Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 32 - Evidence - June 11 sitting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 11, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-26, concerning personal watercraft in navigable waters, met this day at 9:33 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Catherine S. Callbeck (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Acting Chairman: Bill S-26, which is the initiative of Senator Spivak, received first and second reading last year in the Senate, after which it was referred to this committee. Senator Spivak and her staff did the background research and oversaw the drafting of the bill. This proposed legislation reflects the concerns for public safety and environmental protection that the senator has had for a number of years in this regard.
Today, we will hear from Mr. Currie, who is with the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association.
Mr. J.A. (Sandy) Currie, Executive Director, Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association: We appreciate the opportunity to present our position against Bill S-26 today. We have submitted a detailed submission, so my remarks today will be confined to a summary of our position as well as a few additional remarks, in order that we can have more time in which to answer questions. After briefly describing our association and the scope of recreational boating, I will summarize why we think Bill S-26 should not go further.
The Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association, CMMA, is the Canadian recreational marine industry association that represents the interests of those companies that manufacture and distribute recreational boating products in Canada. CMMA members come from all provinces and include companies supplying boats, motors, trailers and other products and services to the Canadian recreational boating market.
How popular is boating? Based on the December 2001 small vessel licence data obtained from the Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, there are 2.125 million licensed vessels operating in Canada. A licensed vessel is any vessel equipped with a motor over 9 horsepower. Above and beyond this number are thousands of smaller powered boats and thousands of non-powered boats, such as canoes, pedal boats and, of course, sailboats. It would not be unrealistic to estimate this number to be in the vicinity of 900,000. This would bring the total number of boats currently in use to just over 3 million. Our market research, conducted in 1998, estimates that for each boat there would be just over two users on average per annum. That means that in excess of 6 million Canadians go boating each year.
While clearly popular in Canada, boating is actually in decline when one looks at sales of recreational products. In fact, we as an industry sold only as many boats and motors last year as we did 10 years ago.
The question has been raised as to how many personal watercraft are actually in use. Since the industry started tracking sales of these products in 1991, there have been 72,856 units sold in Canada. In contrast to these sales, the industry has sold 485,767 outboard motors over the same period. In 2001, personal watercraft sales were slightly less than 5,000 units. This is hardly exceptional growth. That, however, does not tell the whole story.
The U.S. EPA has defined the usable life of a personal watercraft to be approximately 350 hours, with an average annual usage rate of 77.3 hours. This means that the fleet of personal watercraft actually in use is considerably smaller than one might have imagined. Using the EPA figures, it is easy to say that, on average, a personal watercraft will likely be retired after approximately five years of use. That would mean that the fleet could be as small as 39,000 units. However, since the Canadian boating season is shorter than the U.S. season, we would prefer to suggest that a personal watercraft would have a useful life of seven years. This would mean that the current fleet would be approximately 50,000 units. For comparative purposes, it is interesting to note that the EPA has determined the useful life of an outboard motor at between 10 and 15 years.
Why do we think the bill should not go further? Our case against the bill is based on five foundations: It is unnecessary; it is based on flawed or inappropriate premises; it is unfair and discriminatory; it does a disservice to good public policy; and it would be difficult to enforce. I will address each of these reasons in turn.
Why is the bill unnecessary? Under the Canada Shipping Act a fair process is already used to develop boating restriction regulations. There is no need for another law that tries to do the same thing. As noted in our detailed submission, boating is also covered by regulations under several other laws that cover off the necessary safety and environmental protection needs of both the boating community and the general public.
We also believe that the bill is not necessary because the arguments used to justify it do not hold up well under scrutiny. They are based on myths, and we will also look at each one in turn.
The first myth is that personal watercraft can cause injuries and death when they collide. That is true, just as do any moving vehicles carrying passengers. However, without wishing to minimize the importance of this, it does not tell the full story. Some perspective is important here.
Personal watercraft have been found to have the same fatality rate as conventional powerboats and, you may be surprised to hear, are more than twice as safe as rowboats and canoes. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to single out personal watercraft for special treatment. There will be more on this topic later when we discuss enforcement issues.
Commissioned in 1996 by the CCG, the Consulting and Audit Canada report on personal watercraft determined that PWCs pose no greater safety risk than other powered craft. The report recommended the following measures to improve boating safety: the creation of age and horsepower restrictions for all powerboat operators; the creation of mandatory owner-operator proficiency requirements; and the implementation of a universal shoreline speed limit of 10-kilometres per hour and ``keep clear'' zone. It also determined that specific, personal-watercraft-only restrictions should not be imposed because the current process provides ample opportunity to regulate. Finally, the report recommended that strict guidelines be adopted to address the casual PWC user who prefers to rent a personal watercraft rather than to purchase one.
Despite recent comments to the contrary, input was not received from the industry or from the manufacturers. The working group that advised Consulting and Audit Canada had a cross-section of participants. It included two police agency representatives, two guard staff, three provincial government representatives, one municipal government representative, two cottage association representatives, two boating safety specialists, two personal watercraft users and two industry representatives.
In the years since these meetings were held, the industry, as a whole, has worked with the Canadian Coast Guard to set up a proficiency system whereby operators of any powered recreational craft must pass a test to demonstrate proof of competency. These age and horsepower restrictions on the operators will improve the behaviour of all boaters. It is simply too bad that it took almost three more years for the current regulations to be put in place.
The crucial recommendation calling for shoreline speed limits and a ``keep clear'' zone is only in effect from Ontario westward. In B.C., this only applies to freshwater areas. In Quebec, it is applied on a case-by-case basis. The industry strongly urges that these regulations be adopted across the remainder of the provinces as soon as possible.
