Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 6:01 p.m. to give consideration to Bill S-8, concerning personal watercraft in navigable waters.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we ask our witnesses to take their places, we need to do one small piece of housekeeping.
Senators, for the purpose of the legislative budget, I would entertain a motion authorizing me to propose that the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources have the power to engage the services of such counsel, technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it in the amount of $3,000 for professional and other services, $1,000 for all other services, with a total $4,000.
Do I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Finnerty: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Will the witnesses take their respective places at the table?
Mr. Currie and Mr. Dyck, have you decided who will speak first?
Mr. J.A. (Sandy) Currie, Executive Director, Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association: I think we should work on the time-honoured tradition of ladies first.
The Chairman: Are you agreeable?
Senators, when we finish the deliberations today on this bill, we will not do clause-by-clause study but I require that you stay for a few minutes on a matter of housekeeping having to do with budgets of this committee on which matter I must consult you for instructions. I promise I will do that as quickly as I can. We will do it in camera immediately after hearing our witnesses and asking questions.
Witnesses, because of the time constraint that is upon us now for reasons which are, I am sure, clear to you, and because all of the previous testimony that we heard from every side on this bill has been authorized by the Senate to be brought forward for the consideration of this committee, I have instructed the clerk to tell you that we would only hear new matters.
Ms. Gelfand, you will go first. By way of example, for your paper, skip the first three pages and some, down to "But I am not here to cover old ground." Start there because everything before that, with respect, we have heard. It is not that we do not want to hear it again, but we do not need to hear it again.
I must be judicious with our time. I will use a very sharp knife in that respect.
I will also tell the other witnesses, Mr. Dyck and Mr. Currie, that the same thing would apply to them. I will look for things that we have heard from you before and for things that we have not heard before you before in respect of the pieces you have sent us because we do not need to hear those things again.
For example, Mr. Dyck, we need to hear about the off-throttle steering because we have not heard about it before. However, the other representations, as far as I can see from the paper that you presented us, we have heard before. I will be listening carefully to see if there are new aspects about which you wish to speak. Failing which, I will ask you to move to the next one.
Mr. Currie the same will apply to you. As far as I can see in what you kindly presented to us, the studies to which you refer on the second page of your presentation, in the bullets in the middle of the page, may be things that we have not heard before. However, I am expecting that, unless you can show us differently, that the things you referred to before that, are things that you have said to us before.
If you can correct me, in that respect, we would be anxious to hear you, otherwise I will insist we do things expeditiously.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Currie says that he is a boater; but is he not also a lobbyist?
The Chairman: Mr. Currie, are you a lobbyist?
Mr. Currie: I do not believe so.
Senator Spivak: You are not registered as lobbyist and never have been?
Mr. Currie: No, senator, I am not. I work on behalf of recreational boating. I run an association. In addition to providing back up to issues that relate to governments, we do marketing and statistical analysis work, which is not part of our GR work.
Senator Spivak: That was not my understanding when you previously appeared before us. I will not challenge you.
The Chairman: Ms. Gelfand, I know that your organization has not formally appeared before us before. I want to assure you those things to which I referred earlier on your first couple of pages are, however, representations which we have heard before. They are things of which we aware. If there are some nuances and some new things in there that you think we need to hear, you can try to get them in, but I will be using a sharp knife to cut you off if I think we have heard it before.
Please proceed.
Ms. Julie Gelfand, President, Canadian Nature Federation: I am a liberated woman and do not have to appear first. We can go back to the agenda.
The Chairman: Yes, you do because I said so.
Senator Spivak: No. I think we have to stick to the agenda, Mr. Chairman. It was Mr. Currie who suggested that Ms. Gelfand go first. I suggest we hear from Mr. Currie first.
Senator Kenny: Point of order, I would like to have a debate on this for maybe 10 or 15 minutes.
The Chairman: I will be arbitrary, as is often the case, and ask Ms. Gelfand to speak first because she has not spoken to us before, while the other witnesses have.
Ms. Gelfand: May I begin by asking if there are any francophones in the room because I can begin my remarks in French.
No need to do that?
The Chairman: You may use whichever language you choose.
Ms. Gelfand: I am a product of the Trudeau era and was brought up in both French and English. Whenever I am in the great House of Commons I enjoy trying to express the importance of that.
The Chairman: You can go back and forth.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am President of the Canadian Nature Federation, as well as President of the Green Budget Coalition. My organization represents nature lovers — people who are committed to preserving and protecting it, across Canada. In Canada, we have over 40,000 members and represent more than 300 naturalists' clubs in almost every community across Canada.
