Whose Boat is it Anyway? The Pitfalls and Jurisdictional Complications of the Canadian Problem Boat Regime

by Frances Miltimore, winner of the 2022 NEERLS Law Student Essay Contest - Gowling WLG - David Estrin Prize.

DISCLAIMER

This material is provided for general information as an educational resource. The information provided in this document is not intended to be legal advice and should not be relied upon. I attempt to ensure the accuracy of the material, however the information is produced by a student, not a lawyer. Please seek the advice of a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction.

Introduction

You say the town should have moved it by now—
rusty nails everywhere luring local kids
into tetanus shots. Maybe it serves
as a warning to would-be drunken sailors,
maybe as a reminder of lives lost,
or livelihoods. Maybe they are waiting
for a concerned neighbor to start something:
hire a truck, sink it, burn it, bury it.
But there is no motion here—the spirit
stagnant, like the water. Like the water.¹

Excerpt from Brian Henry, “Abandoned Ship”

As geologists debate whether we are in the Epoch of the Anthropocene, we continue to disrupt and destroy the natural world. In Canada, problem boats² pollute coastal and inland waters at alarming rates.³ A study by Transport Canada found that between one and 20 problem boats are abandoned per year depending on the province.⁴ The Dead Boat Disposal Society, a non-profit aimed at vessel clean-up, recently estimated that 2,400 problem boats remain in British Columbia.⁵

The problem vessels pose both environmental and safety hazards.⁶ The vessels disturb marine habitats because they breakdown releasing both solid waste and chemical pollution. A report by Sheila Malcolmson, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Nanaimo, found that the boats cause water contamination through leaking fuels, oils, greases, toxic paints and microplastics.⁷ The Dead Boat Disposal Society regularly locates boats that are “full to the brim with garbage.”⁸ In addition to environmental issues, the vessels obstruct navigation, become safety hazards, impact coastal communities and are unsightly. On average, boat removal costs $3,000 for a recreational vessel and $1 million for a commercial vessel.⁹ Some exceptional removals reach over $1 million.¹⁰ As described by Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament, the boats are “eyesores oozing pollution.”¹¹

PHOTOS 1 and 2: A problem vessel located on the west side of Croker Island, Indian Arm, British Columbia. Photos taken by author on July 24, 2020.

Despite the efforts by the federal and provincial governments, there is currently no effective problem boat remediation regime. The complicated jurisdiction over problem vessels has created a game of hot potato between the federal government and provincial government. As stated by Ms. Malcolmson, “there is a jurisdictional hole that no government has been able to fill.”¹² Ms. Malcolmson shared a story of one coastal community that attempted for ten years to remedy a derelict commercial vessel and recounted that “[e]very department gave them the runaround. They were told to talk to navigation, talk to environment, talk to land management, and talk to the Coast Guard.”¹³ The federal regime has seen little success due to underfunding, a lack of enforcement and poor inter-governmental integration. The regime in British Columbia is fragmented with many gaps and several enforcement bodies. Ultimately, neither level of government has created an adequate regime for the clean-up of problem boats and much of the work has fallen on non-profits and concerned citizens.¹⁴ Environmentalists have been left wondering whether room exists for a more comprehensive provincial regime to replace the failing federal remediation scheme.

This paper will outline the current problem boat remediation regime, analyze which level of government has jurisdiction over problem boats and make recommendations for improvements to the program. In Part 1, I will outline the complicated legal regime on the remediation of problem boats at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. I will also highlight areas where the regime is not working in practice with a focus on the administrative hurdles and lack of enforcement. In Part 2, I will determine which level, or levels, of government has jurisdiction to legislate on problem boats. In Part 3, I will recommend practical strategies for a more successful regime largely focusing on improvements to the structure and funding of the current approach.