While on the subject of safety, let us discuss operator proficiency. The CCG has recently produced an updated version of its national PCOC, Pleasure Craft Operators Certification, course standard. In the U.S.A., operator proficiency regulations are not national, as they are in Canada, but they are enforced and created on state-by-state basis. This is in contrast to Canada where the same regulations are enforced across the country. At the present time, there are over 75 course providers offering CCG-approved courses and administering CCG-approved tests. In the additional package of information, you have been given a sample copy of the Canadian Power and Sail Squadron's CCG-approved course and sample copies of approved tests of the Canadian Power Squadron and the Canadian Yachting Association. As you can see, the tests are available in both official languages. In addition, specific tests have been developed for children.
The PCOC requirement has only been in place since 1999; thus, it is difficult to measure its impact on boating safety. Despite the lack of data, we know that over 500,000 boaters have taken a course, passed a test or have done both. Boaters tell us at shows and on the water that they welcome the requirement and appreciate the skills upgrading that many have undertaken to receive their PCOC card. In short, we know it is working but it will be some years before we know the true measure of the regulation.
During her presentation last week, Senator Spivak touched on the subject of off-throttle steering, OTS. The Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association is committed to developing a workable standard for this type of device. To accomplish this, the Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE, in the United States has formed a personal watercraft subcommittee. In addition to representatives of industry, UL and the United States Coast Guard, interested parties such as Mr. Paulo of Calgary have been ask to provide input. To date, all companies have a preliminary design and have conducted a variety of tests. Some have brought early versions of these products to the marketplace.
At its most recent meeting, this committee was addressed by Captain Scott Evans, who is with the U.S. Coast Guard. Captain Evans stated that the PWC is an incredible machine and that it is not defective. He believes that the committee's efforts are part of the process of ongoing product improvement. Captain Evans urged the committee to move quickly on the development of an OTS standard and a time frame for that to be met by all manufacturers.
The second myth is that PWCs are polluters. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PWCs have a lower emission level than outboard engines. In Canada, there are only about 50,000 PWCs in service compared to 1.6 million outboard motors in service. It should be noted that, due to the more rapid retirement rate of PWCs, the units equipped with the U.S. EPA-approved technology make up a higher percentage of the in-use fleet than one might expect.
The manufacturers of spark ignition marine engines — any outboard or inboard engine that is not diesel — have signed an MOU with Environment Canada pledging to abide by the strict U.S. EPA rules for marine engines. Canada is ahead of the U.S. in terms of market acceptance of new technology product. This MOU has been in effect since the 1999 model year commenced, which means that new technology product has been on the Canadian market since 1998.
The current EPA data for popular outboard motors and some personal watercraft are shown on the graph before you. The blue fields show old technology products and the green fields show new technology products. When looking at the graph, the products on the right are outboard motors and the three products on the left are personal watercraft. You can see the model and the name of the manufacturer.
The graphs compare some popular PWC and outboard engine products against the U.S. EPA 2006 standards and the California Air Resources Board, CARB, 2002 standards. California has a stricter regulatory regime than the U.S. EPA has. The graphs also compare the CARB 2004 standard and the CARB 2008 standard.
The emission levels of the PWCs and the outboards are, with the exception of one PWC model, at or below the EPA/CARB 2002 standard. In addition, all products meet the CARB 2004 standard. Currently, none of these products meets the CARB 2008 standard.
We believe this data accurately dispels claims that personal watercraft are major polluters.
The third myth is that PWCs are noisy. They are not inherently noisy. Personal watercrafts are demonstrably among the quietest powerboats in the water, with full-throttle sound levels at 75 feet from the shore of less than 78 decibels. The graphs compare full-throttle pass by sound levels, towed-boat sound levels and pass by sound levels. In all cases, the sound levels never exceed 78 decibels. In the towed-boat test, the sound levels remained at slightly under 70 decibels, despite the fact that the craft are towed with engines off.
In most provinces, boating restrictions require all powered vessels, including PWCs, to operate at no more than 10 kilometres per hour when they are within 100 feet of shore. This reduces the noise onshore further still. We support these measures because we recognize that PWC users share the same recreational space as others.
The study ``Drowning in Noise: Noise Costs of Jet Skis in America,'' prepared by Komanoff and Shaw, which Senator Spivak referred to last week, is hard to take seriously because it is subjective and not scientifically rigorous. It might appear to be scientific, but on closer scrutiny, one finds that the assumptions used in the study almost guarantee an outcome that is consistent with an anti-PWC bias. It does not take into consideration the differences between Canada and the U.S. with respect to how and where Canadians go boating. We believe that its basic assumptions do not fit Canada and that it should not be considered a valid approach to analyzing this issue. We will introduce a specialist in later presentations who will present a detailed rebuttal to the assertions of the report.
In the interests of time, I will confine myself to a few observations on the study. First, selective data were chosen. They were based on an out-of-date sound measurement using old types of personal watercraft, of which few are sold or in use. A second observation is that study was not undertaken in the field or through objective surveys but through the use of computer models, which are sensitive to the assumptions fed into them. A third observation is that some of the assumptions are flawed.
In a nutshell, it is hard to take such a flawed and misleading study seriously, and I submit that it is not responsible to cite its findings to support a law.
The next myth is that PWCs have an adverse impact on wildlife. We can provide independent, authoritative studies showing that personal watercraft have little or no impact on sea grasses, marine mammals, fish or other aquatic life, and indeed have a lower impact on nesting birds than conventional boats or other human activities. There is not a major problem here that needs fixing by such drastic means as Bill S-26.
I suggest that legislation such as Bill S-26, which is based on dealing with myths and not real problems, and without any evidence that it would achieve any results, is not good public policy. As a result, it runs a danger of undermining the reputation of lawmakers, especially when it is unnecessary and discriminatory legislation.
With respect to construction standards, in a presentation last week, Senator Spivak commented:
Apparently, it is wrong to discriminate against PWCs by allowing local restrictions that distinguish them from other boats, but it is fine to discriminate in favour of PWCs by allowing manufacturers to devise their own safety standards.
