Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 45 - Evidence - December 5, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 5, 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 6:46 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this evening we are continuing our study of Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations. We will be hearing from one panel of witnesses today, then proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
We are pleased to have before us today from the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Sara Anghel, President; from the Chamber of Marine Commerce, Sarah Douglas, Senior Director, Government and Stakeholder Relations, and Paul Topping, Director, Regulatory and Environmental Affairs; and from the Harbour Authority Association of British Columbia, Robert Clarke, President.
Thank you for attending our meeting. The floor is yours, Ms. Anghel, followed by Ms. Douglas and Mr. Clarke.
Sara Anghel, President, National Marine Manufacturers Association: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening before you.
My name is Sara Anghel, and I’m President of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, known as NMMA. It is the leading association representing the recreational boating industry at the national level both in Canada and the United States.
Our member companies produce more than 80 per cent of the boats, engines, trailers, accessories and gear used by North American boaters. NMMA also represents, through regional efforts, marine operators, dealers, and finance and insurance companies across Canada.
In Canada, the recreational boating industry generates $10 billion in revenue, contributes $5.6 billion to the national GDP, and employs over 75,000 people across the country. Over 4,000 businesses serve approximately 12.4 million adult Canadians who enjoy boating each year on our waters.
We place great importance on marine safety, preserving marine ecosystems, and promoting improvements to environmental stewardship. From this perspective, we are supportive of Bill C-64 and, broadly speaking, of the Oceans Protection Plan which it largely stems from.
In fact, over the last 20 years, marine manufacturers across North America have invested billions of dollars to develop cleaner, quieter and more efficient engines that have reduced emissions by 75 to 90 per cent and increased fuel efficiency by more than 40 per cent. In 2010, our association stepped up in a major way and worked on a voluntary basis with Environment and Climate Change Canada to develop new regulations requiring that engines sold in Canada meet the U.S. EPA standards.
Each year, NMMA publishes statistics on the total number of boats sold. For the committee’s interest, in 2017, there were 39,108 new boats sold and just over 61,000 pre-owned boats sold across Canada. We estimate that there are currently 8.6 million recreational boats in use in Canada, with over 50 per cent of that being human-powered, without an engine.
NMMA is committed to a strong and enforceable licensing program and welcomes the opportunity to see an expanded and enhanced registration process as proposed under the bill. Having more accurate data will help address the abandoned vessel issues and related safety and navigation concerns, while also providing valuable market data for the benefit of the recreational boating industry.
We understand that Transport Canada has been consulting with provinces and territories to determine if it would be feasible for a boat licensing program to be administered provincially. NMMA strongly believes that the existing Office of Boating Safety delivers strong, nationally administered programming and that this offering should continue to be delivered by the Government of Canada given that boating is regulated federally.
While NMMA is supportive overall of the provisions in the bill, we do have one important concern worth highlighting. We appreciate that the legislation was written to encompass all vessels, and we appreciate that many of the boats needing cleanup are recreational. That being said, I want to stress the importance of ensuring that as regulations are developed, commercial vessels are treated differently than recreational boats. Disposing of a commercial vessel is a much more complicated and expensive task than disposing of a recreational boat. Our industry wants to ensure the burden of cost is not disproportionately placed on recreational boats.
Should any levies or taxes be imposed on recreational boats through licensing, these funds must be used to support disposal of recreational boats specifically. In addition, if any funds are collected, the government should look at creating an enhanced program that gives something back to boaters and the boating community by way of additional public ramps and docking to expand recreational boating, as an example.
And any levy and tax must also be fairly distributed throughout the boating community. For example, it would not be fair to only charge the levy on new boats, while the majority of the problem boats would not be charged.
There is also one other area that has not been considered: The legislation aims at addressing the cleanup of boats on water only. While I appreciate the scope of the bill is restricted to water, we must keep in mind that in many parts of the country, abandoned boats are also found on land, especially in Ontario and Quebec, which are the two largest boating communities in the country.
NMMA has taken a leadership role on the international stage on this issue, among many other boating issues, much of this facilitated through the International Council of Marine Industry Associations, on whose executive committee I serve as Canada’s representative. This global organization brings together recreational marine industry associations under one international umbrella, engaging proactively on the topic of the end of life of boats and how best to expand recycling options by sharing best practices.
As we endeavour to clean up abandoned boats, this begs the question of what exactly will be done with them given that there are not currently many recycling options available. There are some proven recycling solutions in effect in places like France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan, to name a few. I would be pleased to share the learnings on this model to ensure we do not work in a silo on this important global topic and that we take the opportunity to learn from other countries.
In conclusion, NMMA applauds the federal government for introducing Bill C-64, and we will continue to provide assistance and support as the bill moves forward.
Thank you, honourable senators, for the time this evening, and I welcome any questions you might have.
Sarah Douglas, Senior Director, Government and Stakeholder Relations, Chamber of Marine Commerce: Good evening, honourable senators and members of the committee, and thank you for the invitation to speak this evening. I’m the Senior Director of Government and Stakeholder Relations for the Chamber of Marine Commerce. I’m joined by Paul Topping, our Director of Regulatory and Environmental Affairs. We will be splitting our time this evening.
I’m happy to speak to you on this bill, as CMC shipowner members have a great story to tell on the topic. Every year, more than 230 million metric tonnes of cargo move through the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway. Moving this cargo safely is the top priority for the marine transportation industry, which works to maximize the protection of people, property and the environment. Comprehensive regulatory oversight, investments in advanced navigation technology and sound practices have produced significant safety achievements.
Paul Topping, Director, Regulatory and Environmental Affairs, Chamber of Marine Commerce: We have reviewed Bill C-64 before you today, which would seek to create a new act that would enable the government to better manage wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels, and salvage operations. We speak to you on behalf of our shipowner members, which are Canadian-flagged. Our members are conscientious stewards of the environment and take their responsibilities seriously when it comes to the proper dismantling of a ship to ensure the protection of the health, safety and the marine environment around it.
This new act would become a formative pillar of Canada’s maritime legislation in conjunction with other legislation, such as the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, from which this act is borrowing some clauses, and the Marine Liability Act, which governs marine insurance. The government would need to maintain close coordination of the regulatory work under this act with other maritime legislation.
Ms. Douglas: Overall, we would like to say the CMC supports this bill. We understand the majority of concerns that are the driving forces behind this bill stem from small dilapidated vessels such as old recreational boats. However, the few cases involving the abandonment of large vessels create challenges for the entire marine industry in Canada. Providing the government clear authorities to act when no owner can be found, in our view, addresses the concern of wreck abandonment.
