:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 124 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.
Before we proceed, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. Please address all comments through the chair.
Today, we're studying derelict and abandoned vessels. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 8, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of derelict and abandoned vessels.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the first panel. Today, we have Bonny Brokenshire, environmental professional, and David Mitchell, mayor of Bridgewater.
Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You will each have five minutes or less for your opening statement.
Ms. Brokenshire, you have the floor.
:
Thank you, honourable Chair, vice-chair and esteemed committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I appreciate your dedication to safeguarding Canada’s marine ecosystems by addressing complex challenges facing our oceans, including derelict and abandoned vessels. I am grateful to contribute today to the conversation.
I have lived on the west coast of Canada all of my life, and I currently reside on Nex̱wlélex̱wm, or Bowen Island, which is about 10 kilometres by boat from downtown Vancouver.
During the past 18 years, I have had the privilege of working on various marine-based projects, including planning and implementing multipronged approaches to restoring socioecological and socio-economic vibrancy in bays located in Átlk'a7tsem, or Howe Sound.
I am an environmental professional with years of experience in local government, focusing primarily on the Átl’ḵa7tsem region of the Salish Sea. Throughout my career, I have been honoured to collaborate with the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations, community action groups, marine contractors, provincial government agencies, elected officials like MP Patrick Weiler, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport Canada—all with a common goal aimed at mitigating pollution, ecosystem degradation, social concerns and economic impacts stemming from derelict and abandoned vessels.
Often exhausting the local government tool box on Bowen Island—for example, we've adopted relevant bylaws, obtained a provincial tenure to enable legal management of marine areas and spent our limited budgets—we've looked to higher levels of government for financial and enforcement support. We were successful in establishing strong working relationships with provincial and federal staff, but in my experience their legislated authority, funding and staffing resources were constraining.
I could speak at length about the many facets of derelict and abandoned vessels, but today I would like to focus on one issue I feel is of paramount importance if we are to achieve long-lasting change. Specifically, I'd like to focus on the proliferation of mooring buoys in vulnerable areas like Átlk'a7tsem and other regions of the Salish Sea, and how they relate to the problem of derelict and abandoned vessels.
In my experience, bays that are inundated with mooring buoys are often inundated with derelict and abandoned vessels. Once a mooring buoy is dropped in the ocean, the associated tackle, anchor chain and block remain in place. Around Bowen Island, some have been there for up to 50 years, from anecdotal conversations with locals. The sea floor around the anchoring systems of the buoys is often devoid of life from constant chain scouring.
Federal programs, such as the oceans protection plan, have been positive steps, and I am deeply appreciative of the work done by staff within the DFO and TC to exercise their jurisdictional authorities. However, the number of mooring buoys installed throughout Átlk'a7tsem, and the number of vessels tied to them, will undoubtedly continue to increase if legislation, regulation and funding for enforcement are not strengthened.
If the Canadian Navigable Waters Act and the associated private buoy regulations were to be opened up, there is room for augmentation with respect to mooring buoys, which I consider minor works. Looking at ways to address the proliferation of mooring buoys and, ultimately, the derelict and abandoned vessels tied to these buoys is important if we are to enhance the well-being of all species living near, on and in our oceans.
Thank you once again for your time, your efforts and your consideration of this issue. I look forward to the questions and comments today.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for inviting me today to speak to you on the issue of derelict vessels. This is actually my second time addressing the committee. I was here maybe five or six years ago. Since since the last time I was here, much has changed in our community.
First, however, I want to share about the impacts of having these vessels in our community. Almost three decades ago, the federal government of the day was divesting itself of federal wharfs. In the town of Bridgewater, the federal wharf was given to a society called the Artificial Reef Society. The purpose of this group was—self-explanatory in its name—to create artificial reefs in the Atlantic Ocean. Ironically, something you cannot do. It assumed control of the wharf, and shortly thereafter the problems began.
For those not familiar with the town of Bridgewater, we are a town of 9,000 people. We are the economic centre of the south shore of Nova Scotia. Our beautiful town is divided by a tidal river, the LaHave, which leads directly to the Atlantic.