Part 1: The Existing Problem Boat Remediation Regime

The current state of the problem boat remediation regime in Canada demonstrates why exploring jurisdictional issues and alternative programs is necessary. The problem boat remediation regime has long been criticized for being piecemeal, overly bureaucratic and ineffective.¹⁵ In response to these criticisms, the federal government recently created a fulsome remediation framework. The new legislation provides a strong foundation for an effective regime, however the legislation missed the opportunity for inter-governmental integration and lacks the resources for implementation. Thus, the old issues of bureaucracy and impracticality continue to thwart the success of the problem boat remediation regime.

1.1 Brief Historical Background

Prior to 2019, no comprehensive problem boat remediation regime existed. Concerned parties relied on eight federal statutes that touch on remedying “hazards” associated with problem vessels.¹⁶ The problem boats could be remedied under limited circumstances, mainly if the vessel created an imminent environmental or navigational risk. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act¹⁷ prohibits the disposal of a ship at sea and is enforced by Environment Canada.¹⁸ The Canada Shipping Act¹⁹ prohibits vessels that are discharging pollutants. The Canadian Navigable Waters Act²⁰ gives the Minister of Transport the power to remedy a wreck causing a navigational hazard in waters subject to federal jurisdiction.²¹ The process for determining which statute applied was fact-driven and turned on the location and state of the vessel. Ultimately, these protections alone were inadequate as they contain loopholes, rarely hold shipowners liable, defer action until problems arise and place costs on taxpayers. To address criticisms, the federal government enacted the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act²² in 2019.²³

1.2 The Main Federal Statute: The WAHV Act

The WAHV Act is the main piece of legislation regulating problem boats. The other federal actsnow are initial considerations to be followed where there is an imminent navigational or environmental risk. If the vessel does not fall under these acts, the WAHV Act provides a framework for addressing the remaining problem vessels. The purposes of the WAHV Act are to protect the public, environment and infrastructure by regulating hazardous wrecks and vessels, prohibiting abandonment and placing liability on owners of vessels.²⁴

Part 1 of the WAHV Act gives effect to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. This convention allows the federal government to remove hazardous wrecks within Canadian waters,²⁵ Canada’s exclusive economic zone²⁶ and, in limited circumstances, outside Canada.²⁷ “Wreck” is broadly defined to include stranded boats, sunken boats and parts of boats.²⁸ “Hazard” includes situations where the vessel causes a danger to navigation or is reasonably expected to cause major harm to the marine environment, coastline or related interests of states.²⁹

Part 2 of the WAHV Act governs vessels and wrecks of concern. This part of the act applies relatively widely to all vessels in Canadian waters and to wrecks and Canadian vessels in the exclusive economic zone of Canada. Section 30(1) prohibits vessel owners from leaving their dilapidated vessel in the same location for 60 days. “Dilapidated vessel” means significantly degraded, dismantled or unsafe for navigation.³⁰ Section 31 prohibits an owner from leaving their vessel adrift for 48 hours. Section 32 creates a presumption that a vessel is abandoned if it is unattended for two years. Sections 33 and 34 prohibit an owner from allowing their vessel to become a wreck or to sink. “Wreck” is broadly defined as a vessel, part of a vessel or anything that was on board that is sunk, partially sunk, adrift, stranded or grounded.³¹

Under the act, the federal government has expansive powers. As per Section 6(1), the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may delegate their powers to any person such as a provincial government, Aboriginal group or local authority. The owners of vessels are financially liable for the costs of remediation.³² If the owner is unresponsive or unknown, the minister can remove, dispose, sell or destroy the hazardous vessel or wreck.³³ However, certain administrative hurdles must be passed including extensive risk assessments and wait times for the vessel owner to be identified and for said owner to respond. The act creates penalties for non-compliance as well as regulatory offences that can result in a fine of $1,000,000 and up to three years of imprisonment.³⁴

1.3 Federal Programs

After the implementation of the WAHV Act, the federal government started two complementary programs as part of the Ocean Protection Plan.³⁵ The programs are both short-term funding sources for problem boat remediation. The first is the Abandoned Boats Program, announced in 2017.³⁶ Transport Canada made a $6.85 million commitment over five years to 1) assist communities with high priority boat removal; 2) educate boat owners; and 3) support research on boat recycling and design. From 2017 to 2020, the Abandoned Boats Program funded the removal of 112 boats.³⁷ A variety of organizations received funding under the program such as port authorities, municipalities and non-profits. All but one problem vessel was located in British Columbia.