Marine operations aren’t always pretty. They can sometimes generate local perceptions that vessels are abandoned and motivate desires to see them moved, so we also support the due diligence provisions of this bill that ensure the government must establish that a vessel has genuinely been abandoned.
Mr. Topping: We also understand the need for the requirement of compulsory insurance should a vessel be wrecked. As a practical matter, with the entry into force of the Wrecks Convention in 2015, most marine insurance available through the 13 or so protection and indemnity clubs used by shipowners around the world already includes wreck insurance. Firms that choose other insurance arrangements, however, that may only cover only those risks that are mandatory may face increased insurance costs as wreck insurance is added. Our members have protection and indemnity insurance.
We also note that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans each has similar authorities, including on matters related to enforcement. We also note that Division 22 of Bill C-86 also provides both ministers similar authorities necessary to enforce provisions. Given this, we recommend the government develop robust policies and procedures to be set out under a publicly available memorandum of understanding regarding when these powers would be exercised and by which minister. This would provide a clear understanding to the industry.
We would be happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you.
Robert Clarke, President, Harbour Authority Association of British Columbia: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the time you have given me today to speak on Bill C-64. I would like to start with a brief introduction about the Harbour Authority Association of British Columbia.
First, I am the volunteer President of the Harbour Authority Association of British Columbia and full-time wharfinger for the Comox Valley Harbour Authority on Vancouver Island.
The Harbour Authority Association of B.C. is a non-profit society with a mandate to maintain effective communication between harbour authorities through information exchange, networking and education. We operate through a contribution agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Small Craft Harbours Branch.
The HAABC board of directors is made up of harbour managers, staff and directors from various harbour authorities along the B.C. coast. Our voting members consist of harbour authorities under the Small Craft Harbours program. We represent 54 harbour authorities that manage 75 separate harbour sites. We have associate members from the marine industry, including private and municipal marinas, marine service providers and material suppliers.
The HAABC hosts an annual seminar where we provide workshops and training on relevant topics such as board governance, insurance and vessels of concern. The HAABC has worked hard to bring the vessels of concern issue to the forefront by having members sit on working groups and providing input at the national level through the Derelict Vessel Committee.
Harbour authorities can range in size from large commercial operations, such as the Steveston Harbour Authority in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, which is the largest commercial fishing harbour in Canada, to small, almost completely volunteer-run harbour authorities in remote locations. B.C. harbour authorities are usually governed by a volunteer board of directors, which is tasked with the job to guide the harbour authority. These boards are usually made up of fishermen — retired and active — community members, First Nations delegates and elected municipal officials. These board members spend countless hours volunteering their time to govern harbour authorities.
Through the sharing of best practices and a strong mentoring program, the HAABC has helped many harbour authorities develop and implement policies and procedures to assist harbour authority boards in governing effectively and therefore reducing liability to the Crown. The success of the harbour authority program is dependent on these volunteer directors.
In a recent survey conducted by the HAABC, the average B.C. harbour authority receives over 300 volunteer hours per year from its directors and some are as high as 1,800 volunteer hours. Volunteer burnout is a constant concern, especially in small coastal communities.
The Harbour Authority Association of British Columbia has reviewed Bill C-64, and although we extend our general support for the bill, we do feel there are a couple of issues we see as concerning. We feel there is potential for unfair punishment of volunteer directors of harbour authorities, and the proposed fines for failing to comply with the directive are unfair.
The section set out in the proposed bill allowing the minister to give directives to non-owners to secure, repair, dismantle, destroy or sell a problem vessel with the possibility of financial compensation is a welcome addition to the current legislation. However, it appears there is another section which imposes fines when a directive is not carried out. The proposed fines for harbour authority corporations range from $100,000 to $4 million and there is possible imprisonment. Such fines could destroy a harbour authority’s ability to function effectively.
It appears there is another provision for director liability if a harbour authority were not to follow a directive by the minister. With most harbour authorities being non-profit, volunteer-governed organizations, the possibility of director liability is extremely concerning. Possible persecution will certainly deter those who are interested in sitting on a volunteer harbour board. Again, these volunteers are critical to the success of the harbour authority program. We feel harbour authorities should not be forced to take on a role their mandate does not support.
Many harbour authorities are already working proactively to address the issues of vessels of concern with the Small Craft Harbours Abandoned and Wrecked Vessel Removal Program. We applaud the work done by small craft harbours in the Pacific region in dealing with this ongoing issue. Last year alone, we saw the removal and disposal of eight vessels at a cost of over $95,000. The HAABC continues to work closely with a marine lawyer to assist our members in this process.
In closing, the HAABC would like to see amendments made to the sections that increase director liability and threaten administrative penalties to harbour authorities. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question on that, Mr. Clarke. Is your concern the timeline? We have heard this before from a previous witness. Is it a timeline that you’re expected to deal with the problem, the amount of money that —
Mr. Clarke: It’s the ability to deal with the problem. Some harbour authorities will not be able to deal with a large vessel or even a small vessel, financially and manpower.
The Chair: How would the government deal with it? Do you think that’s your problem or their problem?
Mr. Clarke: We just don’t want to be forced to deal with something that we can’t do.
The Chair: All right. That makes sense.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I am going to ask my question in French. My first question is for you, Mr. Clarke, and concerns what you were just talking about. Today I met the harbour authority representatives of a small port in New Brunswick. They have incurred large legal fees to ensure that an owner clears a wreck obstructing the port. The comments by these harbour authority representatives showed that they encountered many challenges, such as legal fees, the many steps they had to take, the lack of leadership from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the definitions of a shipwreck. In light of what you have just said, does the bill respond adequately to the issues encountered by the volunteer committees that manage small harbours?
[English]
Mr. Clarke: I think you want to know about facing the challenges. I had a hard time hearing that.
Senator Cormier: I want to know if the bill in front of us is a solution to what I just explained as problems for small port authorities.
Mr. Clarke: We don’t want to be forced into dealing with something that is outside of our area. We work closely with a marine lawyer who has created many flowcharts and cheat sheets to assist all the harbour authorities in B.C. Unfortunately, I can’t speak about New Brunswick.
Senator Cormier: I know. Thank you.
[Translation]
I also have a question for Ms. Anghel concerning the recycling options.
[English]
You said in your presentation that there are some proven recycling solutions in effect in places like France, Sweden and the Netherlands.