The version of TP1332, the Canadian small vessel construction regulations, in force until 1999, was, in fact, written in the late 1970s. Back then, it was state of the art. However, because of a lack of financial resources at the CCG it had never been updated. We are not blaming the CCG; it is simply a statement of truth.
With the coming of international trade in boats and related products, the boating industry began to clamour for updated standards in many countries. Canada, the U.S.A. and Europe are among the leaders in this particular matter, and this led to the concept of developing international standards for watercraft construction. Incidentally, the group of experts who developed ISO 13590 was made up of individuals representing various coast guard agencies, including the Canadian and U.S. coast guards, the SAE, UL, the American Boat and Yacht Council, manufacturers of PWCs, as well as ISO technical experts. To state or imply that the Canadian Coast Guard was manipulated by industry to devise their own safety standards is incorrect.
ISO 13590 was one of the first of these standards to be completed. Canada was the first country in the world to incorporate this standard into its own national standards.
Prior to that, a PWC manufacturer could not build a PWC in compliance with the old TP1332, as that document was written before the first PWC had been constructed. Many other pleasure craft were in the same situation, as product development by the boating industry had outstripped the coast guard's ability to keep the standard current. Industry often works at a faster pace than government, and that is what happened in this case.
Senator Spivak also mentioned the matter of product recalls. Yes, manufacturers of all types of products, from toasters to cars to baby beds and boats, do find that on occasion some percentage of the products have defects that need to be inspected and repaired for consumer safety. Simply because a company recalls all the units of a product, it does not mean that all of those products recalled are defective. The manufacturer is making certain that all products needing repair are found and corrected. To suggest that all PWCs recalled were defective is simply not logical.
In our opinion, Bill S-26 is discriminatory and flawed. First, the sole purpose of this bill is to discriminate against the use of PWC on Canadian waterways; however, the boating restriction regulations of the Canada Shipping Act already address all types of boats. Furthermore, existing regulations require that a reasoned investigation be carried out prior to any proposal to change the boating restriction regulations; the regulations also include the requirement that all parties be consulted. The bill does not even require consultation with the most affected group, the boaters themselves; nor does it require signage, as is the case under the existing boating restriction regulations system.
Included in the package of material handed out this morning are two copies of a brochure entitled ``The Local Authorities Guide to the Boating Restriction Regulations.'' This booklet details the various procedures that a local authority should follow in order to create a boating restriction. I would concede that the process may, at first glance, appear rather daunting. However, once one understands who does what, it becomes clear that this is not an impossible task and will lead to a fair resolution of whatever the true issue may be.
Since this book was prepared, some provinces have opted out of the process, leaving only Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta as participants. While disappointing, it seems this change will further permit the expediting of boating restriction regulations requests as the Canadian Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety is fulfilling a role previously held by the provincial governments.
For the present, industry is prepared to work with the CCG Office of Boating Safety to offer suggestions as to how the process and the booklet can be made less confusing than it may appear at present.
With regard to fines, Bill S-26 recommends fines that are 20 times larger than those for violating the boating restriction regulations. In the Contraventions Act, which was proclaimed on June 20, 1996, the highest fines are levied for serious safety violations, such as failing to have the correct number of personal flotation devices or lifejackets aboard, failing to have a fire extinguisher aboard or failing to shut off electrical equipment while refuelling. If ticketed, a boater would pay a fine of $200 plus court costs. This is miniscule compared to the $2,000 fine proposed in Bill S-26.
What possible justification could there be to single out one type of boater in this fashion? This is utterly unconscionable and very discriminatory.
Bill S-26 also removes ministerial discretion. It allows cottage associations and other non-elected groups to demand and impose a ban or restrictions on PWC operation. Federal control of our navigable waterways would be ceded to these so-called local authorities. This has enormous implications regarding the role of the federal government.
In a recent judgment in the B.C. Court of Appeal, the Hon. Mr. Justice Esson, in finding for the appellant, Mr. Dean Kupchanko, confirmed that the navigation rights are the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. The Hon. Mr. Justice Esson wrote:
I think there can be no doubt that the legislative control of navigable waters, such as are in question in this case, belongs exclusively to the Dominion Parliament. Everything connected with navigation and shipping seems to have been carefully confined to the Dominion Parliament by the BNA.
With respect to enforcement, a reason for not being in favour of Bill S-26 is that in too many cases existing laws and regulations are not being properly enforced, or in some cases not enforced at all. Introducing a new law, especially one that is unnecessary, would eventually backfire on its proponents because of the lack of enforcement. It would be better to spend resources on enforcing the current and adequate laws that we have at the time.
While on the subject of enforcement, what is happening with regard to fatal accidents? Since there are no reliable national statistics, I should like to use data available from the OPP. In the five years from 1997 to 2001, there have been 232 boating fatalities in Ontario. Of these, there were 63 incidents where alcohol consumption was related, 49 canoe/kayak-related fatalities, 107 powerboat fatalities and nine PWC fatalities. We believe this is a snapshot that reinforces our perspective that efforts need to be undertaken to dedicate more resources to enforcement and public education campaigns. There is no reason to expect that Bill S-26 would improve these statistics.
In conclusion, the CMMA respectfully urges this committee to reject this ill-conceived bill on the grounds that it is unnecessary, based on shaky premises, most of which it does not deal with, and risks doing a disservice to public policy and policymakers. Many others, groups and individuals, including 10,000 boaters who have signed petitions, oppose Bill S-26, all for different reasons. However, we all agree on one thing: This is a poor piece of legislation.
The Acting Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Currie. You said that this piece of legislation, Bill S-26, is unnecessary. In your brief, you indicated that you feel that there is a fair process, under the Canada Shipping Act, for developing boating restrictions. Last week, we heard from Senator Spivak, who acknowledged that there is a process but that it is very long and complex. I believe there are 20 steps in that process. It can be cancelled at most of those steps.