[English]
We have supported the previous bills that have come before this chamber. We continue to support the bill, which is now Bill S-8. Our primary concern is about the impact of personal watercraft and other off-road vehicles on wilderness and nature.
Our concerns about personal watercraft are broader than merely the issue of personal watercraft. We are concerned about all vehicles that are mechanized that go off-road. We are talking about all-terrain vehicles, which in many communities, particularly in Newfoundland, are running ragged across the countryside. Snowmobiles, and even extreme mountain biking, are examples of off-road vehicles that are causing damage to nature.
Obviously, since we are a nature conservation organization our primary concern is about the impacts on nature. We know that these types of vehicles have impacts such as soil erosion. In the case of personal watercraft, there is increasing turbidity. There are big effects on bird populations, including loons and other waterfowl. The personal watercraft can get in closer than other types of motorized craft to where the loons are. As you say, this is potentially old ground.
In 2002, we had a future search conference where we brought naturalists from across the country together to ask: What is the future our community?" Our community has given rise to many famous Canadians who care a lot about nature. You may have heard of Elizabeth May. You may have heard of Monty Hummel as president of the World Wildlife Fund. These people all started off with a love of nature that they got from somebody bringing them out into the natural world and getting them excited about the awesomeness of nature.
We had a conference on the future of our community. We then proceeded conducted a poll to learn what issues were of pressing concern to our members. One of the top issues was the issue of off-road vehicles — all off-road vehicles. We recognize that all off-road vehicles are here to stay. We will not turn back time; personal watercraft are here to stay.
We also recognize that there are problems associated with unregulated use of off-road vehicles, including personal watercraft. We believe that quite a few steps that can be taken. Bill S-8 helps us with one of these types of off-road vehicles by allowing governments and communities to regulate their use: which lakes can they go on and on which lakes can they be prohibited.
We will be developing a national campaign on off-road vehicles that will look at several areas. The first is regulation and enforcement, where we think the federal, provincial and municipal governments have a role with all these types of vehicles.
We also believe there is a role to play in educating the vehicle users about the impact on nature. How are mountain bikes, personal watercraft and all terrain vehicles impacting the natural world? We are hoping to work with enlightened manufacturers to promote legal, safe and environmentally responsible use of these watercraft.
We hope to encourage development of national advertising standards for all of these types of craft.
All-terrain vehicles and personal watercraft are currently unregulated as snowmobiles used to be. We like to use the example of snowmobiles because they previously ran amok in the landscape. However, the manufacturers worked with snowmobile users and helped them start up clubs. They started enforcing licensing. They now have trails; they are not just running amok everywhere.
Nature and personal watercraft and nature and snowmobiles can coexist if properly used. There is an opportunity here to work with personal watercraft users to develop similar types of guidelines as we have now for snowmobiling.
If this is not passed before the next election, our naturalists will probably be asking the folks in the House of Commons questions about where they stand on the use of all-terrain vehicles, including personal watercraft. We really hope that this bill will pass through the Senate and into the House of Commons before the election call so that nature is protected and we start on the route of regulating and educating users of personal watercraft.
The Chairman: Ms. Gelfand, will you wait until we have heard the other two presenters to ask questions? Is that agreed?
Ms. Gelfand: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Currie, Mr. Dyck, your choice.
Mr. Norm Dyck, Government Relations, BC Marine Trades Association: Honourable senators, you are quite right, there may appear to be some repetition, I apologize for the brevity of the presentation, but, as you know, I did not have much time to gather the stuff together.
The Chairman: Brevity is always welcome, Mr. Dyck, as long as it is also concise.
Mr. Dyck: You are correct. We have covered the subject of pollution to some extent. However, I would like to make the point that the personal watercraft industry has made tremendous strides in the last four to six years in addressing the concerns that have been raised by cottage associations and users. I point out in my presentation some of the achievements that the industry has succeeded in meeting.
If you prefer, I can skip over that. I could move to the off-throttle steering.
The Chairman: Please do because we heard it. Honourable senators may wish to question you about that particularly with respect to there being no regulated time by which older machines that do not have those advantages have to be off the water. We will come to that later if you would like to move to the off-throttle steering.
Mr. Dyck: Speed restriction might be of interest to honourable senators. As you know, we have heard questions about the excessive speeds because these watercraft are operated by relatively inexperienced users.