[Translation]
What do you have to say about Transport Canada’s Abandoned Boats Program, announced almost a year and a half ago on May 31, 2017? That program involved funds to help communities get rid of small abandoned boats. What can you tell us about that program? Does it help resolve this important issue of the recycling of small boats in various parts of the country?
[English]
Ms. Anghel: I think they have done a great job at starting to take a crack at cleaning up the abandoned vessels through the various programs with the funding available and given out to third parties and not-for-profit organizations.
I will say, though, if I understood your question correctly, I’m not aware there has been any specific attempt to look at recycling locations at this point. I’m not privy to the details of that. All I know is there is cleanup, but I don’t know what they are doing with them.
Senator Cormier: What are the solutions that you are referring to?
Ms. Anghel: I know they have looked into things like using fibreglass to turn it into concrete. That has been used for retaining walls in the Netherlands. The concrete one is the most viable at this stage that we have noticed. There are companies in Italy that have turned fibreglass into furniture. So it’s things like reusing the product rather than seeing the boats end up in a landfill. That’s what my concern is.
Right now, we’re dealing with the clean-up from the water and the land potentially, but where are we going to put them? If they just end up in a landfill and we don’t have a second plan for sound recycling solutions, I feel that’s short-sighted.
Ms. Douglas: Does the bill address this?
Ms. Anghel: No, I do not believe there is anything in the bill on recycling.
The Chair: Are the European solutions you mentioned the result of government subsidy or of business people seeing an opportunity?
Ms. Anghel: It’s a combination. There have been subsidized government programs. In France in particular, there is actually a tax, and it’s going to be handled by the trade association, like ourselves.
Sweden has done the same thing where they worked with the industry association. There are some government grants, and then there are private sector opportunities that come up. So it’s a combination of all of them.
The Chair: Thanks very much.
Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses. I have a question for Ms. Anghel and Mr. Clarke. I will start with Ms. Anghel as a follow-up to Senator Cormier’s questions.
In these other countries, do vessel owners pay anything toward the possible cleanup or recycling of their vessels in a uniform way?
Ms. Anghel: I’m not aware specifically how it’s handled. I know that in France a new tax will be levied for the boat itself. I can follow up and give you that in more detail. I’m not aware exactly if they are funding it for the boater or from a general taxation piece. I’m not sure.
Senator Manning: So the funds in France may be going into a pot that will be used for cleanup. Is that along the line of what you’re looking at?
Ms. Anghel: Yes, correct. It’s a pot.
Senator Manning: Mr. Clarke, in my other life in Newfoundland and Labrador I was a member of a pilot project at harbour authorities back in the early 1990s in a small fishing community, I advised my colleagues here last night that our annual budget wouldn’t run this meeting this evening. So I’m very concerned that it is difficult to get volunteers and the director liability of anywhere between $100,000 and $4 million and possible jail terms. It really concerns me. So it is not only deterring people from joining up but, in my view, people will run away from that.
There were programs available, which Senator Cormier touched on, in relation to availing funds through third party means, whatever the case may be. Do you know if the harbour authorities in your area have availed themselves of any of that funding to deal with wrecks that may be in their harbours?
Mr. Clarke: When there is a wreck inside our water lot, we have the Small Craft Harbours Abandoned and Wrecked Vessel Removal Program help us deal with those. Outside of our water lot is more of a concern. We don’t want the harbour authorities to become dumping grounds for wrecks, which is what we are concerned with.
Senator Manning: In the 54 harbour authorities, the 70-plus harbour sites, the abandoned wrecks, what is the level of the issue you have to deal with there? Is it a big issue with the harbours themselves?
Mr. Clarke: I can speak for Comox. We don’t have any that we need to deal with, but there are harbour authorities in northern B.C. on the coastal waters that have upwards of 30 they would like to deal with if they could.
Senator Manning: What happens if something lies just outside your harbour? In harbours in Newfoundland and Labrador, it may look like a safe harbour, but your line is drawn.
Mr. Clarke: If it is outside our water lot, we don’t have any authority to deal with it.
Senator Manning: Maybe Mr. Topping or Ms. Douglas could answer this. In Newfoundland and Labrador we had a couple of ships that were left abandoned for years and cost millions of dollars to clean up. Along with being eyesores, there were environmental hazard issues. They were under flags of convenience. Is that an issue in other parts of Canada, these flags of convenience?
We spent three or four years trying to track down the owners of two major vessels outside the town of Bay Roberts in Newfoundland. I don’t think they ever found the owners, and the government stepped up after seven or eight years and took care of things.
Is this a big issue, namely that we have abandoned vessels in our country and we can’t track down who the owners are?
Ms. Douglas: The membership we represent are Canadian-flagged vessels, domestic vessels.
In broader terms, I know Bill C-64 is implementing the Nairobi Convention on wrecks, and that can only be successful if other countries ratify it as well. From the latest figures, I know that for over 80 per cent of tonnage-carrying vessels, their countries are signed on to this convention. Because there is international ratification of this, we have reached critical mass, and I think that will help address this as well.
Paul, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Topping: Yes. At the end of its life, a vessel is typically sold to yards, typically in Turkey or India. They are of value to those yards because they are providing income. They make their money dismantling the vessel and the steel. How they are regulated is subject to another international convention not yet in force.
It is the transfer of those vessels that becomes the problem, as opposed to our members who have operated that vessel. They go to pains to find an appropriate way of towing, removing them and ultimately transferring them to the yard. But not all problem vessels that have been in Canada have necessarily originated from Canada. That is one of the reasons why an international solution is needed. You can have a decision taken in another part of the world that a vessel is no longer to be in service, but it could theoretically end up in Canada. That is why controls are being developed at the International Maritime Organization.
Senator Manning: Are there any fees for your members in relation to dealing with wrecks or abandoned vessels, or environmental issues if they become an environmental issue? Is there anything with respect to an overall global way to look at that?
Mr. Topping: The Nairobi Convention sets out compulsory insurance. Although Canada has not yet ratified it, our members buy insurance products through what are called protection and indemnity clubs, which are a mutual collection of shipowners who come together and put money into a pot to be used to pay out when problems occur. They operate much like an insurance company. These clubs all cover the requirements under the Nairobi Convention. There is wreck insurance already in place for our members.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will address my question to Mr. Clarke.
I am trying to better understand your concern. From what the minister has told us, when there is a wreck to be recuperated, I understood that the Coast Guard would intervene and they would try to put everything together, ask for cooperation and ask someone to go and get the wreck. However, it wouldn’t be the port authority all the time. It would be whoever is able to do the task. I also understand that there is a fund available to reimburse what it would cost to get rid or dispose of this particular wreck.