The second program is the Small Craft Harbours Abandoned and Wrecked Vessels Removal Program run by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The federal government announced this program in 2017 and committed up to $1.325 million for five years to harbour authorities or eligible recipients to remove problem vessels in harbours owned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The program provides eligible recipients up to 100% of the costs of assessment and possession of a vessel, and up to 75% for removal and disposal of the vessel.³⁸ Thus far, 89 boats have been removed from federal harbours.³⁹ Both programs sunset in March 2022.

1.4 Shortcomings of the New Regime

The WAHV Act and the complementary federal programs have had mixed reception. In certain respects, the WAHV Act represents a significant step forward. The strengths of the WAHV Act are that it places liability for removal costs on the vessel owner, creates serious consequences for non-compliance and allows the federal government to take broad remedial action. On the other hand, the WAHV Act contains poor inter-governmental coordination, lacks resources and creates administrative hurdles. As identified by the BC Chamber of Commerce, issues persist due to an ineffective vessel registration system, inadequate vessel disposal facilities, and a lack of coordination with provincial governments, municipal governments and First Nations.⁴⁰ The Nanwakolas Council released a news article that aired their frustrations after trying to remove problem boats under the WAHV Act:

The removal and disposal of derelict and abandoned boats is anything but a simple process in British Columbia waters. It involves multiple government agencies, lots of paperwork, and long wait times – one of the reasons why, in 2021, literally thousands of such vessels still litter the coastlines of Vancouver Island and the wider territories of the Nanwakolas member Nations.⁴¹

The Nanwakolas Council is not alone, as other organizations experience limited responses from the federal entities tasked with implementing the act. Michael Simmons of the Saanich Inlet Protection Society reported six problem vessels to the Canadian Coast Guard in accordance with the act, but no action has been taken.⁴² Mr. Simmons observed that “[i]t seems the only time they act is after the boats have sunk.”⁴³ The Canadian Coast Guard is likely overwhelmed as it has received reports of 1,600 abandoned boats in British Columbia.⁴⁴ Mr. Simmons observed that “[the Canadian Coast Guard] just [doesn’t] have the physical ability to be able to make the [WAHV Act] work … if you can’t get the budget to make it work, you then define the act out of existence.”⁴⁵ At least three of the six reported boats have now sunk. In accordance with the act, the Canadian Coast Guard conducts an extensive risk assessment of the vessel and contacts the owner to initiate compliance. Aside from the delays likely associated with the high volume of reports, both of these steps also take time and prevent immediate action. Ultimately, issues persist under the new regime.

1.5 Provincial Laws and Municipal Laws

In addition to the federal regime, provinces and municipalities have a handful of legislation, programs and bylaws to deal with problem boats. The Environmental Management Act, Park Act, Land Act and Trespass Act all contain provisions likely applicable to the issue. For example, when a vessel is moored on provincial crown land for an extended period of time without authorization, the province may be able to seize, sell or destroy the vessel under the Land Act.⁴⁶ The Environmental Management Act prohibits the discharge of waste into the environment in a manner that causes pollution.⁴⁷ This regime is patchwork and misses many situations such as vessels that have not yet caused pollution but are likely to pollute.