A couple of the manufacturers have already responded to that concern. Several of the watercraft manufacturers have equipped their vehicles with a system that can be programmed to limit speed for youngsters and inexperienced users. Two manufacturers have already implemented this technology and I am optimistic that others will follow as well.
Perhaps for the benefit of Senator Spivak, I will mention that we used to boat on Brereton Lake, which she would know well. I turned my children out on the lake with a 40-horse power outboard motor but I put a restriction on the throttle so they could go only about trolling speed, and it worked just fine. These types of concerns can be addressed if the incentive is there and people follow through.
Off-throttle steering is sort of reaching fruition now in that the Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE, working with the personal watercraft industry, has approved a new standard, referred to as "J2608." The document can be downloaded from the SAE's Web site, if you wish to read the details.
The Chairman: What does it mean?
Mr. Dyck: It means they have developed a standard that does not relate to a component on the watercraft; rather, it requires a satisfactory performance test. In other words, the manufacturer has to demonstrate that that particular model of personal watercraft will meet the standard. One of these standards has a quick-turn requirement. They have equipment that can measure the responsiveness of the vehicle to the turn. The personal watercraft industry has worked closely with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop that feature, will come into effect with the 2006 model year. At that point in time, all manufacturers will be working to comply with it.
The Chairman: I am not sure what "off-throttle steering" means. Does it mean you will be able to make this machine turn, if the motor were not running?
Mr. Dyck: With regard to the Bombardier machine, which has been out since 2002, I believe the answer is yes. I believe the Kawasaki model requires that the engine be running. There are two of which I am aware.
I have been very involved in recreational boating organizations, such as the Canadian Power Squadron and the Council of B.C. Yacht Clubs. I chair the Recreational Boating Advisory Council on the West Coast. Frankly, boating restriction regulations work just fine.
Mr. Currie: Mr. Chairman, as I have been here before, I will quickly recap. I am a boater and have been since 1950. I am lucky enough to work in the recreational bolting industry, and have done so since 1968. I have worked in a wide variety of jobs within the industry. I am pleased that I am able to be here as a boater and also as someone who is able to earn a living working in an industry that is a vital part of both my life and the life of my family.
Obviously, the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association is opposed to the passage of Bill S-8. Our position is clear and simple.
Senator Spivak: We have heard all of this before.
The Chairman: Yes, but we have allowed everyone to introduce themselves, state their general position and then move to specifics.
Mr. Currie: Thank you.
Our position is clear and simple, a summary of which can be found in the dossier of information that we provided before this evening's meeting.
It is our opinion that the focus of our discussion tonight should be about finding solutions to improve recreational boating in Canada, with an emphasis on how regulations and other measures can be improved to the benefit of the boaters and the community.
Having said that, I would like to make a few comments to inform you about our stance on those matters. The industry believes that improved operator knowledge and training of all boat operators is essential to the enhanced safety on the waterways of this country. We believe that the vast majority of users — all boaters, including personal watercraft, PWC, operators — act responsibly when boating. In this context, we support the expansion and the improved delivery of the pleasure craft operator competency program as managed by the Canadian Coast Guard, as this would not only improve the safety of PWC operators, but also the safety and knowledge of all boaters in this country.
In addition, I should point out that the Coast Guard is currently going through a serious challenge of transition. In early December, there was an Order in Council that mandated that certain of the marine safety and recreational boating services of the Coast Guard be transferred out of the confines of the Coast Guard and into the confines of Transport Canada.
At the present time, Coast Guard staff in the office of boating safety and in other segments of the Coast Guard involved in providing services to recreational boaters do not know whether they will be moving forward to Transport Canada or staying with what I believe will be known as a special operating agency which, to the best of our knowledge, will incorporate many of the fleet services which the Coast Guard also provides. As staff and employees of the Government of Canada, they face a serious challenge. This is a challenge that will impact the operation of boating safety campaigns for 2004, and I think probably early into the following year, simply because the folks working in these jobs now are unable to move forward. They do not know where their pied-à-terre will be after April 1.
This is a grave concern to members of the boating community. We would like to go on record as saying that we would like to ensure you are aware of the situation because this impacts all of what happens in our community.
The bottom line is that knowledge and training alone may not be adequate to ensure that the message of boating safety reaches all boaters. Inadequate enforcement has been an issue for years. We recognize that on-water enforcement of boating regulations is one of the most challenging issues before the enforcement and the boating communities today.
The boating community as a whole, and our association as a member of that community, praise those who enforce the laws, but we solemnly urge that more credence be given to proper enforcement of existing laws on the waters rather than progressing unnecessarily with new laws on to the backs of an already overburdened enforcement community.
