help remove the vessel. There is a lot of close collaboration when there is a wreck or abandoned vessel that has been identified, and we foresee that continuing, recognizing that they have that local knowledge and expertise that we can benefit from.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There has been no sensitivity expressed by provinces in their particular water for you to intervene, then?
Ms. Sanders: No.
Senator Plett: This is a bit of a follow-up, minister, to what Senator MacDonald talked about. I am sorry if you addressed this somewhere, but I don’t recall. In reading through your notes, I can’t find it.
We have talked about a fund. You say clearly in your comments here that vessels under a certain size are not required to carry insurance but there will be a fund.
Somebody owns one ship under 300,000 gross tonnage but doesn’t carry insurance. Will someone owning one vessel be paying less money into this fund? Is this a fund that the government will be implementing? How will that fund work? What is the process of people paying into that fund so that if someone does have a derelict vessel, abandons it, walks away from it, is bankrupt, that the taxpayers aren’t on the hook? You say there is a fund, but if that fund is not funded by the taxpayers, how is it funded?
Mr. Garneau: The idea of the fund is that it will be paid into by boat and ship owners.
Senator Plett: Depending on the size of their company?
Mr. Garneau: Yes. We have not worked out all the details. It is not in the legislation. This is something we are doing outside of the legislation. We will work out the details. It will probably be related to the size of the vessel, potential risk in terms of cost if something happens to it. Those details have to be worked out. The idea is to have this fund so it can be used instead of the taxpayer in cases where we cannot pursue the person and that they don’t have insurance and we have no other alternative. Instead of the federal government having to pay for it, we will dip into this fund. That is the purpose of it.
Senator Plett: And that can be done by regulation?
Mr. Garneau: Yes. It doesn’t have to be legislated.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Mr. Garneau: There is a similar example called the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, which is a fund that ship owners pay into for exactly that kind of situation.
Our first principle is polluter pay, but if we are in a situation where they are not willing or unable to pay — and by the way, there are administrative penalties we can apply, too, in this legislation. And a person can end up in jail. There are measures. We want to seriously discourage anyone from trying to just walk away from it.
Senator Plett: Could you not have simply applied insurance to everyone? Was that considered or is that just too much trouble?
Mr. Garneau: I don’t know if it was considered.
Mr. Bertin: It was part of the consultation process. What we found during the consultations was that the market for smaller boats was untested and therefore there could be reluctance on the part of insurers to offer such a product. There are a number of implications there associated with that.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: To clarify on these funds because governments always have strange bookkeeping. You mentioned the ship —
Mr. Garneau: Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.
The Chair: Is that a separate fund or is that money in a consolidated fund?
Mr. Garneau: It is a separate fund that is managed by someone appointed by me to manage.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Garneau: It is kept separate and at arm’s length.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.
We will suspend for a couple of minutes. The officials will remain because I know a lot of you have questions. We will then call the meeting to order. If you have no questions, we will dismiss the officials; if you do have questions, great.
I am not sure if we have any questions so this might be the shortest meeting you have ever attended.
Senator Cormier: It will be a short one.
[Translation]
If a vessel is docked and the owner has disappeared, who makes the decision to remove it? How does the process unfold? If the federal government makes the decision and pays, is the port or municipality liable? Are there any fees? How does it work?
[English]
Ms. Sanders: The process is that if we know there is a wreck that potentially poses a hazard, it would start with a hazard assessment to determine what risk that vessel poses. If it is within a port, right now it is between Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard that have the responsibility under the legislation.
We have the authority to delegate to, for example, one of the port authorities if it is determined that they are interested in taking it on and we have developed our processes sufficiently so that we ensure there is consistency in how the legislation is implemented.
That is an authority that we have. We have not yet decided how and whether we would be delegating or designating to various authorities, but that power is there.
In terms of the process, then, there would be a hazard assessment done to determine what hazard is present, and then we would determine the appropriate method to deal with the issue.
For example, if it is a pollution risk we obviously want to contain that and remediate it. If the best way forward is to remove the vessel, we would determine what the appropriate steps would be. All the while, the vessel owner is ultimately liable for the cost.
Senator Cormier: But if he is gone?
Ms. Sanders: If we don’t know and are unable to find the vessel owner in any way, this long-term fund would have resources to be able to help remove and pay for it.
Senator Cormier: So the local port will not have to pay?
Ms. Sanders: The local port would not be liable for the costs of removing the vessel.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I will sleep well tonight.
Ms. Sanders: The intent of the legislation is to hold vessel owners responsible.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will come back with this question. With this bill, do you have an obligation to consult provinces or is it what you intend to do? Is there an obligation to consult if an event happens and you have to intervene? Do you have an obligation to consult the province, particularly if we are in provincial waters?
