Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Sheila Malcolmson, proposed a number of amendments in committee. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected nearly all of them at report stage. My colleague worked on this bill and based her amendments on a number of consultations with dozens of coastal communities and chambers of commerce across the country. They proposed a number of very good solutions to the abandoned vessels crisis. My colleague proposed the amendments to improve the bill because she was not given the opportunity to debate her own private member's bill.

The Minister of Transport saw no value in adding these amendments to his own bill. He turned them down flat, even though they had received nationwide support. He did not care. They had even garnered support in communities represented by Liberal MPs. How exactly does this bill serve democracy? This is appalling. This contributes to the pervasive cynicism infecting the public, which expects MPs to work together in the interests of all Canadians, but that is definitely not happening with this bill.

What is more, the bill is hobbled financially. In 2017-18, the government's vessel removal initiative only managed to deal with 21 of the thousands of abandoned vessels in Canada. It just goes to show what a spectacular failure this initiative has been. It was a step in the right direction, but there are many shortcomings, and the government has shown no willingness to improve its bill.

I want to list the amendments proposed by my colleague, Sheila Malcolmson. One was to implement a turn-in program for vessels, inspired by the cash-for-clunkers program that is working well for cars in several provinces. It was rejected by the Liberals. Without such a program, we cannot hope to address the backlog of thousands of abandoned vessels across the country. As a result, many coastal communities will be unable to get rid of the shipwrecks that have been lying abandoned in their waters for years.

Another rejected amendment proposed to establish a fee to cover the disposal cost of vessels. This amendment was based on the model used by Washington state, where vessel owners pay fees to fund the removal of derelict vessels, relieving taxpayers of a massive financial burden. I can give some figures later.

Another amendment that was rejected sought to formalize the Coast Guard's role as the agency in charge, the one-stop shop, for coastal communities so they do not have to go through several channels. In Beauharnois alone, how many times have people been redirected? It is a veritable bureaucratic quagmire. First we were told the Coast Guard was responsible for the Kathryn Spirit. Then it was Transport Canada, because the vessel was moored. Then we were told it was Environment Canada, because a working committee was being struck.

We were in limbo for seven years. Forgive the expression, but people really had no idea which way to turn, because federal department officials could not make up their minds. The same is true in the House of Commons. One day it was the transport minister who would answer our questions, the next it was the minister responsible for the Coast Guard. It would change from one week to the next. If a sole receiver of wrecks would be designated, it would be much easier for everyone, including the government, to manage this, but once again a common-sense solution was rejected.

Another amendment that was rejected sought to ensure greater transparency and accountability and correct the Canadian Register of Vessels and the pleasure craft licensing system. In February 2018, Andrew Kendrick of Vard Marine appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport. He said the licensing database needs to be improved and updated because it is out of date. He said that would be very helpful in tracking vessel ownership in many cases.

A Transport Canada backgrounder from 2018 indicated that improving vessel owner identification systems related to pleasure craft licensing was not part of the proposed bill.

Why not add it if it could help identify the vessels?

Another amendment was rejected. It would have compelled the minister to take responsibility for vessels. The response was that this responsibility would be discretionary. It would be up to the minister to decide whether or not to take measures with respect to a vessel. What good is the law if the minister has discretionary authority?

Another amendment that was rejected called on the government to use the Washington State model, which would decrease the wait time for communities to take action with respect to abandoned vessels from two years to 90 days. I remind members that it took seven years to get rid of the Kathryn Spirit. In fact, it took five years for the federal government to agree to take charge of the vessel. The dubious Mexican company, which bought the vessel, went bankrupt. Thus, the federal government had no choice but to take responsibility for this vessel, which was lying in a drinking water reservoir and, with each spring thaw, could have capsized in Lake Saint-Louis. That took far too long, and still, the 90-day period was rejected. There is going to be red tape and it could take far too long for the federal government to do its part and take charge of an abandoned vessel.

The government also rejected the idea of increasing transparency, reviewing the problems in the legislation every five years and following up. I have spoken about this. I think that seems appropriate. Every time we pass a bill we monitor it to see whether it has been effective and whether there is anything to improve, but no, this bill is apparently perfect right off the bat and has no need for improvement.

The government also rejected an amendment to add conditions of sale or disposal in the legislation to prevent Crown-owned vessels and other vessels seized and sold by the government from becoming abandoned.

There were more. It makes absolutely no sense. As we learn about the amendments to this bill that were rejected, we can see that these measures did not come from a single person. A number of municipalities and business owners worked together on these amendments. This is hurting tourism and the fishing industry. It affects those who live on the waterfront and, in some cases, people who need drinking water.

I would like to close by providing statistics from other jurisdictions that implemented the effective measures that we suggested but that the Liberals rejected. The municipality of Bowen Island, one of the 450 islands in the Islands Trust, has done 400 hours of work and spent over $75,000 since 2014 to remove over four tonnes of debris from vessels, wrecks and mooring buoys. From 2013 to 2017, Washington state removed over 750 vessels under its derelict vessel removal program. We proposed that the government model its approach on those methods, but the Liberals rejected our proposal.

Nearly 100 vessels have been removed under this program since it was launched in 2014, and the cost of removing them is included in the vessel registration fee. That was another measure that we proposed, but the Liberals rejected it as well. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps it was too logical.

I could go on and give countless examples of solutions that have been implemented in places like France, Finland, Florida, California and Oregon. We did our research and our amendments were based on the work of experts, but the Liberals rejected them all out of hand without any analysis or explanation.

We will continue to support this bill because it is a first step and one step in the right direction is better than nothing. However, it would have been nice if the Liberals had added the amendments proposed by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Sheila Malcolmson, who is no longer a member of the House. Another NDP MP, Jean Crowder, proposed these same amendments before Ms. Malcolmson, and she had support from across the country. I do not think the Liberals should be so quick to pat themselves on the back. After all, their budget for this is a drop in the bucket when it comes to dealing with thousands of wrecks. The budget is $1.25 million, but the Kathryn Spirit alone cost taxpayers over $24 million. I think they need to rethink this.

Anne Minh-Thu Quach

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)