I should like to hear your views on the present process. You say you feel there is a fair process there. Please elaborate on this. Are you happy with it? Do you think that it could be improved? How could it be improved?
Mr. Currie: We believe it is fair because the underlying premise is that it allows for consultation with all the parties involved. In any boating restriction, you have those on both sides of the issue. You will end up with a party in the middle, let's say a local government. Those elected officials may or may not be boaters.
You end up with two groups of people with opposing philosophies. The most important part is to hear what everyone has to say and for the local politicians to make a judgment based on the best interest of all the parties. We believe the existing process does that.
From the diagram in the booklet, it can appear to be a monumental task. However, on a thorough reading of it, one will find that the local community does not have to carry out all 20 steps. The local community has to get the parties together and determine the problem. The local community then needs to determine whether the parties can agree on a compromise.
That compromise may or may not be the end of the boating restriction. It may be a gentleman's agreement to amend behaviour and to accept, on the other side, that over time the world does change. With a gentleman's agreement, things go ahead; it becomes an end-of-story type of issue. There is no need for anything more.
On the other hand, if it is necessary to go forward, at least the parties have had an opportunity to present their argument. From there, it is a only matter of process.
I am not trying to diminish the fact that there are many phases outlined in the booklet. However, it starts off with good local consultation. If there is good local information-gathering and discussion amongst the parties, it becomes more of a formality once it is out of the hands of the local community. In some cases, the proposal will go to the Office of Boating Safety and then to Ottawa. In other cases, it will flow from the local municipality up to the provincial government.
We are seeing fewer provincial governments participating. I am not sure whether that is based on lack of funding or on not wanting to be bothered. Some provincial governments are getting out of it. I do not know whether it is a trend. Six out of 10 provinces are not now involved in the process.
There are probably way to strike a working groups; keep the same concept, polish off some of the rough edges, and speed up the process.
If the consultation takes place during the boating season, from the beginning of May to the end of August, it is not unrealistic to have a boating restriction if it is necessary, gazetted and in place for the following boating season. As a boater and as a cottager, I would expect that to happen. In the vast majority of cases, I am sure that that is what happens.
The Acting Chairman: In other words, you do not feel that the 20 steps in this diagram are too long and complicated; correct?.
Mr. Currie: You could find a way to take a few out, but, no, I do not think they are too long or complicated. I think it is a fair process.
There are hundreds of BRR applications that have gone through. We can look back at that little bit of history, if nothing else. If hundreds of communities have found it workable, let's put in place total quality management and improve the system to make it better. Introducing something different does not make sense to me.
The Acting Chairman: On page 5 of your brief, you say that excessive noise occurs when inconsiderate operators use personal watercraft, that crafts themselves are not inherently noisy. What do you mean by an ``inconsiderate operator?''
Mr. Currie: It would be someone who is perhaps riding aggressively by jumping over the wake of another boat, which the industry does not feel is appropriate behaviour. It might be a group of PWC operators having fun, but riding in a group and in a confined area for too long. They may or may not be too close to shore. They may be riding in an area as a group causing annoyance.
If operating in rough water or crossing a wake, the boat lifts out of the water and the engine increases in RPMs slightly. The sound moves into a more annoying level. I have an outboard motor, and I can trim the outboard motor on the back of my boat and make more noise than I could ever do with a personal watercraft. It is all a question of the operator skill and operator respect for the other people around.
Senator Spivak: In 1996, it was estimated that there were 53,660 personal watercrafts. The projections for increase were 20 or 30 per cent each year. In a letter to Mr. Charles Komanoff, you say that at present the number of PWCs in operation in Canada is between 80,000 and 100,000 units.
Are you able to provide any documentation as to the number, as well as to the number of PWCs that were sold each year?
There is a great deal of controversy about when the fleet will be turned over. In fact, the EPA thinks that, because of the turnover rate, the new emissions policy will not come into force at 75 per cent until 2030 or 2050. How do you reconcile these numbers?
Mr. Currie: In preparation for today's presentation, we audited the sales figures of the manufacturers that supplied us with data. The number that I read to you is the number sold since 1991.
Senator Spivak: This letter in which you state that there are between 80,000 and 100,000 would be inaccurate.
Mr. Currie: That would be inaccurate, based on our preparation for today.
Senator Spivak: I want to address your statement that this is a discriminatory bill. There are many instances in which things are discriminatory. For example, if the boating regulations stop water-skiing, that would be discriminatory to water skiers. In the MOU between the Minister of the Environment and the MMAC, under definitions, 2.2 reads:
Outboard engine (OB) is a marine spark ignition engine that, when properly mounted on a marine vessel in the position to operate, houses the engine and drive unit external to the haul of the marine vessel.
It goes on to say, in 2.3:
Personal watercraft engine (PWC) is a marine SI engine that does not meet the definition of outboard engine, inboard engine or sterndrive engine.
In that MOU, there is a special note to personal watercraft that suggests that they are a different craft — at least that is understood in that memorandum. I should like you to address that.
In 1994, the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec approved variations of the local communities. The Canadian Coast Guard supported this. The Department of Transport was the sponsoring department. You have the local communities, the provincial authorities — Ontario, B.C. and Quebec — you have the Department of Transport and the CCG saying in the amendment, which was gazetted, that this is the only existing mechanism to control boating activities in this matter.
Despite that, the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association came not only to cabinet but to the meeting where this was taking place, and said: ``No, we do not think that is appropriate. We think it should be this.'' That became the policy of the government.
Now you have a 20-step process where, right in the boating regulations at any step, anyone can say ``no.'' I do not know why you say there is no consultation.
