Bill C-244, the proposed Clean Coasts Act, would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Its stated goal is to better protect marine areas by increasing liability for damage. The supplied text does not establish that these changes are in force.
For the purposes of a provision of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the bill would clarify that a disposal occurs whether or not the act or omission that caused it was intentional.
A vessel owner would be prohibited from transferring ownership unless they disclose the vessel’s condition in writing and obtain the buyer’s written confirmation that they have the resources and intent to maintain, operate and dispose of it so it does not become a wreck, hazard or abandoned.
That transfer rule would not apply to vessels that are not pleasure craft and are at least 24 metres long.
The bill would add breaches of the transfer rule to an existing enforcement provision and add authority to set conditions for vessel ownership transfers through regulations. The supplied text does not give the enforcement details.
Vessel owners and buyers: For covered vessels, an owner would have to disclose condition information in writing and get the buyer’s written confirmation before transferring ownership. The owner must take these steps to satisfy themselves that the buyer has the resources and intent to care for the vessel and dispose of it responsibly.
Owners of larger vessels: The transfer rule would not cover vessels that are not pleasure craft and are 24 metres or longer. It would still cover pleasure craft of that length.
Marine areas and the public: The bill aims to increase protection and liability, but it does not guarantee a particular environmental result.
Vessel owners generally: The bill would allow regulations to set further conditions for sales, acquisitions and other ownership transfers. It does not itself set those additional conditions.
“Resources” and the level of checking needed for an owner to satisfy themselves are not defined.
The bill does not set a process, timeline or appeal for applying the transfer rule.
The bill adds the transfer ban to an existing enforcement provision, but the supplied text does not show the penalty or enforcement process.
No start date is supplied. The bill text alone does not establish whether it has passed or is in force.
The parent Acts were not supplied, so the existing operation of the amended provisions and the full effect of the enforcement change could not be verified.
The bill appears intended to reduce the risk that vessels become wrecks, hazards or abandoned after a sale.
Requiring written disclosure and confirmation could make the buyer’s responsibilities clearer and create a written record.
Treating disposal as occurring even when the act or omission was unintentional could prevent intent from being a barrier under the relevant environmental provision.
Allowing regulations to set transfer conditions could let the rules address details not set out in the bill itself.
The transfer rule requires owners to satisfy themselves about a buyer’s resources and intent, but does not say how they must assess either. That may leave owners unsure when they have met the requirement.
A written confirmation is required, but the bill does not require independent proof that the buyer has the resources stated.
The bill adds a new compliance duty without estimating its cost or explaining how it will be enforced.
Future regulations could add transfer conditions, but the bill does not specify those conditions or how they would be set.