In 1998, the society decided to acquire the HMCS Fraser, the St. Laurent-class destroyer that served in the Royal Canadian Navy and was declared surplus. The plan was to convert this ship to a floating museum, yet it had no funding secured to do so.
I want to note that I'm not aware if there is currently a policy that would prevent the acquisition of surplus vessels, especially from the military, by organizations, like it was done for the Fraser. Had there been one that set out rules for such acquisitions, such as ensuring funding was even in place for any proposed future use beyond scrap, our story would be much different.
While the Fraser and its proud history sat rotting at our wharf, the society then welcomed the HMCS Cormorant, a Royal Canadian Navy diving support vessel, to the wharf in 2000. To this day, the ownership of that vessel is still in dispute, but what cannot be disputed is the fact that it was the society that allowed it to dock in our town.
This is another ship with an incredible history, and for the record, it was part of the 1994 expedition to recover the ship's bell from the SS Edmund Fitzgerald in Lake Superior. However, like the Fraser, it sat rotting, eventually listing, sinking, being raised and listing again for 21 years until it was finally removed in 2021.
The Fraser was bought back by the Canadian Forces in 2009 from the Artificial Reef Society for a dollar and taken away to Sheet Harbour for scrap at a cost of potentially millions.
Over the years, the wharf changed ownership from the Artificial Reef Society to the actual chair of the society itself, and nobody knows how that happened. For over 20 years, a number of fishing trawlers were then docked at the wharf, again, to rot like all the others.
The impact on our community was threefold. First, the risk to the environment was always heightened. This was a daily fear across our entire community. These vessels were in constant danger of breach and were known to still contain fuels, oils and lubricants. Remember, this is a tidal river, so any spills would impact dozens of kilometres of river and shoreline, all with homes, parks and community uses. The others were the impact it had on local property values and the community's morale.
While the excitement of the arrival of the Fraser quickly wore off, it was clear there was no viable plan to do anything with the ship. As more and more ships arrived and were simply left there without any purpose or plan, our flagship community park, which was directly across from these ships, was always in the shadow of decay. The homes in the area that faced these ships had depressed valuations, and the wharf itself, left rotting behind the vessels—something we didn't even know until the Cormorant was removed—could never be redeveloped or used for its intended purpose.
The impact these vessels have, regardless of the community they're in, goes beyond just the vessels themselves. It's obviously the space they take up and the environmental risk I mentioned, but I don't want to discount the impact it has on a community itself, knowing it essentially has no tools or ability to get rid of these vessels without the support or lead of a federal organization or the Coast Guard itself.
There is some good news, finally, for our story. Last year, the wharf was sold to new owners, and just a few months ago—less than two months, in fact—the three trawlers that were remaining were dismantled on site. Now we no longer have any vessels at our wharf. The new owner, apparently, has some new exciting plans for the community. I haven't seen those, but I've been told that the community will be very happy.
I cannot express how happy our people are to no longer have to look at these vessels or worry about the chemicals coming out of them and into the water. There are new rules in place that should prevent this from happening here and elsewhere, but I cannot stress enough just how damaging, or impactful, it can be to have any kind of watercraft left to rot.
I thank you for your time today. Of course, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
It's a long tale that I don't have time to talk about, but when I say it's a multipronged approach, it truly is a multipronged approach.
I want to go back 15 years when the community kids were told by their parents not to go to the shores of Mannion Bay where there were really high E. coli counts. There was junk and and debris all over the shores. In my experience in the Átlk'a7tsem, or Howe Sound, derelict and abandoned vessels occur where there's some place for them to tie up, where there's a safe landing spot and where they're close to amenities. All of these three components are alive and well around Mannion Bay.
The bay was inundated with mooring buoys. There were over 50 mooring buoys in an area that..... If you go by the private buoy regulations and consider the swing distance based on depth of water, I calculated that 16 buoys could be in that bay, yet there were over 50. There were, I would say, upward of 12 to 15 abandoned vessels.
We started trying to establish some tools and working with other levels of government. We obtained a licence of occupation, a tenure from the province. The reason we did this was that it gave us some authority with respect to trespass, but it's a loose tool. We were also able to achieve or instate a bylaw for charging for mooring buoys. We needed the tenure in place first to establish a mooring buoy bylaw, through which we charge a nominal fee for mooring buoys, which then goes back into the ecological restoration of the bay, but that was through tenure.