Let us say Bill S-26 is not fair. Everyone goes through these steps; they say whatever they have to say. They get to the point where it is gazetted. Would the manufacturers, in terms of personal watercraft, cease and desist from appearing and saying, ``No, we should not have this,'' despite what the local community says? Are you pledging at this point that you, as a lobbyist or a director of the manufacturers, would not say, ``This should not be''? That is part of the impetus for the bill.
Mr. Currie: If you are asking whether we would, carte blanche, promise not to make representations in a boating restriction application process on a national basis, the answer is no. However, in the interests of common sense, there have been circumstances, there was one instance last summer, where there was a proposed boating restriction in an area that singled out one type of use. One could have made a case for wondering whether that was reasonable and for deciding to make a representation. That is where the BRR process works. There is an opportunity to find out that the conversation is going on and for some sober second thought to take place.
In the particular situation to which I am referring, we decided that the restriction being proposed was legitimate, reasonable and made sense, that we will leave that one alone. That is, again, part and parcel of this process.
The honourable senator mentioned earlier that boaters live where they go boating. I do not. I have a summer cottage in an area north of Toronto where the permanent population is probably 200 or 300 people. In boating or cottage season, however, there are probably 50,000 or more people within a 5-kilometre radius of the local municipality. Virtually every one of the properties on the water has a boat.
If the consultations do not take place during the summer, then there is no way that the seasonal resident of that area would ever even know the thing is in the works, let alone have the opportunity to provide any information. In fact, in a great number of cases in the past, consultations were held out of season. I am not going to suggest why. However, there have been a number of instances where consultations have not taken place at a time when the majority of the people who use the water would have been there to make comments either pro or con. In the interest of fairness, the process we have now works, particularly when you consider the timing.
With respect to your comments about retirement and exhaust emissions, I am not going to suggest that the EPA model is flawed. I do not think that you can bring EPA assumptions on market growth of these products into this country. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, while the manufacturers would love to sell 20 per cent more every year, the reality for this segment of the boating market is that that has not been the case. Sales did peak, but they have since dropped dramatically. The number of craft in use is somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 units. It is fair to say that the retirement rate at this point actually outstrips the new sales rate. New technology is in the marketplace as we speak.
Personal watercrafts are covered under the MOU. The PWC manufacturers have signed a document that says that they will only market in Canada product that is EPA-compliant. Whether you want to get hung up on the definition of the engine does not make much difference. They guarantee that that is what they will do, and they are doing that.
Senator Spivak: I understand that. I read the memorandum, and it is admirable that the manufacturers are doing that. My point is that you are suggesting it is discriminatory to single out personal watercraft as a special kind of craft, and I merely note that personal watercraft, in the MOU, are indeed separated out from other boats.
I want to return to the 1994 example and suggest to you that the public interest cannot be served if three provinces, the Canadian Coast Guard, the federal government and the local communities, who know best what is happening, all wanted a particular kind of restriction — it was not a ban, it related to speed and so forth — and the manufacturers completely went against it. That is the danger in this process.
The Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association represents the interests of companies that manufacture and distribute recreational boating products in Canada. Does that include Kawasaki, Yamaha, Bombardier, Polaris and American Honda?
Mr. Currie: Not American Honda. Honda, Yamaha and Kawasaki are Japanese companies. The Canadian divisions operate autonomously from the American company. For example, management at Honda Canada is responsible to Japan, as are Kawasaki and Yamaha.
Senator Spivak: The reason I ask is that they have come together to form the Personal Watercraft Industry Association in the United States. They encourage all states, through its model legislation, to have reasonable regulations that restrict hours of use, limit weight jumping and reduce speed severely near other boats, anchored boats, piers or swimmers. Many states adopted these restrictions, and I am wondering why the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association opposes such restrictions and talks about discrimination. They are the companies you represent.
Mr. Currie: With all due respect, the PWIA are good colleagues of ours. However, the difference between Canada and the United States is that we have a different perspective on boating safety.
Senator Spivak: Do you oppose those restrictions they want in the United States?
Mr. Currie: No, we are not opposing them. As Americans, if they feel they would like to have those restrictions placed on their marketplace, we are happy for them. If it works for them, that is great.
Senator Spivak: I mean for Canada.
Mr. Currie: We feel there is a Canadian approach to this that is different. That is the difference.
Senator Jaffer: On page 3, you say the case against Bill S-26 is, first, unnecessary, and second, based on incorrect premises. Are unfair and discriminatory the third and fourth points?
Mr. Currie: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: You are saying that the legislation that is already in place is sufficient but that we are lacking the resources to enforce it.
Mr. Currie: You are absolutely right. For example, I have a cottage on Moon River in Muskoka. We are not on one of the three major lakes. If you are familiar with the area, you will know that boating in that region is popular.
For most of Ontario, the OPP — there are a few exceptions — are the sole provider of marine policing. There are probably 2,000 cottages on our river, and probably an equal number of boats. We get one visit per summer by an OPP boat, and I dare say that is not a full day on the water. They arrive with their boat on a trailer, launch the boat, spend whatever time they have, and then move on to someplace else.
I am not suggesting to you that there needs to be a boat there on a permanent basis; however, to better enforce the laws, boaters need to know that there is a reasonable likelihood that at some point during their period on the water during the boating season there will be the presence of a police organization. Frankly, the police may be there to do a cursory small vessel inspection, to make sure that a lifejackets and fire extinguisher are present and that all the rest of the gear that is supposed to be there is there. That is what boaters need.
There are very few marine police officers, and many of them do double duty as traffic officers. In Muskoka, the only place in Ontario where there is an exception, some of the guys are full-time designated in the summer as marine. Throughout the rest of the province, if police officers were scheduled to do marine policing but a serious traffic accident occurred in the area, the police would be required to forgo the marine work and respond to the accident. Marine policing in general always takes a back seat.