Ms. Sanders: We have every intention to consult. Ms. Gascon reminded me during the break of an example with the Kathryn Spirit where it was a collaborative effort between the municipality and the provincial government working closely together to determine the appropriate path forward. Everyone has a specialty and expertise to bring to it. If it is within the province, we would want to be working closely with them to ensure there is agreement on the path forward and how to address it.
Ms. Gascon: In the case of the Kathryn Spirit, a working group was tasked. It was municipal, provincial and federal and we always consult extensively with the Mohawk band council.
[Translation]
So it was the result of a lot of effort. The working group came together and we produced a report with very detailed recommendations to inform further developments with respect to the Kathryn Spirit. That was an incredible effort that led to the freighter being successfully dismantled.
Whether it is a search and rescue operation, an environmental response case or an abandoned vessel, the Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada will consult with the provinces, inform the public and ensure that risks and issues are clearly identified in order to proceed. Wildlife people and provincial ministries must be consulted. Concerted efforts must be made to deal with those ships.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for that clarification. The minister talked about using the registration process. I imagine that vessels must be registered in Quebec. So do you want an additional tax to be imposed on pleasure craft owners to finance the potential wreck problem?
[English]
Ms. Sanders: Currently, all pleasure craft are already required to be licensed. It is a pleasure craft licence. What we are trying to do is improve that regime and ensure that the data that we have in there is more robust and to improve the system so that when we do find an abandoned or wrecked vessel, we are able to track it to the owner and hold them accountable for the cost of dealing with and remediating that vessel.
The idea with the fund is that, currently, a licence for a pleasure craft is free. There is an effort under way from a cost-recovery perspective to have a charge so that you have to pay to receive your licence. For the fund, we are looking at a surcharge. It is kind of like a snowmobile: When you register it you have to pay $15 in some jurisdictions, but there is a $5 trail maintenance fee that is added to that. That goes to a specific fund for trail maintenance only. That $15 covers the cost of issuing you the licence and the administration of that regime, but the $5 goes specifically to the trail maintenance, so it is the snowmobile users who are paying for the trail maintenance, as opposed to the taxpayers in general.
It’s the same concept. It is the boat owners who would be paying a surcharge of some type into a fund that could then be used in the event that we are unable to find the owner of the vessel.
Senator MacDonald: I have a couple of quick questions here going back to what we spoke about before. The requirements in clause 24 is that the vessels would be 300 gross tonnes or later. Data tells us that only 3 per cent of Canada’s fleet is 300 tonnes or greater. I assume that is put in there for our advantage, or for the advantage of Canadian ship owners.
How many foreign vessels that come into Canada are at 300 tonnes or greater? Do we have the number for that?
Mr. Bertin: About 98 per cent of foreign flagged vessels calling on Canadian ports would be equal or above the 300.
Senator MacDonald: Do we know what percentage of these vessels have adequate insurance now?
Mr. Bertin: I will check my notes and stats. Generally speaking, for these larger vessels the market for insurance products exists. In fact, most commercial vessels — around 90 per cent of the world’s tonnage — are part of associations called P&I clubs. They pool together and cover each other off.
Senator MacDonald: Are there any complications that come in with salvage issues in terms of what the vessels are carrying? I am not just thinking about petroleum, which is always an issue. Either they are carrying it or they obviously have it to drive the vessel.
But if they are carrying certain goods are there any complications with this legislation that would affect the salvage of a vessel or the salvaging of goods on a vessel? Or should the government look at the value of the salvage on the vessel and bring it into the formula in some manner? I am curious if that was looked at.
Mr. Bertin: I am not sure I follow the question.
Senator MacDonald: We have seen vessels sit there and be salvaged. Does this affect the rights of salvage in any way in terms of a vessel?
Mr. Bertin: We already have on the books legislation to bring into Canadian domestic law the International Convention on Salvage. That’s a convention that entered into force in 1996. What we’re doing here is largely a housekeeping exercise in bringing that existing piece of legislation into this vehicle, in order to bring everything together.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Ms. Sanders: I can add to that. Complementary to the salvage regime is the Receiver of Wreck. The Receiver of Wreck is a role based on British admiralty law in order to protect the rights of the salvor, as well as the rights of the owner of the vessel. We’ve brought everything — including the Receiver of Wreck provisions from the Canada Shipping Act, the salvage convention — into one regime so it holds together. Before someone can actually take possession of a vessel for salvage, they have to notify the Receiver of Wreck and wait until they essentially get the green light to take possession. And in that process, the Receiver of Wreck has a duty. We’ve enhanced those duties in this bill that requires them to assess the state of the vessel. If there is a risk associated with the salvage or with the content of it, that can be part of the Receiver of Wreck’s determination of whether or not they can grant the salvage rights to the individual and what that process is.
Senator MacDonald: That’s what I was getting at.
The salvor and the owner are not always necessarily the same person.
Ms. Sanders: Right.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, thank you. We’re going in camera in five minutes.
(The committee continued in camera.)