Why would the Coast Guard ask volunteers, who are overwhelmed, to do the task? We are looking for goodwill there.
[Translation]
Why do you have those concerns, given that the Coast Guard’s objective is to find a solution, to find a company that can remove the boat, do so quickly and be reimbursed afterwards? After all, there are businesses that do this type of work. I’m trying to understand why there is such grave concern.
[English]
Are you following me?
Mr. Clarke: I understand. What we fear is that in the real world there is a wreck out there or a dilapidated vessel that the Coast Guard gets a hold of and they tow it into a local dock, generally a local harbour authority. We worry that they may leave that vessel there and require a small, completely volunteer-run harbour authority to deal with it, and they just won’t have the manpower or the financial ability. We understand there is a compensation fund after the fact, but we are concerned how that compensation fund will be disbursed.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Has it happened in the past that the Coast Guard just brings boats —
Mr. Clarke: Many times. Everyone thinks we are a government dock and they bring the boat to the dock, yes. I have come to work in the morning and found vessels tied to the dock and we don’t know who they are; they don’t have a name, a registration number or a hull identification number. No one knows where it came from and we end up dealing with it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I remember Beauharnois case which was different. There was a negotiation between municipalities and everyone involved to salvage the wreck.
Mr. Clarke: At certain times it works out fantastically, but in the real world we are often left dealing with someone else’s mess. We are a little concerned about that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are very concerned. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I think the concern isn’t the fact; it is the punishment that you are concerned about.
Mr. Clarke: We may not be able to deal with that directive, yes.
The Chair: You don’t want to deal with the punishment afterwards?
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
Senator Manning: Point of order or — don’t know if you can use that or not.
The Chair: You want an intervention?
Senator Manning: Yes. I was there, on a harbour authority. The harbour authority has to put up the financing at the beginning and be reimbursed afterwards, but if you have $1,000 in your account and a $50,000 bill to move the boat, that is the problem. If they say, “Here is the amount you need to move the boat,” and they give the harbour authority the money to do so, that is one thing; but if they can’t deliver it in the first place, they could be charged. That is the problem.
The Chair: Thank you for the intervention.
Senator Manning: Call it what you like.
Senator Gagné: Senator Manning, you would be a great witness.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Change places.
Senator Gagné: Thank you all for your presentations. I appreciate it.
Mr. Clarke, when you get up in the morning and come to work and find this dilapidated boat tied to your dock, what do you do?
Mr. Clarke: We have many different solutions. First, we try to locate the owner. We look at all sorts of avenues that way. Then we will take the process to seize and destroy it through the Warehouse Lien Act in B.C. There are lots of avenues.
Generally, we try to find the owner through social media or any avenue like that to find out where the boat comes from. The water is a pretty small place.
Senator Gagné: At what point in time do you call the Coast Guard or the Government of Canada?
Mr. Clarke: We wouldn’t refer it to the Coast Guard until it became an environmental concern. I have spent countless hours in bilges of boats that have been brought, pumping them out so that they don’t sink because it wasn’t deemed enough of an environmental concern for them to respond.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I asked a question about leisure craft, and I am trying to assess the scope of the challenge you are facing. Do we have some idea of the number of boats that risk being abandoned in Canada?
[English]
Ms. Anghel: I don’t have that number offhand. All we can do is make an estimate. We have a U.S. estimate. If I looked at the size of the market in the U.S. and we say Canada is about 10 per cent, my thought would be that there could be up to 10,000 to 15,000 boats that are reaching end of life.
I will put a caveat on that and say that the number that has come to me in the past from Transport Canada through our consultations was more like 40,000. I feel that is too high. I am thinking 10,000 to 14,000. That does not necessarily mean there are 14,000 out there to be cleaned up, but they are coming to end of life.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I am from Edmonton. We don’t have many wrecked boats washing up on the shores of the North Saskatchewan.
Mr. Clarke, is there any methodology by which you can sell an abandoned boat if there is any value left to it and then take that money for the use of the harbour authority? Is there any such legal recourse available to you?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, that’s the Warehouse Lien Act. If the vessel at the dock is worth any money, we try to engage that act. We auction off the boat, and any extra money is paid back to the court if we can’t find the owner.
Senator Simons: Does that put a substantial amount of money into your coffers every year, or is it not enough money to make a difference to your operations?
Mr. Clarke: We don’t receive any sort of financial benefit from auctioning a boat. We only recover the costs associated, so past mortgage fees, staff time to deal with it, anything like that. All other costs get deferred back to the court.
The Chair: And what does the court do with it?
Mr. Clarke: I am unsure.
The Chair: I just thought I would ask.
Senator Cormier: I want to continue with this issue. Of course you don’t want to pay for the problems, but do you have alternative measures that you think we should consider?
Mr. Clarke: I’m not sure I follow you. The only thing is if the vessel is worth any sort of money. If the vessel that is abandoned isn’t worth any money, we are left cleaning it up. There is no fund available. There is no way to get any money there.
The Chair: I would like to ask this question to all of you. During the drafting of the bill, was there any consultation with your organizations through the minister’s office or through the department as to the drafting of the bill?
Ms. Anghel: Throughout the last while I have engaged mostly with the department. The minister’s office didn’t engage as much with us directly, but throughout the process the department has been cooperative and has had great stakeholder relations with us.
The Chair: When you say “throughout the process,” do you mean after the bill was done and in the House of Commons, or previous to the bill actually being tabled?
Ms. Anghel: You are testing my memory now.
The Chair: Were you surprised when the bill —
Ms. Anghel: No, I was not surprised. I don’t recall 100 per cent if I was engaged specifically looking at drafts, but I know that throughout the process they came and presented to the Canadian Marine Advisory Council, and I had individual meetings as well. It was not a surprise.
Ms. Douglas: I will use the “I am new” excuse. I joined the Chamber of Marine Commerce after Bill C-64 was tabled, so I will defer to Paul.
Mr. Topping: I have a bit of a confession in that I am a former Transport Canada employee, new to the chamber. I had been working with policy and was well aware of these issues coming forward. I had to keep things in confidence because of my conflict of interest. When the bill came forward and we reviewed it, it was not a surprise because we were aware.
As well, over the years, the issue of abandoned vessels and recycling of old vessels has been ongoing among our members, as opposed to the concern on the recreational boating side. There had been a peripheral awareness of the problem, but in terms of a direct approach of the Chamber of Marine Commerce specifically on the development of this bill, I would say no. It wasn’t until we were invited by your offices that we became informed officially.