There is an RCMP presence in the National Capital Region. The Toronto metro police have a marine unit. In Vancouver and Halifax, there is the Ports Canada Police. However, by and large, it is either the RCMP or some form of provincial police organization that is doing marine policing, on a fill-in, time-available, manpower-available, resource-available basis.
The boating community spends $200 million a year on fuel taxes. Not one dime of that money goes toward boating safety, never mind the GST and provincial taxes that are paid on boat sales. Not one dime goes towards boating safety.
The CCG Office of Boating Safety is risk-funded. They do not have a full-time budget. However, 6 million people in this country boat.
We need to put more police officers on the water, and we need to provide safety-based organizations like the Canadian Coast Guard with the financial resources to hire the bodies and put the programs in place to get the education message out.
The Canadian Coast Guard is so poor that they do not even have a budget this year for promoting the pleasure craft operators certification program. That is how bad it is.
Another law is just another document. If there is not someone out there doing the work, it does not mean anything.
Senator Jaffer: Is it your impression that there is less policing now than there was before? Has it decreased?
Mr. Currie: My gut feeling is, absolutely, it has decreased. In our preparation for these discussions, we tried to obtain some data on marine policing. However, we could not pull together any solid information that would confirm or deny our gut feeling. You could probably get data on that from the OPP or RCMP.
I know one thing for a fact: About five years ago, in British Columbia, there were more RCMP police boats out of the water than in the water. They did not have the capital budget to keep the repairs going, nor did they have the cash to put the people and the fuel on board the boats.
I do not have any data. I cannot show it to you. That is what we believe is the case. The local authorities of policing might be able to give you the dollars and cents.
Senator Jaffer: I take it you have owned your cottage for a number of years.
Mr. Currie: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: When you first owned it, did the police visit more often than now?
Mr. Currie: No, they do not come any more frequently. I had an incident last year with a boater that I felt was inappropriate. I made a call to the OPP. To be honest, it was only because I knew who to call in Orillia that any action was undertaken — and that is not to slight the OPP. The person I called phoned the next guy along the line, and some action was taken. That of course is not the experience of the general public, however. For example, neighbours have asked me in the past whether I saw such and such take place and tell me that they wish something could be done about it. The answer is simply that the marine unit is not around.
Senator Adams: You talked about the people and associations trying to control the fun that people have in the summer at their cottages. You talked about steep fines. In Canada, cottagers only have three or four good months in the summer to enjoy and have fun at their cottages. Senator Spivak mentioned some statistics, mostly from the States. People in Florida and California can enjoy their cottages year-round. How long a season do you have at your cottage? Is it from June to September?
Mr. Currie: I am lucky, in that I have 12-month access to my cottage; however, obviously, I do not go boating 12 months a year. I put my boat in the water two weeks ago, and I will probably pull it out at Thanksgiving. That will give me June, July, August, September and two weeks into October, which is the end of the boating system.
I am in Muskoka, which is only two hours north of Toronto. Two hours further north, the boating season is shorter. In many areas, the boating season probably extends from mid-June to Labour Day only.
Senator Adams: Is there any authority to check the age of watercraft operators? There are age limits on the operators of some machines, I believe. Some machines have it written right on the machine that an operator under 16 is prohibited from operating it.
Mr. Currie: If you are asking whether the Coast Guard has the right to enforce that age limit, in this particular case, they do not. They enact the regulation. It is the policing authority within a particular jurisdiction that is challenged with the job of policing the boaters. They are not just looking for people without pleasure craft operating cards. They are looking for smuggling, liquor offences and other issues.
Senator Adams: You mentioned calling the police after hearing about a complaint from some local people. Did you phone the OPP or the RCMP?
Mr. Currie: I phone the OPP. I am not aware of an OPP detachment in the area where I go boating. There is an OPP detachment in Bracebridge, which is a 45-minute drive on a good day. If they have their boat in the water, it is almost faster to get to within two kilometres of where I am by boat than by car.
I am in an area where there is a good road system. However, in northwestern Ontario, northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta, the closest police officer might be a two-hour plane ride away.
Senator Adams: The RCMP in Nunavut has a boat. The only time they use it, though, is in drowning cases. They are not doing enforcement in the water.
If this bill is passed, who will enforce the legislation? The Coast Guard will not enforce it; who will?
Mr. Currie: The same guy that is not able to deliver the services today.
Senator Adams: Will they be able to make a fine of up to $2,000 stick?
Mr. Currie: I do not think this bill proposes to allow the cottagers to do the enforcing. It is vague on the issue of enforcement. I am imagining that it is assuming that the current enforcement regime will have another statute to enforce.
I am not complaining about the level of service in the sense that I am complaining about the policemen; the police are not given the support the boating community as taxpayers believes they should get. The police do not have the tools to enforce. Legislators can make another law, but if the police are not given a boat or the ability to get out and patrol, the legislation will mean nothing.
Senator Adams: I have no complaints about my cabin. It is the only one on the lake. My family members have other cottages. My concern is that we are paying thousands of dollars for equipment and it is only a short season.
Mr. Currie: I imagine where you have a cottage it is a matter of a few weeks out on the lake, not several months.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Currie, it is clear to me that you put a lot of thought and time into the remarks you made to us today, designed to help us in our deliberations. However, when I weigh the evidence as you presented it, I find it to be quite one-sided. What was lacking to me in your presentation was a sense of balance. I have been a trial lawyer for 36 years. I am used to arguing one side of an issue; yet I still have to find some balance. I did not find any in your presentation.
When the chairman was asking you a question about the Canada Shipping Act and whether or not there is a process under that legislation, she, too, was trying to find balance in what you were saying about this legislation.
Let me put it to you this way. I am aware of your evidence today. You're your reading of the bill, can you tell us some of the positive things in it that we as a Senate committee should look at carefully as a view to doing something good for the public of Canada? It would be in the public interest to pick some of the good things in this bill and implement them.
