The committee began clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, sponsored by MP Patrick Weiler. Officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard appeared to answer questions on government amendments to clauses 2 and 3.
Stephanie Lane, Acting Director General of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs at Environment and Climate Change Canada, explained the government's amendment to clause 2 adding subsection 125(7), a "for greater certainty" provision confirming that disposal at sea is a strict liability offence whether or not the act or omission is intentional. She said the provision does not change the application of section 125, which applies to ships, aircraft, platforms and other structures at sea rather than land-based activities, and that the due diligence defence in section 283 remains available. Asked repeatedly by Mel Arnold and Ellis Ross whether an accidental sinking or an act of vandalism could trigger liability, she said enforcement would be case-specific and that the burden shifts to the accused to show due diligence, but she declined to answer on specific hypothetical facts.
Colin Henein, Director of Marine Environmental Policy at Transport Canada, defended the government's replacement of clause 3 with a new section 34.1 prohibiting transfer unless the seller discloses the vessel's condition in writing and obtains written confirmation of the buyer's resources and intent, with an exemption for non-pleasure craft 24 metres or longer. He said the word "ability" was dropped because sellers may lack the information to assess it and because it raised human rights concerns about differential treatment, and that the 24-metre threshold aligns with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 small vessel regulations and the international certification regime. Under questioning from Branden Leslie, David Bexte and Ellis Ross, he conceded there is no definition of "resources" in the act, no prescribed form for the disclosure or confirmation, no requirement to retain the documents, no specific consequence for a buyer who makes a misleading declaration, and that a transfer occurring outside Canada would not be captured. He maintained that liability passes to the buyer once the transfer is complete and that the provision regulates the transfer, not later liability.
Joanne Weiss Reid, Director of Operations and Regulatory Development at Transport Canada, addressed enforcement, describing a graduated approach running from verbal or written warnings through administrative monetary penalties to prosecution, and said a $50,000 maximum fine would not be automatic. She said a written confirmation would be treated as one piece of evidence within an investigation that would consult municipalities, provinces and community members before any enforcement action, and that where an owner cannot care for a vessel, the department would take action and cost-recover as appropriate. She could not predict how many warnings might be issued.
Sean Rogers, Executive Director of Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs at Transport Canada, appeared online and answered Bruce Fanjoy's question on current transfer documentation, saying a bill of sale is normally required to register a vessel or record a transfer, with a notarized statutory declaration available where no bill of sale exists, for example in estate sales. He confirmed that fraudulent declarations would carry legal consequences for the person making them rather than the seller acting in good faith.
Josée-Annie Verville, Director of Monitoring and Compliance at the Canadian Coast Guard, described the Coast Guard as the single point of contact for the public when a vessel becomes a hazard, is abandoned or causes a spill. She said the Coast Guard assesses whether an owner exists and whether the vessel is a hazard, transfers non-hazard files to Transport Canada, and for hazards notifies the liable buyer of their obligations, issues directions if the owner does not act, and can impose administrative monetary penalties or recommend charges.
The committee considered amendments to clause 2 and clause 3, including Wade Grant's replacement text for section 34.1, Mel Arnold's proposal to deem a seller who fails to notify the minister of a transfer to remain an owner, and a subamendment moved by Branden Leslie on Arnold's behalf to insert "at time of transfer" into the new section. Grant also moved an amendment to paragraph 130(1)(r) to cover any transfer of ownership, which Henein said was for completeness and to harmonize the statute with the regulations. The committee agreed to several amendments by voice vote; the transcript records no recorded divisions.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.