We have a use of water areas and beach area bylaw that we instated. We also have a voluntary non-anchor zone to protect the eelgrass. We couldn't have a no-anchor zone because it's not a navigable water channel; it's a protected bay. However, we have protected the eelgrass that way. Plus, we just have community involvement and lots of eyes on the bay.
We've definitely, over the last 15 years, decreased the number of abandoned vessels, and there are now no abandoned vessels in the bay. With the mooring buoy bylaw, the owners of the vessels tied to the buoys have to register with the municipality, so there's a lack of anonymity now with those folks in the bay. We have no abandoned vessels, and the mooring buoy sweeps from Transport Canada have been invaluable.
It's very hard to get Transport Canada to come out because it's a lot of staffing resources, but they have been very useful. If I could say one thing, it would be having monies to allow staff to come out and do mooring buoy sweeps. We've reduced the number of mooring buoys down to about 27, and Transport Canada and the federal government paid for the removal of all that tackle. We also impounded the buoys at the time that were abandoned and derelict and tied to those buoys. The federal government also paid for the disposal of those vessels, but since then it's been really tricky to get mooring buoy sweeps conducted in the bays that need them.
That would be my take-away, if I could say one thing today.
:
I think, certainly, for our example there are the two pieces. It was the federal piece of property that was put into private hands with no checks or balances to see what its use was going to be. I'm sure, looking back, whoever made that decision to give it to the Artificial Reef Society.... My understanding is that not only did they give it to the Artificial Reef Society, but they gave them money to maintain it. Therefore, taxpayer money actually funded the creation of this graveyard for ships.
The other component is that two very historically significant Canadian military vessels were given to an organization that had no plan. The Fraser was one of the first Canadian naval ships for female sailors. That's pretty important, yet that history just gets dismissed. If you do a Wikipedia search on that ship, all that history ends with a little line at the bottom, which reads that it was just rotting in Bridgewater. The Cormorant, as I said, recovered the bell from the Edmund Fitzgerald. That's pretty impressive, yet there were no checks or balances.
In terms of some federal regulation, I think there's opportunity for two there. The first is better checks and balances for the divesting of any federal property, wharfs particularly, but also how do we, whether it's a Coast Guard or navy vessel, make sure that whoever takes that on can fund and support whatever future use it has?
:
If I understand correctly, the glaring problem isn't just regulations but funding.
I don't know if you're aware of the Nipigon, a former Canadian warship in the St. Lawrence River in the riding. It was sunk back in 2003.
There are a lot of amateur divers in the St. Lawrence, which is an extremely complex river in terms of navigation and currents. Rather than venturing into the very deep and dangerous Empress of Ireland wreck, they sunk a ship to create a training museum for apprentice divers. The boat was secured and everything dangerous, such as ammunition, was removed before the vessel was scuttled in the St. Lawrence. It was a spectacular sight, by the way.
Could that be a solution for some ships? Obviously, not all boats can be salvaged. In some cases, could boats become training sites for divers?
:
I appreciate the question. I think “yes” is the answer.
My understanding is that even as a country we have two different rules. Unless something has changed in the last few years, you can submerge a vessel on the west coast for an artificial reef. You cannot submerge a vessel in the Atlantic for an artificial reef. The same department makes that decision from coast to coast, but it's two different....
Again, in our case, with that wharf being handed over to the Artificial Reef Society, I believe that was their original intent, but then they were not able to do it.
I think it's a great idea. It happens around the world, where vessels are properly cleaned, sunk and used for tourist activities like diving and teaching. However, right now, unless something has changed in the last few years, I don't think it can happen in the Atlantic.
Welcome to the witnesses who are here today.
First of all, through the chair, I had no idea that this had happened with the two HMCS vessels on the east coast. That's really upsetting to hear.
I know we have the HMCS Nanaimo on the west coast, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It's in Esquimalt. I know the crew takes incredible care of those vessels. I know the vessels currently do illegal substances work, preventing illegal narcotics from reaching our shores. The care of the vessels, the pride the crew takes in those vessels, as well as the pride felt by the community in the work that's being done, is tremendous. To hear that there have been two HMCS vessels that have been left like this for so many years is very disheartening.