Aside from legislation, the province of British Columbia set up a program similar to the federal government programs to deal with problem vessel removal. The province established the Clean Coast, Clean Waters Initiative as part of the Pandemic Response and Economic Recovery initiative in order to combat the economic downturn of the Covid-19 pandemic.⁴⁸ The program provides funding to Indigenous Nations, local governments, non-profits and organizations or individuals with marine debris or derelict vessel expertise. The program funded the clean-up of 100 derelict vessels for $2.4 million.⁴⁹ All projects must be complete by December 2021. The province operates this program in compliance with the WAHV Act and instructs applicants to obtain consent from vessel owners and Transport Canada prior to boat removal.⁵⁰

In addition to provincial legislation and programs, municipalities also have bylaws aimed at problem boats. For example, the City of Victoria enacted Part 9.3 of the Zoning Regulation Bylaw⁵¹ to limit the mooring of vessels in the Gorge Waterway, which is connected to the Victoria Harbour. The Gorge Waterway was a prevalent site for problem boats. Specifically, the municipality prohibited anchoring and mooring in excess of 48 hours and not more than 72 hours in a 30-day period. Several other coastal municipalities have enacted bylaws that define vessels as “abandoned” after a specific time period and give the municipality the power to remove any abandoned vessels.⁵² As shown by this regime, there are many cooks in the kitchen.

Part 2: Jurisdiction over Problem Boats

Jurisdiction over problem boats is widely acknowledged as complicated.⁵³ The federal, provincial and municipal governments all have enacted tools for problem boat remediation. The federal government scheme is the most far-reaching and comprehensive. Unfortunately, the federal government has yet to effectively implement the regime and missed inter-governmental collaboration. This leads to the question: Does the provincial government (and by extension municipal governments)⁵⁴ have the jurisdiction to legislate a more effective problem boat regime?

2.1 The Constitutional Basis

The Constitution⁵⁵ assigns certain areas of legislative authority exclusively to either the Parliament of Canada or to the provincial legislatures. The relevant heads of power of the federal government are its jurisdiction over federal property, sea coast and inland fisheries and navigation and shipping including marine matters. The relevant heads of power of the province are its jurisdiction over provincial lands, municipalities, matters of a local and private nature and property and civil rights. Jurisdiction over environmental issues is split between the provincial and federal governments. As creatures of provincial statute, municipal governments are able to enact bylaws governing the use of land, including land covered by water, within their territory.⁵⁶

2.2 Constitutional Principles

The heads of power do not represent watertight compartments.⁵⁷ Provincial legislation can have incidental effects on matters under federal jurisdiction, so long as the pith and substance⁵⁸ is under provincial jurisdiction. Incidental effects “may be of significant practical importance but are collateral or secondary to the mandate of the enacting legislature.”⁵⁹ The interjurisdictional immunity doctrine renders provincial legislation inoperative if it has incidental effects that impair the core of a matter of federal jurisdiction. The doctrine applies even if the federal government has not legislated or has legislated poorly in that area.⁶⁰ Where both levels of government legislate on a multi-faceted subject that falls under each governments’ heads of powers, the ‘double aspect doctrine’ recognizes both laws as valid.⁶¹ Lastly, under the doctrine of federal paramountcy, federal legislation trumps provincial legislation where both laws are valid but inconsistent.

2.3 Land Ownership

Land ownership and land rights typically play a role in determining jurisdiction. The province owns most of the land in British Columbia including land underneath the water.⁶² The province enjoys the regular rights of property owners over its land.⁶³ With few exceptions the Province of British Columbia owns all lakebeds, all riverbeds and some of the seabed in the province. Where the land abuts the sea, the provincial territory ends at the low-water mark unless: 1) the waters are situated inter fauces terrae (“in the jaws of the land”), such as bays; or 2) the waters were within the boundaries of the Province when it entered Confederation.⁶⁴ Beyond the low-water mark, the federal government owns the seabed within the territorial sea.⁶⁵ An exception to this is the large seabed between Vancouver Island and the mainland.⁶⁶ On First Nations reserves, boundaries tend to end at the high water mark though some extend into the sea.⁶⁷ Additionally, Aboriginal rights may give rise to governmental fiduciary duties to protect marine areas.⁶⁸