Mr. Currie: At the end of the day, what needs to be addressed is safety and enforcement. Obviously, we have a position with regard to this particular law. What we would like to see come out of this discussion on boating safety are ways to improve it, whether that is through recommendations to create meaningful vessel licensing systems that allow for resources to police officers for doing accident investigation and for dealing with theft of products, or whether through recommendations that there should be a mechanism to provide more monetary resources to the Coast Guard for improving their services to boaters, or even guaranteeing that they will be able to continue to provide services to boaters. That is where the good outcomes should be. We look at this as more of a discussion with regard to boating safety than anything else.
The fact that 232 people have lost their lives in Ontario over the last five years is horrible. If we can find a way of improving that situation as a consequence of this work, then I would say much has been accomplished, even if the bill itself is not advanced any further. By identifying that there are safety issues to be addressed and by identifying that there are lack of resources out there, you would go a long way in the right direction. We need to find more support for those who write and enforce the rules. This is a way of doing it.
The Senate is the senior body with respect to our legislative process. If this committee makes recommendations that put more of these resources where they are required, then much will be accomplished.
Senator Oliver: That is one aspect of the bill. It seems to me that the bill also talks about what we call quiet enjoyment. I heard you say in your evidence today that personal watercraft are not polluters, that they are not noisy and that they do not hurt nesting birds or water life. Quite frankly, I have to look at that in a jaundiced way because I do not accept the evidence you put forth today.
I read the brief prepared by the Library of Parliament. Let me now quote you five or six lines of that: ``Personal watercraft are used almost completely for recreation and designed to be thrilling, much like a snowmobile, and as such, they are usually highly powered, accelerate quickly and go fast. While most operators of personal watercraft find the experience thrilling and enjoyable, the combination of design features noted above result in several negative effects, most of which are exacerbated by irresponsible operation. Personal watercraft are loud and annoying to others. The noise is greater when the craft leaps out of the water — a manoeuvre often undertaken by operators. Personal watercraft engines, usually two-stroke engines, are particularly polluting in regard to emissions...''
That is the background information that the Library of Parliament gave us today. I did not hear from you in your negative presentation anything that would imply that this information is inaccurate.
Mr. Currie: I would beg to differ. The U.S. EPA data on exhaust emissions and the test data on sound emissions demonstrate, we believe, that, on the exhaust emission side, a PWC engine is no more a polluter than a properly tuned outboard motor. That is not industry information, sir; that information is collected and assembled by the U.S. EPA.
Unfortunately, as I am sure you are aware, Environment Canada is at a disadvantage because they do not have the budget to do Canadian testing. All the data used about exhaust emissions come from the United States. That is lamentable, but that is the way it is. Those are the real numbers.
Older craft are retiring from service at a quick rate, and that is also a fact. As a consequence, the PWCs in use are cleaner and cleaner every day, just as outboard motors are cleaner.
On the sound issue, the document that you have is accurate, and we discussed that earlier. People who are operating their craft in an aggressive fashion, and the manufacturers do not condone that, will be the source of some higher sound levels that may, in fact, be considered annoying by some people. However, at the end of the day, the sound levels that you see on those graphs are accurate.
Senator Oliver: You talked about a speed of 10 kilometres per hour when close to shore. I do not know much about water, but I have heard those things go by at substantially more than 10 kilometres per hour close to shore. That is not a reasonable statistic.
Mr. Currie: The same criticism can be made of people operating outboard motors. If they are not respectful of the rules, we will all have problems. We continue to hear, as a community not as a boating industry, of people with boats going into areas where they should not go, such as swimming areas. That is absolutely wrong. There is nothing that the boating industry can do except to say that they do not want to see that happen. The industry can do only so much, as a boating industry, not as the personal watercraft industry. We can only preach so much of the message to stay out, stay away and stay offshore. At the end of the day, the people who operate too close to shore or to swimmers need to be chased out of those areas by some form of law enforcement agency.
Senator Oliver: The bill is designed to do just that.
Mr. Currie: No, it does not. The bill earmarks one boat for special treatment, but it does nothing to keep the irresponsible operators from doing what they should not do.
Senator Oliver: You said you have many petitions. Can you tell us how those petitions came about, please.
Mr. Currie: We worked with the Mid-Canada Marine Dealers Association, which is the Winnipeg-based marine trade association, as well as trade associates in other provinces. Collectively, we drafted the wording for a petition. The petition was circulated to their members and to others within the boating community. The petitions were posted at dealerships and marinas across the country; clients were asked to sign the petition to show interest in opposing Bill S- 26.
Senator Phalen: On page 4, you said that the industry has continued to work with the Canadian Coast Guard to set up a proficiency system.
Mr. Currie: Yes. Mr. Anderson was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when the regulations were enacted. They went into effect in 1999 and have remained in effect. The system is progressive. Over a number of years, the number of boaters and the number of boats that are affected by the PCOC requirements expands. The next threshold is September 15 of this year, at which time everyone who operates a power-driven vessel four metres or less is required to have a PCOC card.
Senator Phalen: Who polices that?
Mr. Currie: Again, whether a boater has the card is left up to the police officers.
Senator Phalen: I have watched people operate PWCs. Some operators hop on, go a certain distance and then fall off them. I know for sure they do not own a certificate. You also said there is an age restriction.
Mr. Currie: No person under the age of 16 is permitted to operate a personal watercraft. That is currently in effect.
Senator Phalen: Is there no restriction in swimming areas?
Mr. Currie: There is a shoreline ``keep clear'' zone, which is applicable for all boats, and a speed limit of 10 kilometres per hour within 30 metres of shore.
Senator Spivak: That is not so in all provinces.
Mr. Currie: You are correct. Other than common sense and somebody being present from an enforcement organization to catch the person who is doing it wrong, there is nothing one can do.
