https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565489111834

Concerned Citizens of Baynes Sound 

August 19 at 9:33 AM · 

On July 28th, 2025 the Environment Appeal Board of BC made their final decision on DWR appeal for one of their Administrative Penalty.

⚖️ Key Findings from the Report:

1. Shipbreaking Is Not Currently a “Prescribed Industry” Under the EMA

The appellant (Deep Water Recovery Ltd.) argued they should not be subject to regulation under the Act because their work — dismantling old ships and salvaging materials — is not listed as a prescribed industry.

However, the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) rejected this argument because Section 77 of the EMA allows the Ministry to require information (e.g. effluent testing) even if the business is not prescribed.

2. Effluent Discharge Concerns

Discharge from the facility contained heavy metals like copper, lead, zinc, and cadmium — above BC Water Quality Guidelines.

These discharges flowed directly into a marine environment, specifically into a shellfish reserve recognized as an ecologically sensitive area by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

There was no water treatment system at the site.

3. Lack of Regulatory Oversight Due to Non-Prescription

Because shipbreaking is not specifically prescribed under the Act, permits and pre-emptive oversight are less automatic or stringent.

The facility was able to operate in a grey area until public complaints led to inspections and regulatory orders.

🧭 Why This Case Suggests Shipbreaking Should Be a Prescribed Industry in Canada:

✅ 1. Environmental Risks Are High

The case showed that shipbreaking can result in significant pollution, especially heavy metal contamination in ecologically sensitive areas.

Such operations directly threaten marine ecosystems and public health (e.g., seafood contamination).

✅ 2. Current Law Has Regulatory Gaps

While section 77 gives some reactive powers, proactive and preventative oversight is weak without shipbreaking being listed as a prescribed industry.

Relying on complaint-based enforcement is insufficient for an inherently hazardous activity.

✅ 3. Lack of Permitting Requirements

The facility operated without a discharge permit, only beginning an application after multiple warnings.

Prescribing shipbreaking would mean: mandatory permitting, environmental assessments, and compliance audits from the outset.


✅ 4. Comparison to Other Jurisdictions

In many countries (e.g., EU nations, the U.S., and India’s Alang shipbreaking region), shipbreaking is tightly regulated due to risks involving:

Asbestos

Oils and lubricants

Heavy metals

Hazardous paint and coatings

✅ 5. Legal Complexity and Enforcement Delays

The government’s ability to enforce was hindered by debates over whether the activity was prescribed.

Making shipbreaking prescribed would streamline regulatory authority, reducing enforcement delays and legal ambiguity.

📌 Summary Recommendation:

The decision underscores clear regulatory gaps surrounding shipbreaking in Canada. It demonstrates:

Environmental harms are real and ongoing.

The current legislative framework allows polluting activities to operate without meaningful oversight until violations occur.

Proactively prescribing shipbreaking under the Environmental Management Act would:

Close enforcement loopholes,

Require upfront permitting and environmental safeguards,

Protect marine ecosystems and public health.

You can read the full report here: https://www.bceab.ca/decision/eab-ema-23-a025a/

#ccobs#environmentalprotection#comoxvalley#BaynesSound#vancouverisland#MarineEcosystem#PollutionPrevention

Fisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate ChangeTransport CanadaBC NDPLiberal Party of Canada | Parti libéral du CanadaConservative Party of BCGlobal Marine ConservationNGO Shipbreaking PlatformConservative Party of Canada – Parti conservateur du CanadaFriends of Vancouver IslandRandene NeillDavid EbyTamara DavidsonGord Johns for Courtenay-AlberniJosie OsborneSeaspanMarine InsightWWF-Canada

EAB-EMA-23-A025aDownload