Just to clarify and just so it's on the record, could you say that the museum never happened?
That was a process led by the Canadian Coast Guard. Thank goodness the funding for that wasn't from the taxpayer. It was from the ship-source pollution fund. My understanding is that this fund is paid for by industry, so the Coast Guard will be going after the owners of the vessels to try to recoup that. If not, at least it's not coming from a pot of taxpayer money.
They were able to pull up two of the ships onto shore to be dismantled. The third had to be very carefully dismantled in the water because it was so fragile. Again, it was filled with lubricants and had fuel in it. It's a tidal river, so if there were any mistakes, parts of that ship and its contents would be going all the way out, past very pristine islands, into the Atlantic.
It was all handled very well, though. Again, it was overseen by the Coast Guard, but almost 30 years later.
One thing that comes up over and over again is having the appropriate plans and spaces for vessels to be dismantled that ensure we're taking into account those who are doing the work, by having work safety standards in place, as well as the environmental impacts. It's always interesting to learn from examples that have already done that.
We have a spot called Union Bay in British Columbia, where we are seeing a tremendous amount of pollution happening from ship-breaking. I think it's good for us to learn from what we are doing coast to coast to coast, so we don't repeat the same patterns. Thank you for that information.
Ms. Brokenshire, you mentioned a voluntary non-anchor zone. I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about the responses you received to allocating this voluntary non-anchor zone and any changes you've seen to that area.
Are people voluntarily following those recommendations? Some more information would be helpful.
To the witnesses, thank you very much. I'm going to start with Mayor Mitchell.
First, Mayor, thanks for your opening testimony giving us a picture of how the derelict vessels impact a community, not just from an environmental standpoint—that alone would be enough—but also with respect to property values and just a community self-esteem aspect.
You talked about the journey. I think it's 21 years, 30 years, something to that effect. It had me thinking in terms of your leadership. Being in the grassroots, you clearly heard about this every day, going to the grocery store, the home hardware store, whatever the case may be. We have come to a successful resolution 30 years later—speed, that's not.
Can you drill down a little bit in your testimony in terms of this example? I was going to call it a best practice, but I'm not sure I would call it that. Give us some recommendations from a federal perspective working with a community or working with municipalities.
What are we doing well and what could we be doing better, based on your experience in Bridgewater, which I spent a lot of time in? I used to work at the Nova Scotia Community College and spent a lot of time at the Lunenburg campus.
Then I'll share my time with MP Hardie. Thank you.
:
Thank you. That's a great question.
What's happening well now is that there are some tools in place. There are some insurance requirements for larger vessels, certainly, to make sure that, if they are abandoned, there's a way to get the funding out of the insurance company to scrap them. Certainly for us, the ship-source pollution fund—we need to think of a new name; it's a tongue twister—was something that we could tap into, which, I think, makes the decision easier when it comes to the federal government and the Coast Guard, because you don't have to use taxpayer funds. It should be a much more thought-out, difficult process to trigger a million-dollar cheque for ship dismantling, so I think that made it easier. I think those things are working well.
I think what could be improved is this. Each of you are elected to represent your communities, and some of your communities have abandoned vessels. Sometimes I feel that the disconnect can be actually with the member of Parliament. Our riding is massive—Halifax all the way down almost to Yarmouth. My MP has six hours in a car sometimes just to get from tip to tip, so the disconnect might be on really understanding the full impact.
As a mayor, I sometimes feel I don't always have the access to the federal government people who can help make a decision for my community, because sometimes it also goes beyond just the member of Parliament—government, not in government. It depends what side you are on sometimes.
If there's something that can be improved, I think it would be the collaboration among all parties when it comes to the grassroots and what the impact is on that community. For us, again, it should have been much shorter than 30 years to remove some of these vessels, which clearly had a number of impacts.
:
It's a question for Ms. Brokenshire.
I had some correspondence from the Victoria yacht club and the Cadboro Bay Dead Boats Society. That's very poetic sounding, isn't it?