The Chair: Mr. Clarke?
Mr. Clarke: No, we did not receive any formal consultation at all.
The Chair: Do you have a national organization?
Mr. Clarke: The HAABC does not have a national organization. We are B.C.-run.
The Chair: Is there one on the East Coast as well?
Mr. Clarke: They are working on forming an HAABC model. They are run differently on the East Coast.
The Chair: When the bill was tabled in the House of Commons quite some time ago, were you aware of some of these issues and have you made comments to the department about some of the fears you have expressed here today?
Mr. Clarke: We mainly had our conversations with Small Craft Harbours, who was then taking it through their chain to raise our concerns.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Cormier: I understand that your organization, Ms. Douglas and Mr. Topping, is a national association. Is this bill harmonized with the American legislation? What are the opinions of shipowners from the United States? Maybe my question is not relevant, but if it is to be national, does this bill have an impact on your members?
Ms. Douglas: Has the United States signed on to the Nairobi Convention?
Mr. Topping: No. The United States typically would not sign on to those liability conventions; they have not. They have rules. There are some state programs, mainly out of Washington State. It has a similar program that I think some people might be interested in knowing how that operates in terms of small vessels. In terms of large vessels, I don’t think they have a specific piece of legislation, per se.
The Americans also operate under the Jones Act, and there are certain rules about things being built in the U.S. For our members on the lakes, a vessel lasts a long time. There are vessels still in service that are older than I am. They are in fresh water, so they don’t have the corrosion issues. They are doing their jobs efficiently and continuing to be in service. Our members have invested in new vessels and new tonnage. Those are some of the differences we are seeing.
In terms of impacts of this bill and the views of Americans, you would probably have to reach out to the U.S. Lake Carriers’ Association. Again, it would only be something that has effect in Canada. They occasionally call into Canadian ports, but for the most part it is for fuelling and other operational things. Most of their business is to carry goods from U.S. ports to U.S. ports. We do both because our vessels can go through the Welland Canal. They have their famous 1,000-footers, which are incredibly efficient vessels, but they can’t pass through the Welland Canal; they are too big. Ours fit through, so we do business on both sides of the border.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today.
Senators, we’ll now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear on where we are in the process, please ask for a clarification. We’ll do our utmost to ensure that at all times we have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
Before we take up an amendment in a clause, I’ll be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given an opportunity to do so.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind that in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the clause but, rather, to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.
If there is any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the cleanest route is to request a roll-call vote, which I’ll do, which provides clear results. Senators are aware that any tie vote negates the motion in question.
If there are no questions, we’re going to proceed. Senator Miville-Dechêne had something she wanted to bring up before we begin. Please do so now.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We heard two witnesses representing ports and harbour authorities. They told us they were worried about the heavy burden this law represents, and they are afraid they will be told to get rid of the shipwrecks without being reimbursed subsequently. In short, this concerns me, because it was raised by two witnesses who seemed credible to me: one association, and the representatives of a port.
The chair told me there are Transport Canada officials here in the room, and I wonder if we could ask them to respond to these concerns and explain the workings of the bill which they believe would instead reduce the burden as we picture it. The perspective is worrying, but perhaps the bill contains some answers. Could we put some questions on this to the public servants?
[English]
The Chair: I do not mind. If there is an official here from Transport who would like to address the issue that was raised by the port authorities, that would be great.
You know the issue. You were here listening, of course, so go ahead.
Michelle Sanders, Director, Clean Water Policy, Transport Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I’m Michelle Sanders, Director of Clean Water Policy with Transport Canada and responsible for leading this initiative.
Specifically on this issue of direction to a third party, there are a couple of points I want to make. First, the purpose of this act is to hold vessel owners responsible, accountable for the cost and the life cycle of the vessel, to be responsible vessel owners. That is the primary objective.
The provision that has been included to enable the government to direct a third party or another party to take action, the way it’s intended, it’s not a new provision in legislation. The same provision exists in the Canada Shipping Act, under Part 8, for the pollution provisions.
It’s intended for situations where, for example, a boat is tied to a private dock and we don’t have access to it. We need to have access to it to deal with that vessel. If we ask and they say, “No,” we can say, “You shall give us access to the wharf so that we can deal with the vessel itself.”
The Chair: When you say “we” —
Ms. Sanders: “We” being the government.
The Chair: Yes, but what is that?
Ms. Sanders: Transport Canada or Coast Guard, depending on the type of vessel and issue at play.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Sanders: It is not intended to be used to order, for example, a port authority to clean up a large commercial vessel that is going to cost millions of dollars. That is not the intention of this provision.
The Chair: Why do they think that? I’m just asking.
Ms. Sanders: I actually don’t know. I understand that when you read the entirety of it and then go over to the offence provisions that there are offences tied to that, but that’s because it’s also related to directing anybody.
There is due diligence. Another part of that story is there is a due diligence defence. If we ask them to do something they are not able to do for very legitimate reasons, they have a defence of due diligence, where they would not be held liable for not following a direction.
The Chair: Senator Miville-Dechêne, did you have a question? Senator Manning has a question.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No, go ahead. I’m listening intently.
The Chair: We are not going to be long on this, because we have to finish.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But we need to be clear.
Senator Manning: I agree.
I think the concern from the harbour authorities I have heard from, and we have heard from here, is the liability issue and the volunteer. So we have a volunteer group. Now, I know the intention of your objective, but can you sit here today and tell us that no harbour authority is going to be ordered to remove a boat where they will incur the expense up front? Can you tell me that here today?
Ms. Sanders: This is common in any enforcement regime: When we’re asking someone to do something on our behalf that is not the vessel owner, not someone who has a responsibility in that sense, there is a conversation that happens. It’s not something that would come out of the blue where we would say, “Go take care of that boat.”
It’s a conversation between us and them. It might be a situation where there is a tug — and I know we’re talking about the harbour authorities, but this is a provision that could apply to anybody. There might be a tug out in a bay that has direct access to a boat that is sinking. They are right there, and we can direct them to help bring that vessel in to avoid any damage, for example. It might be a situation, and they are there. They are able to take the action because by the time we were to get out there, it might be too late. That’s one example of where we might do it.
But the intention is not to direct them to do something they wouldn’t have the means to do. If they can’t remove a vessel, the Coast Guard or Transport Canada has the ability to. If it’s a vessel that needs to be removed, that would be something that would be taken care of through the means and the authorities that we have. The intention of this is for things like accessing a wharf.
