Vote Yes
An Act to amend The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned and Hazardous Vessels Act
The bill aligns by internalizing environmental risks, protecting coastal economic assets, and reducing public cleanup burdens, which supports productivity and long-run prosperity. Its main risk is ambiguity around the new transfer offence that could create uncertainty for legitimate transactions unless due diligence paths are made explicit.
How will the government define and enforce the 'knows or is reckless' standard in the new transfer-of-ownership offence, and will there be a clear due diligence safe-harbour—such as proof of insurance or financial responsibility—to avoid chilling legitimate sales by fishers and small marine businesses?
What analysis has the government conducted on the bill’s impact on marine insurance premiums, financing, and the used-vessel market, and what safeguards will ensure that coastal communities are not burdened with higher costs or reduced access to working vessels?
Will the CEPA amendment affect timelines or requirements for routine dredging and port maintenance permits, and can the minister commit to service standards to prevent delays that could disrupt port operations and exports?
Protecting coastal ecosystems and reducing derelict vessel risks supports fisheries, tourism, and port reliability, which underpin long-run prosperity.
The bill imposes targeted responsibilities (e.g., responsible transfer of vessels) to curb externalities without creating a broad new bureaucracy; however, ambiguous standards could chill legitimate transactions if not clarified.
Cleaner, safer coasts reduce port disruptions, navigational hazards, and cleanup costs, improving reliability for supply chains and marine industries.
Benefits to export reliability are indirect; the bill does not directly expand export capacity or market access.
By internalizing environmental risk, it can improve certainty for responsible operators, but unclear liability thresholds could deter investment in the used-vessel market unless due diligence safe-harbours are defined.
Shifting responsibility to vessel owners reduces taxpayer-funded cleanups and frees public resources for higher-value services.
No tax measures are included.
This is a focused, technical compliance bill with modest economy-wide effects; it supports coastal integrity but is not a large-scale growth reform.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email hi@buildcanada.com