This will be a simple yes-or-no answer. They say in British Columbia that the province owns the beds of inland seas such as the Strait of Georgia. As such, B.C. provincial laws apply to coastal land-use activities such as the use of beaches, long-term moorage or siting and building docks, each of which are also subject to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act.
Also, they report that, within British Columbia, the seaward boundaries of waterfront municipalities are deemed to extend 300 metres seaward from the natural shore boundary. Accordingly, municipal bylaws and associated regulations applicable to activities, development and land and water use within those areas are eligible and applicable.
Is that the case? Is that your understanding?
Mr. Mitchell, I want to come back to the Nipigon, which was sunk off the coast of Sainte‑Luce‑sur‑Mer in 2003. Initially, the estimated project cost was approximately $1 million. I think the project took five or six years to complete.
Previously, we heard that since 2016, $2.2 billion had been allocated to address the ghost ship issue. We were told that some results had been achieved. We were given a chart and told that about 100 ships had been removed from the water. We were also told that there are currently no tools to trace ghost ships.
What's your take on this? That's a lot of money, $2.2 billion. Are the funds being used in the right place? Or are they misdirected? Do we have the technology we need? Where do you think the problem lies?
:
That's a great question.
Certainly, speaking as a municipality, I don't really know what tools we have other than contacting the other orders of government, whether it's the Department of the Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or their provincial counterparts. With regard to municipalities, especially for ours.... We're a small town of 9,000 people. We don't have the staff resources allocated. Even hearing about the funds that you're talking about that are available, I don't even know how we would know any of that because there is a bit of a disconnect, going back to the previous question on what we can do better.
Hearing there's $2 billion in funding for this, I think that you're 100% right. In 2024, we should have better tools to identify.... I even think of, in many ways, this: Why are we treating vessels differently from cars? Everyone has to register their car. They have to do it every year. Hearing about $10 every five years, I wonder why we aren't doing that every year. I think that those are the things that we could be doing better in 2024.
Ms. Brokenshire, I think I'm going to skip my last question that I asked you to follow up on, but it would be good, of course, for us to get in writing any impacts that you saw to the ocean floor bed from the excessive number of vessels that were moored in that area that you were talking about.
I want to ask specifically about the enforcement. We know that we currently have a system in place where it's easier for vessel owners to abandon their vessels than to actually dispose of them properly. There are a lot of good mariners out there who want to do the right thing, but we don't have the systems in place to ensure that mariners know how and where to dispose of their vessels. It's an ongoing problem.
We've touched today on the delay in being able to identify the vessel owner, and we know how interconnected this is with the enforcement of this. You talked about how it would be helpful to see an increase of enforcement provisions in the mooring of the mooring buoys. I'm wondering if you have seen delays as a result of not being able to identify vessel owners or delays, period, that you could highlight for us.
Yes, it is tricky. There are often huge delays in identifying the last known owner of a vessel. Sometimes I'll go through five different owners, or even just two, and the scent is lost. The trail goes cold. Yes, it's really tricky to identify them.
With our local bylaws in place now, on that lack of anonymity, there is a better chance to find the owners because we have the jurisdiction through our letters patent for 300 metres from high-water mark seaward, so we were able to establish that list. That was one part of your question.
If I could go to the mooring buoy piece to that, as I've stated, I think it's a very crucial part of this puzzle. It's really tricky to, as I say, encourage or to mobilize the support from Transport Canada. They do great work, but they're just inundated with work. As I say, in 15 years, we were able to do two sweeps around Bowen Island, not for lack of trying, and we have great relationships, working relationships, with TC staff.
I feel that the reactivity is there with respect to being the receiver of wreck and being able to quickly deal with a vessel that is a potential polluter. However, the identification and the proactivity are missing.
:
Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for providing testimony today, and thank you for your time, for your expertise and knowledge, and for your experiences. We appreciate it.
I'll start with you, Mayor Mitchell, and you can speak to this as well, Ms. Brokenshire, from your perspective. Is there a prioritization based on the level of risk that certain vessels pose to the surrounding environments and ecosystems? How does that get established?
Have you found that there's been good co-operation, whether it's with the Department of Transport or the federal government, in responding to that, when you're saying that this is urgent and this needs to be dealt with or we're going to have an ecological crisis on our hands or have a real problem?