The Chair: It’s not the intention that is the concern. It’s the actual bill itself. You have the authority to order a harbour authority to clean up the boat. You can tell them to do that, and they are obligated to do it under penalty. Isn’t that what the bill says? I’m asking yes or no.
Marc Sanderson, Acting Director General, National Strategies, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We have the authority, but it would be an exceptional circumstance where the Coast Guard would order a third party to take an action. We would ask first. We would use any other means necessary to pay up front with the usual contracting mechanisms to make that happen.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You were here and the witness said boats are just abandoned. “Coast Guard, bring the boat into the port,” and they say, “Take care of it.” So it seems that it’s quite common.
Mr. Sanderson: I would like to rectify that comment. Under no circumstance would a Canadian Coast Guard tow a boat to a wharf and leave it there abandoned. Under no circumstance would they leave a boat abandoned at a wharf.
The Chair: That is not what he said, though.
Mr. Sanderson: I imagine the previous witness was alluding to boats being left. Now, an important part of the entire strategy to address these vessels of concern is the establishment of an inventory, which is being developed right now with provinces, territories, municipalities, harbour authorities, industry stakeholders and Indigenous governments to make sure that we can, to the best of our ability, know where these boats are, know who they belong to.
Bill C-64 is extending the polluter-pay principle to vessels of concern. The polluter-pay principle is what is in operation currently under the oil spill regime in Canada. We are extending that principle of owner responsibility to the vessel itself. Once we remediate the threat of pollution, the vessel remains.
There are any number of reasons why we want the vessels out of there. Bill C-64 gives us that scope. As my colleague mentioned, the enforcement provisions are akin to those found in the Canada Shipping Act presently for pollution and other reasons.
So the Coast Guard would only order a third party when it was absolutely necessary to do so, but only if they were able and would be immune from liability, and they would be compensated for their reasonable expenses to do it. We get a call saying, “This is in danger. Can you help us?” as my colleague mentioned. That’s the scenario.
This is not intended to off-load any responsibilities onto harbour authorities or other volunteer organizations or stakeholders; rather, it’s to sort of create a better regime.
Senator Cormier: I want to be sure that I understand the reason why it’s in the bill. Did situations occur that demonstrated that we must put this in the bill?
Ms. Sanders: In drafting in legislation, you need to think of every possible scenario that could occur. We literally start to work through, and we get a call that says there is a boat adrift and it’s going towards this area, and if it hits it, it’s going to leak or whatever. We get out there and see that there is a tugboat right there. You try to think of the scenarios that might occur. How do we deal with that? If we don’t have the ability to deal with it on an urgent basis, as Marc said, in every circumstance we would try to ensure that we are able to take those actions ourselves. It’s for those unimaginable occasions where we might not be able to take the action, and they might be the only one that would be able to. That’s an exceptional circumstance.
Another one is having access to private property, for example, to be able to access the problem vessel. If we’re in a circumstance where they are saying “no,” then —
The Chair: Who would they say no to? Would they say no to you or the Coast Guard? The Coast Guard would drive up to the harbour, and they would say, “You have a boat out here. Are you going to deal with it?” So the harbour guys tell him to go take a hike. Is that when you get into action, or what happens?
Mr. Sanderson: It would be an extreme circumstance. If some bad weather was coming, if there was an imminent threat to the environment caused by this vessel, we would do everything in our power to ask the responsible authority, the harbour authority, neighbouring commercial ventures, anyone who can fix it and/or ourselves, but it would only be in exceptional circumstances.
Senator Cormier: I’m sorry. I have one more question.
The Chair: One more question, then Senator Simons, and then we’re going to clause by clause, unless you want to postpone it. We’re done here at 8:45.
Senator Cormier: I have a short question concerning recycling. As Ms. Anghel says, there is no provision in the bill concerning that issue. Can you explain why?
Ms. Sanders: Absolutely. That’s an important part of the overall national strategy. When we appeared with Mr. Garneau, we explained that there is a whole national strategy. When we were developing the strategy, there was a lot of consultation with industry and various stakeholders to identify the various causes and pathways.
The issue of recycling was front and centre regarding how to deal with the disposal. Because waste management and recycling is provincial jurisdiction, it is something we recognize we need to work on closely with the provinces and the territories to be able to identify the options, so we are actively engaging.
Under the Council of Deputy Ministers, a committee was established between the provinces, territories and federal government to further explore those exact things through the innovation challenge that has been issued recently by the federal government. There is one specifically asking for solutions on fibreglass recycling. It is one of the plastic challenges because fibreglass is the biggest issue in terms of vessel recycling.
That is an important part of our work. We are working closely with the provinces to be able to identify what those options are because we recognize it is a very important piece.
I would also say that through the Abandoned Boats Program, through the five-year funding program we have right now, we have provided funding to Boating B.C. and Boating Ontario, to local associations within those provinces to map out recycling and disposal options within those jurisdictions.
There is a lot of work ongoing on it. It’s not part of the legislation, because it’s really something that we need to work on with the provinces and territories in order to better understand.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I want to circle back to the issue of liability for third parties because it was raised yesterday when we heard from previous witnesses. The penalties start at $100,000. As a penalty, I understand it if you’re a shipping line and you have left an abandoned ship that is making a horrible mess. But their fear was that the same fines would apply to them as volunteer harbour agencies. Those fines do seem punitive.
In clause 111, it does say that the court has latitude to impose a lesser fine.
Let’s go to the tugboat example you used a couple of times. If the tug operator says, “There is a reason I can’t do it,” or “I just don’t feel like it,” they could be looking at a fine of $100,000 for failing to be a good Samaritan at sea. I’m just wondering if the penalties don’t seem disproportionate to the degree of the offence to punish the third party for failing to help to the same level you would punish a negligent shipowner for causing an environmental mess.
Ms. Sanders: There is a lot of discretion afforded to the enforcement officer to take appropriate action based on the circumstances. There is a defence of due diligence. If they can’t, it could be part of their due diligence defence.
Senator Simons: But that’s requiring them to go to court to mount a defence. That’s a pretty onerous burden for —
The Chair: A volunteer harbour authority.
Ms. Sanders: I’m not sure how to better explain it, but I can’t imagine a situation where we would be asking somebody to do something that we don’t think they could do or have the ability to do. It would be a conversation. If they say, “We really can’t do that and don’t have the means to do that,” we would find another way to do it.
The Chair: Why do you need it, then?
Ms. Sanders: Because there will be those —
The Chair: Wouldn’t they have the same self-interest as you? The harbour groups would have the same self-interest as you. They don’t want boats hanging around, causing environmental issues. They want to solve the issue, too.