Federally owned public property is likely immune from provincial legislation.⁶⁹ The federal government owns several harbours, ports, dock facilities, and some submerged land and foreshore in British Columbia pursuant to Section 108 of the Constitution.⁷⁰ Section 108 of the Constitution Act provides that “[t]he Public Works and Property of each Province, enumerated in the Third Schedule to this Act, shall be the Property of Canada”. The public harbours recognized as federal were Victoria,⁷¹ Esquimalt, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Burrard Inlet, and New Westminster.⁷² These harbours are unlikely to be subject to provincial legislation.⁷³

2.4 The Common Law

Although the issue of jurisdiction over problem vessels has not been fully addressed by the courts, several cases provide guidance. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that marine pollution, even in provincial waters, is a federal government matter as a ‘national concern’ under the peace order and good government power.⁷⁴ The Supreme Court of Canada has also previously viewed the federal power over navigation and shipping as expansive, extending to both inland waters and pleasure crafts.⁷⁵ In Zimmerman, the court heard a constitutional challenge to a municipal bylaw that prohibited long-term boat anchorage and mooring in a provincial waterway.⁷⁶ The respondents claimed the bylaw was ulta vires (without jurisdiction) as the federal government has jurisdiction over navigation and shipping. The court upheld the bylaw.

The court found that the bylaw regulates the use of provincial land covered by water. The only sense in which it is a federal waterway is that the federal government can regulate it through its navigation and shipping power. Zoning bylaws in relation to ships or vessels on navigable water present a double aspect.⁷⁷ The federal legislative regime on anchoring and mooring is permissive and thus does not trigger federal paramountcy as there is no conflict of laws. However, if a bylaw prohibits “[t]emporary moorage directly incidental and related to the active recreational use of vessels,” then the bylaw intrudes on the core of navigation and shipping. Thus, such a bylaw is inapplicable under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. The court upheld the impugned bylaw, which only addressed long-term anchorage or moorage of boats.

In a similar case, West Kelowna SC,⁷⁸ a vessel owner challenged the constitutionality of a zoning bylaw affecting his houseboat on Okanagan Lake. He argued that the bylaw could not regulate land classified as navigable waters or regulate navigation and shipping. The court found that the pith and substance of the bylaw “was legislation about land use and regulation of land use, and not shipping or navigation.”⁷⁹ In considering the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity and whether the bylaw trenched on a “core of federal competence,”⁸⁰ the court distinguished between types of moorage. Vital rights of navigation may include mooring for emergency, repairs, provisioning or to spend the night. On the other hand, long-term moorage is not a core of the right of navigation. The bylaw prohibited temporary moorage incidental to the actual use of a recreational boat. The court found that the bylaw wrongfully trenched on the federal power over navigation and shipping.

Lastly, in a Federal Court case, ⁸¹ the plaintiff sought damages from the Province of British Columbia for cleaning up an oil spill from a sunk vessel. The owner of the vessel was a non-profit that dissolved and passed vessel ownership to the province. British Columbia argued that the federal government had a duty to minimize the damages caused by the vessel, which arises from “Canada’s exclusive statutory and constitutional jurisdiction over abandoned vessels.”⁸² The Federal Court did not explore this division of powers issue, but did rule that claims for damage caused by a vessel are at the heart of Canadian maritime law under federal jurisdiction.⁸³

2.5 Jurisdiction Analysis

Taking the Constitution, relevant principles, ownership and common law together, the province has some jurisdiction to legislate on problem boats. This jurisdiction, however, is unlikely to extend much further than the steps already taken by the province and municipalities. The courts recognized the federal power over navigation and shipping as broad such that the laws necessary for a comprehensive provincial regime are unlikely to be upheld by the courts.⁸⁴ Municipal bylaws on problem boats are framed as prohibitions on long-term mooring and anchoring. These bylaws are permissible based on the jurisdictional distinction between long-term and temporary mooring and anchoring drawn by the courts. However, problem vessels encompass more than simply abandoned boats.