How have you found the uptake? When you hear testimony that it takes 30 years to get a vessel out of the water.... I know it's a complicated business. It's not simple, but there must be a way of prioritizing those types of situations. Can both of you speak to that?
I'll start with you, Mayor Mitchell.
:
Thanks. That's a great question.
I can't fully answer it because I don't know what the criteria is for prioritization. I only know that there was some—as loose as it was—by hearing that from my former member of Parliament, Bernadette Jordan, who was, I believe, instrumental in bringing in some of the new changes and regulations for this. She explained at the time why ours were not first on the list. Of course, I thought all of our things should be first on the list, but I understood that there were some others.
However, I don't know what that criteria is, and it is perhaps something that needs to be revisited because, as I said in my opening remarks, at many points, the Cormorant sunk, touched the floor, the seabed. It listed and chemicals were coming out, yet fast-forward and it was still there 10 more years. If that's not on the cusp of an ecological disaster, I don't know. Maybe others were worse.
:
From Cadboro Bay in Victoria, my name is Eric Dahli. I am the chair of the Cadboro Bay Dead Boats Society.
I'm not going to talk at this moment about licence of occupation for mooring buoys, about riparian rights or about intertidal zones. A lot of that is contained in the information that we have provided.
Let's start off, and let's pretend that one day a rusty old RV drives onto your lawn. The RV owner and his friends start throwing their garbage onto your lawn. Then—oh, my goodness—they empty their sewage holding tank in your driveway. Then they move to another neighbour, and the party continues. I also want you to imagine that, while all this is going on, you're living on the seabed with the creatures that live in the eelgrass. Moored boats are dumping garbage and sewage on you.
We have a problem here in Cadboro Bay. Starting in 2017, we removed from the beach over 15 vessels of various sizes, mostly sailboats and one burned-out hulk of a houseboat. We are presently looking to work with the provincial ministry and the municipalities of Oak Bay and Saanich, because Cadboro Bay is blessed with having two municipalities. It's a multijurisdictional thing right from the get-go.
We're also working with the Songhees Nation and a group called SeaChange. We're cleaning up the bay and replanting eelgrass.
With the licence of occupation, which will be managed by the Royal Victoria Yacht Club, boats that come into the mooring field will require insurance. They will require holding tanks. We're hopeful that a minimal fee, which has not been determined yet.... This will be money in and money out. No one is trying to make any money here. We just want to keep the bay clean.
With regard to the people who are mooring in the bay, there's a housing crisis. We know that. If people are following the rules and doing everything properly, that is certainly not a problem—living in the bay. We would like to talk to somebody, perhaps the RCMP marine division, about wellness checks on the people living in the bay. Winter's coming. We get southeasters in Cadboro Bay, and we don't want other boats up on the beach. Once they hit the beach, they become quite dangerous. Every little kid wants to play pirate. They want to climb all over the boats, and these are not safe.
We've looked at other jurisdictions. Washington state, just south of us here, has a system that we think is pretty good. A few years ago, I went back to my homeland of Norway. We took a cruise—and I would call it fjord-intensive—from Oslo to the North Cape. I counted derelict vessels on that trip. When we got back, the number was zero. I don't know what they're doing, but they're doing it well.
Thank you very much.
My name is Bob Peart. I live in North Saanich, just outside of Victoria. I'm chair of Friends of Shoal Harbour—or FOSH, as we call ourselves. A priority for FOSH is the proliferation of derelict and abandoned vessels in Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary, so your invitation's timely.
I acknowledge the complexity of this matter, and I thank the employees at Transport Canada and the Coast Guard for their help. We have a positive working relationship with them and appreciate their assistance. We're very frustrated because of the lack of progress on this matter. However, just recently, there was a notice in our local paper to dispose of two vessels in Tsehum Harbour, so there is some progress.
The points I'm making today are national in scope. However, I speak to you from the Saanich Peninsula and the surrounding waters of the Salish Sea. Our harbours are filled with derelict and abandoned boats. The situation is out of control, and local folks are really fed up. However, rather than dwelling on this dire state of affairs or assigning blame, I want to present a few solutions. My overarching message today is that the time has come for the federal government to reassert its legal powers, enforce existing legislation and provide the leadership that's so desperately needed.