Why do you need the power to fine them and throw them in jail? What is that?
Ms. Sanders: It’s the extreme where we would ever go there, even for a vessel owner —
The Chair: But it’s in there, so that’s why they are scared.
Ms. Sanders: It’s in every piece of legislation. That’s an important point: In every environmental piece of legislation, there is the ability to order a third party to take action on our behalf where we wouldn’t have the ability to do so. If they are taking action on our behalf, under our direction, they are immune from liability. A provision in the act, section 44, provides immunity for third parties acting under the direction of the government. It’s both civil and criminal immunity.
The Chair: Senator Manning, one question, then we’re done. We’re going on.
Senator Manning: Would the decision —
The Chair: One question, then we’re going to clause by clause, or we’ll never finish this off. When we get to the clause, if you want to debate the issue, you can; debate it all you want.
Senator Manning: You sure I’m okay to go now?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Manning: All right.
Is the enforcement officer in the harbour the person who decides whether the harbour authority is going to be charged or does not agree with what they are doing? Who decides?
In a couple of comments you made, you talked about the extreme case. I understand that, but sometimes we have enforcement officers who get a badge, and some enforcement officers are easier to deal with than others, like everything else.
Who makes that final decision on whether the harbour authority is going to be charged for not picking up their end of the bargain?
Ms. Sanders: The process for issuing a direction will be part of our compliance and enforcement regime that we’re setting out. The policy is currently being developed as well as the guidelines on how that will be developed. That will be part of the training for an officer in terms of how that works.
I know that under some regimes, when a direction is issued, there is a level of it’s not just an officer in the field being able to say “X.” There is at least his or her superior officer having to sign off on that.
Maybe Marc can speak to it from the Coast Guard perspective.
Mr. Sanderson: I’ll just add that it won’t happen in the moment. It’s not a case of a police enforcement action in the moment. It would be an extreme case based on the incident in question. Each incident would be different.
The Coast Guard would use all available means, asking first and ensuring the harbour authority in this example had the means to do it. They would then be immune from liability, as we discussed, and compensated for their actions.
That all happens before there would ever be any consideration of some kind of enforcement if there was a flat refusal to assist.
The Chair: We’re going to go —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a point of order.
The Chair: There is no point of order. We’re going to clause by clause, and then when we get to the amendment — and I have asked the library and the clerk to warn me when we get to that amendment that we’re so concerned about — we can have all the debate we want. We can go here all night, if you want, but we are going to end at 9:45.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I wanted to ask a question.
The Chair: You can ask him questions when we get to the amendment. We aren’t there yet. We have been having a discussion here for 25 minutes, so it’s not that I’m closing debate. When we get to the amendment —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are, because —
The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, containing the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry? I understand you have an amendment, Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Yes. Let’s make sure I get this straight.
The Chair: Does everybody have a copy of the amendment?
Senator Manning: I move:
That Bill C-64 be amended in clause 5, on page 3,
“5 (1) Except as otherwise provided by regulations made under paragraph 130(1)(c) or subsection 131(1) and despite subsection (3), this Act does not apply in respect of”;
“(2) Except as otherwise provided by regulations made under subsection 131(1), this Act, other than Parts 3 and 4, does not apply in”; and
“(3) Except as otherwise provided by regulations made under subsection 131(1), this Act, other than Parts 3 and 4,”.
This amendment is needed to address the other amendment that will come forward. That’s just legal advice. The main amendment is the next one we have to deal with. In order for the next amendment to take place, this amendment has to be moved first.
The Chair: Any discussion on the amendment?
Senator Dawson: I think the sponsor of this bill is Senator Campbell.
Senator Manning: Yes, he is.
Senator Dawson: And it has been done in cooperation with Senator Campbell?
Senator Manning: The next amendment is the main amendment. This one has to be in place in order to enact the next one.
Senator Dawson: The next one will be the one the minister recommended we put in the bill?
Senator Manning: Mostly. We’ll get to that one.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, then, to adopt the motion in amendment? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. That’s great.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We’re going to jump to — I think the amendment you’re looking at is under Part 7, is that not correct, Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Part 7, yes; clause 131.
The Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the rest of the clauses be grouped according to the parts of the bill, as described in the Table of Provisions of Bill C-64? We’ll go to Part 1, “Removal of Wrecks.” Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall Part 2, entitled “Vessels and Wrecks of Concern,” containing clauses 27 to 47, carry?
Senator Simons: Sorry. Can we hypothetically look at clauses 36 and 37? I’m new to this.
The Chair: Senator Miville-Dechêne, do you have any further questions on clause 36? That’s under direction. That’s what we’re doing here, right?
Senator Simons: I don’t know if we need to amend this or if we need to discuss it.
The Chair: I’m giving an opportunity if there is any further discussion. I don’t want to cut off discussion on an issue. This issue is now before us so we can have debate or discussion.
Senator Miville-Dechêne, did you want to discuss this matter further?
Do the officials want to come before us and address any other issues?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I had a general question. It is not an amendment to propose.
The Chair: It is a general question. We are here to talk about the actual legislation.
Could we have the two officials again?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You keep on saying that for exceptional reasons you could ask a third party to do something against their will. Is there anything in the bill that would reassure us on the exceptional character of such a measure?
Ms. Sanders: The way it is written, it says “. . . if he or she considers it necessary . . . .”
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Where is that?
Ms. Sanders: Subclause 36(c). That same caveat is provided wherever that authority is provided. It specifically says:
If he or she considers it necessary to do so . . . .
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
The Chair: What about clause 37?
Ms. Sanders: This is specifically referring to the authorized representative of a dilapidated vessel?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Sanders: The term “authorized representative,” if I’m not mistaken, is actually defined. It is usually the person responsible. For example, it might not be the owner because the captain is not necessarily always the owner of a vessel. They are the authorized representative responsible for the vessel. It could direct the person responsible for the vessel to take the action, which is the same idea of holding the vessel owner responsible for it.
The Chair: Are senators comfortable?
Senator Simons: I don’t think it is a problem to say that you should have the power to delegate responsibility to a third party who is closer and better equipped. The problem is the penalty, which is certainly not laid out here; it comes much later. It says here that the minister “may monitor the measures” and “direct any person” to do so. That is fine on its face. It’s where that becomes punitive later in the act that it is problematic. If you are a police officer and you are chasing a thief, you can commandeer someone’s car to catch the thief. Everyone understands that in a moment extremis, the state needs the power to commandeer someone’s personal property to fix the problem or to order someone to act as an agent. However, I am unfamiliar with a concept where such a huge punitive action would be taken if there was a perceived failure to do the job properly.