A comprehensive provincial problem vessel regime would also have to include wrecked, derelict, hazardous and sunken boats. Despite British Columbia being the dominant landowner, fulsome legislation on problem boats is likely under federal jurisdiction. The federal power over shipping and navigation includes “maritime law which establishes the framework of legal relationships arising out of navigation and shipping activities” and “the infrastructure of navigation and shipping activities.”⁸⁵ This jurisdiction likely encompasses comprehensive problem boat legislation and related boat registration or licensing regimes. Lastly, a court recently ruled that issues related to problem boats are at the “heart of Canadian maritime law” under federal jurisdiction.⁸⁶

Comprehensive provincial legislation on problem boats would likely be A) invalid in pith and substance as the law would fall under navigation and shipping; B) inapplicable due to interjurisdictional immunity where the legislation has incidental effects on a federal core; or C) subject to federal paramountcy if the law were more permissive than the WAHV Act. In short, a comprehensive provincial regime on problem boats is unlikely to be upheld by the courts. Rather the province would have to make piecemeal laws that fall under provincial heads of power, avoid the core of navigation and shipping and are stricter than the WAHV Act. Legislation that satisfies these criteria may be upheld under the double aspects doctrine and avoid federal paramountcy. Additionally, the federal government owns several harbours in the province that are likely immune from provincial problem vessels legislation.

Part 3: Moving Forward

Given that a fulsome provincial problem boat regime is likely outside the scope of provincial jurisdiction, many other strategies can be explored. Ms. Malcolmson provided a report on marine pollution with a series of ideas for addressing problem vessels.⁸⁷ The following list of recommendations is partially based on the suggestions of Ms. Malcolmson and all recommendations are at least partially within the control of the provincial government:

1. Create one provincial agency to conduct vessel removal in accordance with the WAHV Act;
2. Increase momentum for the federal government to improve boat registry databases;⁸⁸
   • Establish an annual licensing fee used to fund problem vessel remediation;
   • Increase participation in the program, particularly for pleasure craft operators;
   • Require owners to report the sale of a vessel and transfer ownership;
   • Greater enforcement of vessel licensing registration on the waters; and
   • Allow enforcement authorities to have instantaneous access to databases rather than multiple procedural hurdles.⁸⁹
3. Engage and integrate provincial and municipal governments, responsible agencies and First Nations into the problem boat regime;
4. Establish a long-term problem boat removal fund;
5. Create specialized recycling facilities for boats with incentives for vessel owners to properly dispose of their vessels;⁹⁰ and
6. Create terms of reference between the federal and provincial governments to record mutual understandings on jurisdiction and roles relating to problem boat remediation.⁹¹

The provincial government should establish a centralized provincial agency to help enact the WAHV Act. Currently, a confusing conglomeration of agencies and governments are involved with problem vessel removal. The Shipping Federation of Canada recommended that a centralized decision-making authority be established to replace the many bodies.⁹² A provincial, rather than federal, agency is suggested here due to the disproportionately high number of problem vessels located in British Columbia.⁹³ This would streamline the process, provide much needed clarity, reduce the need for information sharing, avoid duplication of work and capitalize on economies of scale. Under the WAHV Act, the ministers would be able to delegate their powers to the agency.

Washington State’s successful abandoned vessel remediation scheme serves as a model for British Columbia.⁹⁴ The regime is funded through small vessel registration fees. The funds are accessed for response to problem vessel remediation. One component is a vessel turn-in program to prevent boats from being abandoned in the first place. A vessel turn-in program in British Columbia could be formed similar to this or similar to the vehicle-equivalent ‘cash for clunker’ program.⁹⁵

Steps are already underway for improving the federal regime. Recent briefing documents from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities provided information on the progress and next steps for the federal programs.⁹⁶ The committee acknowledged the importance of 1) improving vessel identification capacity; 2) creating a national inventory on problem boats; and 3) establishing a long-term fund. The accomplishments as of early 2020 were largely stakeholder consultation and issue identification. The plan is to make changes to improve vessel identification in late fall 2022, including a new vessel registration system and introducing new service fees in early 2023. The federal government is considering a five-year recurring vessel registration fee.⁹⁷ The accomplishments as of the meeting date with respect to an inventory on problem boats were the identification of 1,800 boats and testing of risk assessment methodology. The next step is to integrate the system into the appropriate department and train personnel.