One, the federal government needs to empower and support community initiatives, such as what Eric was just talking about. There are a number of positive local solutions evolving in our coastal waters in our efforts to fill the niche vacated by the federal government on Bowen Island; however, their success requires the federal government to fulfill its legal obligations. Likewise, for any initiatives being led by indigenous people or guardians, their efforts will be a moot point without federal support, and similarly for provisions of the B.C. Land Act and the coastal water lease permit process.
Specifically to Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary, any progress being made by groups like ours or the Canadian wildlife service is impeded by the lack of federal attention. The federal government needs to support the difficult work that these community-based measures are trying to put in place.
Two, Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard need to enforce their existing legislation, redefine associated legislation and empower local communities to manage their private mooring buoys. The core source of any vessel of concern is the virtually unlimited supply of private mooring buoys. In 2004, the responsibility for the private buoy regulations was transferred from the Coast Guard to Transport Canada. This was a mistake. Since then Transport Canada has largely failed to exercise its authority to enforce these regulations. As well, the federal government’s narrow definition of a mooring buoy as a “minor work” and the narrow definitions of “abandoned” and “dilapidated” hamper our efforts to enforce. This situation needs to change.
Three, return the oversight, enforcement and compliance of the private buoy regulations to the Canadian Coast Guard. The federal government needs to return to the level of control that existed prior to the 2004 transfer. The Coast Guard is best suited to provide this leadership. We need a single authority to manage the moorings, and this authority should be the Coast Guard. DFO oversees the Coast Guard, so it makes sense from a management perspective to transfer the legal authority and funding back to the Coast Guard.
Four, the owner registry of vessels needs to be modernized. Transport Canada has, for years, repeatedly stated that the owner registry will be modernized. We see little progress. Without knowing the ownership of vessels, our bays will continue to be polluted by these abandoned vessels. As Eric said, Washington state has a system of annual registration. It's effective and enforced. Canada needs to put in place a similar system.
The time has come for the federal government to assert its legal powers, enforce existing legislation and re-establish its role prior to the 2004 transfer. It's time for the federal government to provide the leadership that Canadians expect, so that related governments and community groups can do their work with confidence. The concern is that, without these changes, our coastal waters will continue to be dumping grounds for these unwanted vessels.
Thank you very much.
:
You can go ahead and chastise him. That's okay. He chastised me too.
Mr. Peart, I wanted to ask the first question of you, but to do that, I have to give Mr. Dahli some credit.
Mr. Dahli, I picked up your submission to the committee today from the Cadboro Bay Dead Boats Society, and I wanted to quote something from that piece to Mr. Peart. It reads:
Despite entailing the use of provincial Crown Land (covered by water), BC Land Use Policy for Private Moorage does not apply to mooring buoys used for private moorage because the Provincial responsibility for regulating that use of Provincial lands has been relegated by policy edict to Transport Canada....
At one point, the province had the pen, or the hammer, if you want to use a curling term. You said it should go back to the Coast Guard from Transport Canada. Transport Canada is worried about navigation. That's all it really focuses on.
Sir, would you not suggest that it go back to the province, where it started out?
Sir, I'll have to interrupt again because my time is limited, and I don't want to be chastised.
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]
Mr. Ken Hardie: Yes, well, it's the fear of God.
All right. We have the problem now. Between the two of you....
We'll start with you, Mr. Peart. I'm sorry I cut you off earlier.
What is the eventual solution that makes all of this go away?
When it comes to recommendations, we're brimming with them here. The reflections we had earlier indicated that we could treat vessels much the same as we treat motor vehicles, requiring vehicle identification numbers or vessel identification numbers, including some hidden on the hull, so that we could actually identify who owned the thing.
Also, we could have very active harbourmaster activities to ensure that anybody coming in and mooring to the dock or mooring to a private buoy, or a public one, if there is such a thing, has to register with the harbourmaster. If they don't, the boat gets towed.
These are the sorts of things we need to be talking about, rather than squabbling over the jurisdictions we have with the current conditions. Let's eliminate the current conditions entirely.
Welcome to our witnesses here today.