Senator Cormier: On a point of clarification, at this point, if I understand how this works, we either present an amendment or an observation regarding our concerns. That is where we are, right?
The Chair: That is exactly it.
Senator Simons: This is my first clause by clause. I have never done this before.
Senator Cormier: That is why I am saying that.
Senator Simons: I will be quiet now.
Senator Cormier: No. That is not what I am saying, senator. I just want to ensure we are all concerned with the procedure and observe the best solution.
The Chair: I think Senator Miville-Dechêne raised a good issue. I am going to suggest we do an observation. Senators can do whatever they want, but I don’t think we should do an amendment right now. We didn’t go far enough into this issue to do that. But we might want to make comment on that amendment and what we heard. Is that okay with you?
Senator Manning: I agree with Senator Cormier on the stage we are at right now. To develop an amendment at this stage now, we would have to seek advice because you could develop an amendment to deal with this particular item and you may be affecting some other item in the bill. We need to be careful of that. That is what happened when I went with my amendment. All of a sudden I had two amendments because I had to address something else. It is not as simple as that.
The Chair: If someone feels strongly about it, they can deal with it at third reading of the bill, but here in committee we will let that go.
Senator Manning: I believe, Mr. Chair, that we should have an observation because it is an issue of concern that has been raised by a couple of witnesses and Senator Miville-Dechêne.
The Chair: Senator Miville-Dechêne, can you help us? What should we say in this?
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: At least two witnesses representing port authorities said they were worried about the burden sizeable fines or penalties could represent if they don’t cooperate or agree to get rid of shipwrecks. I’m not explaining it very well, but I think we absolutely have to say something about this. As you said, I don’t believe I have the expertise to draft an amendment, but I think this concern is serious enough that we must take it into account. That is why I’ve raised questions about this.
[English]
The Chair: At the end, there will be a motion for observations. I will address that when we finish clause-by-clause consideration, if that is okay.
Shall Part 2, entitled “Vessels and Wrecks of Concern,” containing clauses 27 to 47, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 3, entitled “Salvage,” containing clauses 48 to 55 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, entitled “Receiver of Wreck,” containing clauses 56 to 66, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 5, entitled “Administration and Enforcement,” containing clauses 67 to 125, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 6, entitled “General,” containing clauses 126 to 129, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is Part 7. Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: I want to preface this amendment by saying that I spoke to Senator Campbell several times today, and he is fully aware of what I am doing.
I will read it out. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ask.
I move:
That Bill C-64 be amended in clause 131,
(a) on page 64,
“heritage value, including ocean war graves;”,
“including ocean war graves, and providing for the issuance of permits to access”, and
“heritage value, including ocean war graves, from the application of any provision of”; and
(b) on page 65,
(i) by deleting line 3, and
“made under this subsection;
(i) extending the application of paragraph 110(1)(f), subsections 110(5) and (7), section 111, paragraph 113(d), subsection 119(1) and section 120 to wrecks or classes of wrecks that are specified in regulations made under paragraph (b);
(j) extending to wrecks or classes of wrecks that are specified in regulations made under paragraph (b) the application of paragraph 110(1)(b), in respect of a contravention of subsection 58(1) or (3) or section 60, and of paragraph 110(1)(d), in respect of a contravention of a direction given under paragraph 58(4)(b); and
(k) extending the application of any provision of the regulations made under this subsection to wrecked vessels or aircraft — or classes of wrecked vessels or aircraft — that are referred to in subsection 5(1) and paragraphs 5(2)(a) and (b) and that are specified in regulations made under paragraph (b).”.
The Chair: Any debate? Are we all good?
Senator Simons: I had one question. I got this — maybe you had it earlier — a paper from someone talking not about war graves but other ships that have gone down. He talked about one in 1964 — non-warships.
Senator Manning: This is heritage value, including ocean war graves. That covers it.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators to adopt the motion in amendment? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 131, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 7, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 8, “Transitional Provision and Related and Consequential Amendments,”containing clauses 132 to 152, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 9, entitled “Review,” containing clause 153, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 10, entitled “Coming into Force,” containing clause 154, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Carried.
Do you want to go in camera to discuss the observations, or have we figured out what we want to do? I think we have given good instructions to the analyst from the Library of Parliament as to what observation we want addressed; correct?
Zackery Shaver, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Yes.
The Chair: Then we don’t have to go in camera.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed that any necessary consequential changes be made to the numbering of provisions and cross-references as a result of the amendments to this bill, and is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Good work.
Senator Dawson: This has nothing to do with the wonderful work Senator Manning has done, but it is a good example when the sponsor of the bill is not on the committee when we are debating a bill. It creates a confusion such that I am not sure who will have the responsibility at third reading of ensuring the bill continues.
I would recommend, Mr. Chair, if you have an opportunity, that when bills are being debated in committee, the sponsor of the bill should be there. He or she will have better knowledge of the bill, and we will have better knowledge of what has been discussed or not discussed with the minister’s office.
We remembered that the minister actually asked for that amendment, but he also said at that time that Senator Campbell would be doing the amendment at third reading. Now we have done the amendment. I think that that kind of confusion would be avoided if we tried to avoid that.
The Chair: There are two things that happened. One, we had a discussion and an agreement on an amendment here; and, two, Senator Manning consulted with Senator Campbell. Senator Campbell also came to see me and told me that he and Senator Manning had discussions, and it was okay with him. He left it at that. Of course, if he wanted to come here, he could have.
Senator Dawson: But under the new regime and how things are going, I think that kind of discussion should sometimes be done — I am on the steering committee, and I didn’t know you had talked to Senator Campbell. I had to ask, because I was under the understanding that Senator Campbell would be putting this amendment at third reading.
I agree that we do it this way. It doesn’t just apply to Transport and Communications. Every committee that has a bill and a sponsor who is not a member, the sponsor should be able to be there so that the communication between the people who are passing the bill — because we are under a new regime. Some of the sponsors aren’t members of government and are never members of government, so they don’t necessarily speak on behalf of the government. I think that does create some confusion that would be avoided if we had a stronger presence of sponsors at committees.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dawson.
Senator Manning: We live in confusing times.
The Chair: Before we break, I would like to thank honourable senators for their participation this fall. We have had a fairly fruitful and interesting time. I think it will be very busy after Christmas. Get lots of rest and have a good break.
(The committee adjourned.)