Senator Phalen: You would not get that.
Mr. Currie: I have no hopes that we will see a 150 per cent increase in marine policing in the next few years.
Senator Spivak: I want to point out that the National Transportation Agency is the safety agency in the United States. I do not know the distinction between Canada the United States because the same machines are sold in both places from the same companies operating in both places. I would think that the safety standards would be the same. The National Transportation Agency recommended the following in its 1998 study: ``Evaluate personal watercraft designs and make changes to improve operating control and to help prevent personal injuries. Develop, with the U.S. Coast Guard, comprehensive standards that are specific to the safety risks of personal watercraft.''
This argument about discrimination just does not hold water because personal watercraft are specific vessels that are designed for speed and thrills, and that is great because people should have fun. However, they should not have fun in areas where there are swimmers and fishers, et cetera. That is the opinion of competent bodies.
A 150-horsepower machine that is being driven by a 16 year old who is driving at 100 miles per hour and who is doing wheelies, which you see in all the advertising, is not just a little family boat. There are little family boats, but this machine is designed for speed and thrills. Is that not the case?
Mr. Currie: I am not sure there is a 150-horsepower unit. As well, I do not think there is a PWC that goes 100 miles per hour.
Senator Spivak: What about 70 miles per hour?
Mr. Currie: No, senator. There may be the odd modified product being used for competitive purposes.
Senator Spivak: That is what is being advertised.
Mr. Currie: That is not the case. There is a gentleman's agreement between the PWC manufacturers that they will not build a machine that exceeds 60 miles per hour. I doubt there is anybody advertising a product that will go faster.
Senator Spivak: Anyway, those machines are generally in the hands of young people because they like to have fun and thrills. I think young people should have fun; however, I see no problem with having the same regulations for PWCs as we do for dirt bikes, which no one wants on playgrounds, and for off-road trucks. It makes common sense.
This bill does not propose anything different than the current process, because there is the same public consultation and ministerial discretion. It shortens the process and ensures local control. I would like your comment on that.
You said that local control could be un-elected officials. On the contrary, in Winnipeg it is the elected officials that are limiting the use of PWCs on the Red River, for example, because of the noise and the residents' opposition to it. For the most part, local control is elected officials such as municipal councils. It could be any body, and that is within the minister's discretion. I wonder if you are revising your opinion as to the discriminatory nature of the bill?
Mr. Currie: No, I am sorry, we are not. The bill states very clearly that you would permit a cottage association to advance a boating restriction. A cottage association is nothing more than a group of individuals who sit down and form an association. They are not elected.
Senator Spivak: Perhaps I can read from the bill the kinds of local authority:
``local authority'' means
(a) an incorporated city, metropolitan authority, town, village, township, district, county, rural municipality or other incorporated municipal body however designated, or
(b) a body, such as a cottage association, park authority, port or harbour authority, that the Minister determines to be a local authority for the purposes of this Act.
If the minister does not think it is a proper local authority, it is not going anywhere.
Mr. Currie: Perhaps. Our perspective is that we have a system that works. I agree that it could use some shining up and streamlining. Power-driven vessels and swimmers should not mix. There must be a way through continuing education and better enforcement to keep the power-driven vessels away from the swimmers, and away from persons in a canoe or fishers. I agree with you completely.
Senator Spivak: Would you agree that up to now that has not worked?
Mr. Currie: In a way, I disagree. We do not have an epidemic of people driving power-driven vessels through swimming areas. There are instances where that happens, and it needs to be curtailed, and we have scenarios where a lack of enforcement has, unfortunately, probably allowed things to happen on an all too frequent basis. However, to suggest we have a major problem I am not sure is a fair statement. We must find a way to better educate the small group of boaters who just do not get the right safety message.
Senator Spivak: Are the people who live on a lake the best people to judge the severity of that particular problem, in your opinion? Is it not true that the local authority or the people who live in the area are the best judges of that, and should we not make it easy for them to express their concerns?
Mr. Currie: Fair enough. We have a system that allows for that. It is a little more cumbersome than some people would like to see, so let's streamline the existing process.
Senator Adams: Do you have any data on how many cottage owners have these types of machines? There are cottagers who do not have any type of boat or canoe.
Mr. Currie: A couple of manufacturers did some market research, and one of the things they wanted to know was the number of PWCs that were owned by cottagers. I did not do the work, but over 60 per cent of those who own a PWC own a vacation property. In my assumption, a vacation property is a cottage either on or in the vicinity of water. I do not have the report to show you, but I do believe that over 60 per cent of PWC owners are also cottagers.
Senator Adams: These machines are not rated by horsepower any longer; they talked about displacement. They go up to about 700cc. It is the same with snowmobiles. I have a couple of machines: one is 440cc, the other is 500cc. I cannot travel at 100 miles an hour in the open.
Most watercraft have a jet pump. They do not have propellers any more.
Mr. Currie: They are all essentially water pumps.
Senator Adams: Are PWCs as dangerous as an outboard motor?
Mr. Currie: There is no such thing as a propeller-related impact accident these days because nothing is dragging in the water below the boat. It is a simple system. Water is sucked in about three quarters of the way aft. The water is then pressurized by an impellor in a tube and pushed out the stern of the craft. Turning the nozzle changes the direction of the boat itself.
Senator Spivak: There are many technical questions about the new designs that we would like to have answers to.
Mr. Currie, would you provide answers to tabled written questions about the new designs?
Mr. Currie: Have Ms Robson give me a call, or we can communicate.
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Currie, will you table your answers with the committee?
Mr. Currie: Certainly, by all means.
The Acting Chairman: Thank you for presenting the views of the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association and for sharing your expertise with us.
Honourable senators, Senator Spivak has a number of documents, letters and petitions, relating to Bill S-26. She is seeking agreement from the committee to table these documents as exhibits for the committee files.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.