At the provincial level, the province of British Columbia is currently collecting prevention, reduction and end-of-life ideas to respond to problem boats.⁹⁸ The preliminary ideas include recycled content standards for boats, a boat licensing regime, boat donation or repair programs and boat dismantling infrastructure, though the licensing regime is likely under federal jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The issue of problem vessels requires more thoughtful and intentional government effort. The waters of Canada will continue to see increases in problem vessels as fisherpeople leave commercial fishing fleets, fibreglass nears the end of its life and climate change creates atmospheric rivers that scatter boats along the coast.⁹⁹ Many old frustrations continue as the WAHV Act is implemented slowly, with neither inter-governmental integration nor sufficient resources. Despite the ineffective federal regime, the Province of British Columbia is unlikely to have jurisdiction to step in and create a comprehensive problem boat remediation scheme largely due to the broad scope of the federal power over navigation and shipping.

Bringing hope to the situation is the momentum within all levels of government to address the shortcomings of the regime. Potential solutions include a centralized provincial implementation agency, permanent funding, an improved licensing program and boat dismantling infrastructure. Given that the governments are in the midst of planning these improvements, future research should summarize the legal changes made and measure their impact on remedying the problem boat situation. With increased inter-governmental collaboration, Canada can work towards safer, healthier waters.

Bibliography

Legislation

Canada Shipping Act, SC 2001, c 26.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, SC 1999, c 33.

Canadian Navigable Waters Act, RSC 1985, c N-22.

Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

Environmental Management Act [SBC 2003] c 53.

Interpretation Act (RSC, 1985, c I-21).

Land Act, RSBC 1996, c 245.

Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 2015, c. 1.

Oceans Act (SC 1996, c 31).

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, SC 2019, c 1.

Bylaws

Capitol Regional District, Bylaw N^o. 2844, “A Bylaw to Regulate Docks Operated by the Capital Regional District on the Southern Gulf Islands”, (2000).

City of Victoria, Bylaw N^o. 80-159, “Zoning Regulation Bylaw”, (1981).

Sunshine Coast Regional District, Bylaw N^o. 518, “Sunshine Coast Regional District Ports Regulation Bylaw N^o. 518”, (2002).

Jurisprudence

British Columbia (Attorney General) v Lafarge Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 23.

Canadian Western Bank v Alberta, 2007 SCC 22.

Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v British Columbia (Finance), 2012 FC 725.

The Corporation of the City of Victoria v Zimmerman, 2018 BCSC 321.

Guerin v The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335, 1984 CarswellNat 693.

R v Crown Zellerbach Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 401, 1988 CarswellBC 137.

R v Lewis, [1996] 1 SCR 921, 1996 CarswellBC 951F.

Reference Re: Offshore Mineral Rights, [1967] SCR 792, 1967 CanLII 71 (SCC).

Reference Re Ownership of the Strait of Georgia and Related Areas, [1984] 1 SCR 388, 1984 CarswellBC 152.

Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee v B & B Ganges Marina Ltd., 2007 BCSC 892.

West Kelowna (District) v Newcomb, 2013 BCSC 1411, aff’d 2015 BCCA 5.

Whitbread v. Walley, 1990 CarswellBC 284, [1990] 3 SCR 1273.

Secondary Materials

Academic Materials

Gold, Edgar et al., eds, Canadian Maritime Law, 2^nd ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2016).

Peter Hogg & Rahat Godil, “Narrowing Interjurisdictional Immunity” (2008) Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 42, at 623–638.