The first question I have today is going to go to Mr. Dahli.
First of all, you mentioned the papers on what's happening in Norway. I would love for that to be submitted to the committee for us to review. It's always important for us to be able to look at examples, not just within Canada but internationally, so I would love to be able to see those.
My question to you, Mr. Dahli, is about how in the notes that were provided to us here, on the second page, you say, “We therefore need”, and you talk about the requirement for “succinct criteria for evaluating and rating the safety and environmental risks of listed and reported pending derelict vessels, and a provision to alter its listings and response plans accordingly as so warranted.”
This really resonates with what I'm hearing from within the community, where people are expressing their concern that the bar is too low for the environmental impact that needs to be assessed before the boat can be pulled out and all the problems that go along with that. There are strict criteria. The bar is too high, so then they wait to get them pulled out and then they're sinking. Then they're bringing them back up to float again, and then they're sinking again. It's just this ongoing problem. I'm wondering if you can speak about how important these criteria are to seeing the necessary action being taken in a timely manner.
I want to emphasize how much I appreciate both of you highlighting today, in very descriptive ways, the real impacts this is having on people on the west coast. We know this has implications coast to coast to coast. However, particularly on the west coast, we are seeing the detrimental impacts of a lack of a sound federal strategy that interconnects all of those involved. Therefore, I appreciate the information.
I have too many questions.
I'm going to Mr. Peart.
In the notes you provided to us, point two speaks about “empower[ing] local communities to manage private mooring buoys.” There was one thing that stood out to me with a previous witness, Ms. Brokenshire, who talked about the bylaws in place through the Bowen Island Conservancy, of which she's a member. She talked about the fact that, through this process, the municipality takes on the costs. I hope I'm remembering what she said accurately.
I wonder if you could speak about how important it is that we have a federal strategy, where the federal government takes the leadership required for these strategies, so that municipalities already overburdened with the downloading of resources don't feel the impacts of the steps needed to move forward with the mooring plan.
:
Yes, I was able to listen to your previous witnesses.
We have False Creek, Deep Cove, Bowen Island, Kelowna and Gorge waterway here. There are a number of communities trying to move forward to control this. Again, without more federal authority on private mooring buoys, the abandoned boats just shuffle along. Say there's a vessel on Bowen Island they don't like. They approach the owner, but the owner will just move to the next harbour.
As I said earlier, the core reason for a lot of these abandoned and derelict boats is the fact that the private mooring buoy situation isn't regulated. Yes, communities have the 300-metre zone. Places like Bowen Island put in a licence of occupation. It has helped the situation locally, but it isn't helping the overall situation, in the sense that the private mooring buoy regulations aren't being enforced.
I want to thank our two witnesses for their testimony thus far and for being here.
I'll continue with the jurisdictional quagmire. I know Transport Canada will have a role if there's a navigation risk with mooring buoys and otherwise. Sometimes, DFO will have a role if it's in a small craft harbour. As Mr. Dahli was saying before, you have a number for the Coast Guard that you can call if there is an emergency situation. My experience has been, from hearing from constituents in my riding, that people are oftentimes waiting for weeks in those cases, and sometimes, those situations actually get much worse.
With that in mind, I have a question for Mr. Peart. You mentioned that, from your point of view, this is a system that was better regulated when the Coast Guard had the responsibility for it. I wonder why the Coast Guard is better suited for this, or if this might just be a matter of resourcing for Transport Canada.
Thank you, again, for all the important information you've provided to us today.
I want to bring it all together with this point. We know that, on average, if we look at every year, we see—and this is a very rough number—that for every one vessel that's cleaned up, five are being abandoned right now in British Columbia. Those are extraordinary numbers. We can see that what we're doing is not meeting the need.
The other point I was going to mention is that, in particular, we're seeing the impacts in some of our local communities. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, along the coast of Ladysmith, there are vessel graveyards that are getting bigger and bigger. I know we're also seeing a problem in Gonzales Bay.
Perhaps I'll start with you, Mr. Dahli, and then, Mr. Peart, if we have time. Can you speak to how important it is that we have a comprehensive national strategy in place that would take into account first nations, municipalities, the provinces and the federal government, all working together to address this issue?