We already have a fair and open process to regulate boating. The Canada Shipping Act defines a PWC as boat and the boating restriction regulations address all types of boats on our waters. These regulations require that —
The Chairman: Forgive me, Mr. Currie, we know that.
Mr. Currie: We believe that Bill S-8 is based on the assumption that PWCs have particular safety and environmental problems associated with their use compared with other types of boats. These assumptions cannot be substantiated.
We believe Bill S-8 proposes to discriminate against PWCs by imposing limits on their operation and forsaking limits on any other form of boat that is in use in this country.
The bill also proposes to give ill-defined local authorities the power to force the government, after little consultation, to ban or restrict the use of PWCs. This is an issue that Senator Spivak spoke to with regard to the possibility of digging into the matter of federal and provincial jurisdiction.
The dossier that we have provided includes three recent court cases that clearly state that the right to navigate is protected under federal law. We do not believe that we need to be fighting the issue of federal-provincial jurisdiction on the backs of the recreational boating community. There may be other national issues on which this ought to be discussed; but we do not believe it is fair to push this on to the backs of the recreational boating community.
I should also point out that the three cases that have gone in recent years have taken place in the three largest markets in this country. One is in British Columbia, one is in Ontario and one is in Quebec. The most recent decision was in Quebec. It has to do with the town of Austin, Quebec, in the Eastern Townships not far from Magog, attempting to impose limits on anchoring within the confines of the municipality. In this case, the boater had to go to court to prove that that was inappropriate use of municipal authority. He won on the initial case and he won on appeal.
Similar circumstances have existed also in the Columbia River, in the case of Mr. Dean Kupchanko, and in the province of Ontario, in conjunction with Mr. Al Will. As far as the recreational boating community is disappointed that consumers have had to spend money on these cases, and we do not feel this should be prolonged. The passage of Bill S-8 will transfer that issue once again on to the shoulders of the boating community. We do not feel it is appropriate.
In summary, there are some key recommendations we would like to see come from this evening, with respect to two basic topics. We want to enhance boating safety by modernizing the small vessel licensing system. We would like to see funds provided from the marine tax revenues put directly into enforcement and to educational activities to enhance and increase operator knowledge and proficiency. We would also like to see some funds allocated to local groups, including cottagers associations, to permit the placing of appropriate signage to alert boaters of local boating regulations, speed limits and dangers to navigation.
We would also like to suggest that there be some form of a national database under which all those who have passed their PCOC card requirements and have been issued a card may be tracked. There is not much point having an operator competency system if no one can verify whether a person who says he has passed a course has in fact done so, or whether the card the person has been issued is valid. We need a national database to ensure that.
In respect of the boating restriction process is concerned, we strongly urge that the process be streamlined so that it can be sped up. We would like to suggest that those wishing to bring applications forward be encouraged to do so on a quarterly basis, not on an annual basis. As a businessman, I find it rather unfortunate that something that could be as crucial as a BRR application can take as long as it does. However, if the process were streamlined — not thrown away, as Bill S-8 would suggest — those who need properly conceived and properly researched restrictions will be able to get them.
On behalf of the boating community and the 10,000 people who have signed petitions against Bill S-8, I would like to thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak this evening.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Currie, Mr. Dyck and Ms. Gelfand.
Senator Spivak: I want to ask Mr. Dyck a question. I am interested in off-power assisted steering. That is one of the major defects. I want to know whether these or similar devices have been independently tested and whether the certification program you mentioned is voluntary.
In 2001, in the test for the U.S. Coast Guard, the OPAS was not included. Is the standard high enough to pass those tests conducted by the independent underwriters' laboratories? It is my understanding that manufacturers opposed it because their products could not pass the test at speeds of 30 to 40 miles an hour or more.
Mr. Dyck: What was the question?
Senator Spivak: Is the certification program you are talking about voluntary? Have the off-power assisted steering and other similar devices been independently tested? In the last series of tests, they were not. Is the SAE standard high enough to pass those tests conducted by the independent underwriters' laboratories? Those are the questions.
Mr. Dyck: With respect to whether it is voluntary, for a layperson, the answer is probably yes. However, the PWC industry is part of the certification program that the marine industry gets involved in and to date all the personal watercraft manufacturers have agreed to comply with it. In a sense, it is out there as a voluntary standard, but the PWC manufacturers have always complied with the standards that were set as part of the certification process.
The second question was about independent testing.