Machum, Eric, “Abandoned and Derelict Ships: Where do we go from Here?” (2019) Canadian Maritime Law Journal 1, online (pdf)

Malcolmson, Sheila, “What We Heard on Marine Debris in B.C” Province of British Columbia (February 2020), online (pdf)

Pacific States and British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force, “The Current State of Abandoned and Derelict Vessels on the West Coast – White Paper” (March 2019), online (pdf): Oil Spill Task Force

Shaver, Zackery & Nicole Sweeney, “Bill C-64: An Act Respecting Wrecks, Abandoned, Dilapidated or Hazard Vessels and Salvage Operations” (Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2018), online (pdf)

Simeon, Richard & Amy Nugent, “Parliamentary Canada and Intergovernmental Canada: Exploring the Tensions” in Herman Bakvis and Grace Skogstad, eds, Canadian Federalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Thielmann, Tim, “Traffic Congestion and Human Waste Dumping in the Saanich Inlet” (Victoria: Environmental Law Centre Society, 2008), online (pdf)

Weston, John, Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities briefing document “A Conservative’s Support for a Liberal Bill: Submission to Transport Committee, House of Commons” (18 January 2018), online (pdf)

News Articles

Arrais, Pedro, “Canadian Coast Guard urges patience as it deals with up to 1,600 derelict boats” Times Colonist (10 October 2021), online

CBC News, “MV Miner finally removed from Cape Breton’s Scaterie Island” (22 June 2015), online

Depner, Wolf, “Abandoned boat legislation leaves Vancouver Island lobby group with a sinking feeling” Cowichan Valley Citizen (22 October 2021) online

Governmental Materials

“Abandoned Vessels in B.C.’ (Last visited: 2 December 2021), online: Province of British Columbia

British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, “Abandoned Vessels: Improving Oversight and Accountability 2021” (August 2021), online (pdf)

Canada, House of Commons, “Hansard, Debate – General: Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations” (Motion N^o 1) 19 June 2018 (Murray Rankin), online

Canada, House of Commons, “Hansard, Debate – General: Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations” (Motion N^o 1) 19 June 2018 (Sheila Malcolmson), online

Environment and Climate Change Strategy, “Shoreline projects tackling marine debris, abandoned boats” (28 April 2021) Province of British Columbia, online

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Small Craft Harbours Abandoned and Wrecked Vessels Removal Program” (10 January 2020), online: Government of Canda

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, News Release, “Province seeking solutions to address abandoned boats” (24 August 2019), online: Government of Canada

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, News Release “Shoreline projects tackling marine debris, abandoned boats” (28 April 2021), online: Government of Canada

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, “Practical Manual for addressing Problem Vessels and Floating Structures: Draft for UBCM review” (2013) at 3, online (pdf): Legislative Library of British Columbia

“Mired in a Sea of Bureaucracy” Nanwakolas Council (7 October 2021), online: Nanwakolas Council

PwC Canada, “Clean Coast Clean Waters Initiative Fund” (2020) online: BC Clean Coast

“Regulatory charge (fee) for Vessel Remediation Fund” (1 November 2021), online: Let’s Talk Transport

Shipping Federation of Canada, “Comments on Bill C-64 (An Act Respecting Wrecks, Abandoned, Dilapidated or Hazardous Vessels and Salvage Operations” (21 February 2018) at 4, online (pdf)

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Committee Briefing Documents, “Vessels Remediation Fund: Update on the National Strategy to Address Canada’s Wrecked and Abandoned Vessels” (18 February 2021) online

See Transport Canada, “Abandoned Boats Program” (31 July 2017), online: Government of Canada

Transport Canada, “Abandoned boats program: Approved projects” (5 September 2019), online: Government of Canada

Transport Canada, “Proposed Canadian Legislative Regime for the Remediation of Hazards Related to Shipwrecks” (June 2015) at 4, online (pdf): Government of Canada

Transport Canada, “Study of the Extent of Abandoned and Derelict Vessels in Canada” (November 2012), online (pdf): Government of Canada

Union of BC Municipalities, Union Resolutions, “Abandoned or Derelict Vessels Programs’ (2016), online: Union of BC Municipalities

Other Materials

Henry, Brian, “Abandoned Ship” in The New Criterion vol 15 (New York: The New Criterion, 1997) at 38, online

Endnotes