It鈥檚 becoming more difficult by the day to figure out which federal agency is responsible for marine pollution. When a grain ship accidentally discharged bunker oil into the waters off Vancouver two weeks ago, the coast guard took the lead role.
After environmental groups raised questions about pleasure craft dumping sewage in Saanich Inlet, the federal Environment Ministry got involved. And when two small boats sank recently in Oak Bay harbour, a game of hide-and-seek began.
Oak Bay police first queried Transport sa国际传媒, which passed them on to the Victoria harbourmaster. They were then handed off to the coast guard, and from there to the Receiver of Wrecks. Subsequently, they were told Environment sa国际传媒 would handle the matter.
In the end, Ottawa simply punted. Transport sa国际传媒 reluctantly stepped forward, but declined to do anything. The agency was quoted as saying that it was 鈥渕onitoring鈥� the situation, but that it had no authority to remove vessels unless they become an obstacle to navigation.
This is about as ridiculous as it gets. The boats are sunk in plain sight, close to shore. The owner cannot be found. Whether or not they鈥檙e in a shipping lane, they are an eyesore in a local beauty spot and a threat to leak fuel.
And Ottawa鈥檚 solution is to leave them there? If Transport sa国际传媒 lacks the necessary authority, it鈥檚 tempting to answer: Then go and get it.
But these are just symptoms of a larger muddle. There is no comprehensive legal framework for dealing with maritime pollution.
Rather, there is a labyrinth of statutes, rules and regulations that give numerous federal agencies a finger in the pie. Worse still, there is neither rhyme nor reason to the allocation of responsibilities.
Why, for instance, was the coast guard asked to clean up the bunker oil that came ashore on Vancouver鈥檚 waterfront? The agency鈥檚 primary duties are offshore policing along with search-and-rescue operations.
Oil spills are an environmental hazard. They demand an entirely different set of skills and expertise.
That may be one reason for what appeared to be a slow response. It took four hours to place a boom around the ship, something experts in the field say can, and should, be done within an hour.
Then consider how sewage dumping in Saanich Inlet became such an issue. There has always been a problem in the waters between Vancouver Island and the Gulf islands. The area is heavily used by pleasure boats.
But three years ago, Transport sa国际传媒 drew up new rules for discharging sewage at sea. It became illegal to dump within five kilometres of the nearest shoreline.
In constricted waters, however, the scheme broke down. There are many spots along Vancouver Island鈥檚 inside passage 鈥� such as Saanich Inlet 鈥� that are too narrow for the five-kilometre minimum to work.
So Transport sa国际传媒 came up with a compromise. In these areas, boaters are merely required to find the furthest point from land and dump away.
In remote stretches of shoreline, with low-density traffic, that might be acceptable. But in congested regions, it makes an already-bad problem worse.
Is a land-based agency, focused primarily on road and rail traffic, the right authority to make this decision? It seems unlikely.
But this is what we鈥檙e facing: A hodgepodge of distant authorities and overlapping mandates, hampered by inadequate resources to cope with the demand.
So what should be done? We need one designated ministry to handle every aspect of maritime pollution, whether in the form of oil spills, derelict boats or other environmental threats.
Collect all of the existing legislation, draft more if needed and place it in a single set of hands. And do it now, before the next mishap occurs.