Senator Spivak: It was not there before.
Mr. Dyck: I am not familiar with the earlier tests so I am afraid I cannot comment on them. However, to the best of my knowledge, it took about three years for the SAE to adopt their standards. They did not want to get into component testing and this kind thing. They wanted an on-the-water test to verify whether it could or could not meet the criteria.
Senator Spivak: It seems to me that the Society of Automotive Engineers initially suggested, in the United States, all of the improvements that could be made. I am curious.
I want to ask you something else in general about the bill, which is not opposed. In fact, the bill understands that it is the federal system that has control. It is the federal government with overall control in navigable waters.
The horsepower of these PWCs has to gone up unbelievably. Now you have a 215-horsepower PWC. I know that you are interested in recreation, as is Sandy Currie. I do not doubt that for a minute. Can you reconcile a 215- horsepower PWC on a little lake where people swim, canoe and fish? Previously, PWCs were not that powerful.
Mr. Dyck: We are really seeing the same thing with the outboard engines. They are 250 or 300 horsepower now. I would suggest that on a lake like Falcon or West Hawk there are quite a few boats that may well be equipped with that kind of horsepower, or with a couple of engines.
Senator Spivak: They do not zoom around your cottage like this. That is what they do.
Mr. Dyck: That is another issue.
Senator Spivak: I am asking you in general, in principle. Would you not say that maybe there are some lakes where this is appropriate and some lakes where it is not? What is your view on that?
Mr. Dyck: I do not think horsepower should be, generally speaking, the factor that governs. It depends on the size of the vehicle. It is the same with other boats. If the boat is capable of handling that type of power and can be operated safely, I do not see a problem with it.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Chair, I have questions of Mr. Currie but I do not want to use all the time here.
Senator Christensen: In the presentation, you have looked at the reduction of noise pollution and emissions. What happens with the older watercraft? There are so many older craft out there.
My second question is: besides the emissions issue, these crafts go in such shallow water. How do we control that? They can go where an outboard motor cannot go. It does not matter how high the horsepower it is. There is where you run into a lot of environmental damage. They can go in very shallow waters where birds are nesting in the smaller lakes and sloughs.
How do we overcome that without restrictions?
Mr. Currie: If I may, I will try to answer your first question, which was, I believe, the issue of emissions and how many are out there.
The industry has been selling USEPA certified or compliant product in this marketplace since the 1998 season. Now, we have an estimate that would have a personal watercraft having a useful life of between five and seven years. That is nominally accepted by the industry. I am not trying to suggest they are not durable but we do find that that is nominally the lifespan of a PWC, which is considerably shorter than virtually every other motorized boat around.
If we apply the seven-year life-span to the number of boats we have sold over the past few years — the worst-case scenario — we estimate there are about 40,000 units in use on the waterways of this country at the moment, assuming this were boating season and not February 24.
As I mentioned we have been selling USEPA compliant products since 1998. In the last four years, which has been the time period in which we have seen the introduction of four-stroke equipped PWCs into the marketplace, the sales shift has gone from about a 100 per cent USEPA certified two-stroke, to a mix at the moment where we are seeing 25 per cent four-stroke, and 75 per cent two-stroke. I cannot gaze into a crystal ball and I do not sell PWCs, so I cannot tell you what individual corporations' expectations are in respect of the transition from new technology compliant two- strokes into fours. However, it is probably reasonable to assume there will be a continued migration to some degree in that area.
In our view, these figures indicate that well over three-quarters of the product that is on the marketplace and in use now is USEPA compliant product. Therefore, we would be inclined to suggest that the exhaust emissions are acceptable. If they are acceptable in the United States, certainly they should be acceptable here.
At the moment, the only standard we have to shoot for is the USEPA standard, and the only product we can market here is USEPA approved. I am not trying to suggest that their standard is good or bad, but it is the only level to which we can work. We are of the opinion that we are putting environmentally responsible product on the market and on the waters.
As to the issue of use in areas where the water is shallow, first, virtually every owner's manual, or instructional DVD that I have seen implores the boater not to operate his craft in water less than two-feet deep. Can you operate in those circumstances? Yes. Should you? No. You should never be in water that shallow in anything but idle.
I have a 14.5-foot tin boat with a 15-horsepower four-stroke motor. I can operate that boat in shallow water as well. However, as a boater, I certainly cannot do it at a speed beyond a speed that gives me the ability to steer the boat. It is not safe, and it is not smart. I cannot react if all of a sudden there is an obstacle in front of me. We try to teach personal watercraft operators exactly the same good habits.
Senator Christensen: One of the things that this bill is doing is giving cottage owners on small lakes, who have a major investment in those cottages, an option. How do we meet that demand?
Mr. Currie: We believe that the existing regulations already do it. There is nothing wrong with a cottagers' association. I belong to the Moon River Ratepayers' Association. There is nothing wrong with that association letting the municipal council of Muskoka Lakes be aware that there is a need for some sort of a boating restriction on the Moon River. We do not have a problem with that at all. The problem we have is taking it from the cottagers' association, which I belong to because I pay my $5 a year. My neighbours do not. The cottagers' association is not democratically elected and is nothing but a volunteer group. No organization should have the right to take their opinion and straight-line it right through to the Minister of Fisheries or to the Minister of Transport without any formal form of consultation.
They might choose to consult amongst their membership, but that does not mean they are compelled in any way to consult with the other boaters on the Moon River or any other body of water. As far as we are concerned, speed up the process with the existing BRRs and encourage the appropriate use of that process. If the cottagers' associations wish to bring applications — and I know cottagers' associations have done so — to their locally elected municipal authority and work it through the system, that is wonderful.
Senator Christensen: Very often they are not in an incorporated area.
Mr. Currie: In Ontario, there are lots of unincorporated areas and I know there are lots of unincorporated areas in other provinces as well. That does not stop them from taking it to the provincial government and saying that we would like to bring this forward. What steps do we have to take? Here is the BRR process, help us do it.
The Chairman: Ms. Gelfand, you mentioned in a way that I took to be a good example the restrictions that have been either voluntarily or otherwise placed on people who operate things like Ski-doos, snowmobiles, and that they have been restricted to certain areas.
Would you propose with respect to lakes, for example, that certain lakes ought simply to be closed off from the use of one thing or another, including this lake in which no swimming will be allowed because it is not safe because there are other things going on in this lake? Do you think that is a good idea?
Ms. Gelfand: I am not sure that human swimming is any different than potentially large fish.
The Chairman: If it is true to say that there is a safety hazard that exists when people are swimming and Sea-Dooing in the same body of water; there are two solutions to that.
Ms. Gelfand: My organization does not deal with personal safety issues, In respect to your comment on swimming, humans are mammals; we are part of nature.
The Chairman: Talk about the ecological nature then.
Ms. Gelfand: I would not think that restricting swimming in a lake, given that we are mammals, is going to have particularly beneficial impact on the ecology of that lake. Obviously, humans, like beavers, have impacts on lakes. Beavers chop down a pile of trees, create dams, they can flood areas, and they can do as much damage as we can do. We have to recognize that we are a part of nature and we are natural. I do not think restricting swimming would be an issue.
Now, restricting motorized access to natural areas is something that we would be concerned about; just like we would be promoting a program we have called "Living by Water." It is a program that tries to encourage cottage owners to maintain their properties in a way that is ecologically beneficial. That means you do not put up great big piles of cement and rock on your land right at the shoreline. You do not apply pesticides and cut down the forest to make your cottage landscape an urban landscape.
We promote humans living in harmony with nature. Generally, motorized vehicle access of any kind creates damage.
The Chairman: How would you pick the lakes on which it would be okay to run Sea-Doos? Which lakes are okay to mess up, if that is what is happening? You did say it is a good idea that there should be designated places where these people can go to run snowmobiles. If I took your inference, there should be places, such as lakes, I assume, where folks should be able to go to run their PWCs. How would you pick them?
Ms. Gelfand: I am not an expert on PWCs per se. I am an expert on protecting nature. If I were to give off-the-top comments regarding what I think about regulating PWCs, I would think about the size of the lake. I would restrict how close they can get to the shoreline, which is usually where the damage occurs. We must also recognize that waterfowl can congregate in huge masses on a lake. When any kind of motorized vehicle gets too close to them, it can disturb those waterfowl.
The size of lake and how far off from the shore would be my initial comments. I could do a lot more work and come back to you on that.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Currie, we have had this conversation before. You may cut me short because I am being repetitive.
I think it is wonderful that manufacturers are beginning to address some of the problems that the U.S. National Safety and Transportation Board identified five or six years ago.
However, problems still remain. I could go on and on about how wrong you are about the 20 steps that it takes to get through to a boating regulation; and that, at any step, any bureaucrat could say no. However, that is not what I will ask you.
I will ask you about the statistics concerning safety. We now have life-saving society statistics that show a 53 per cent increase in PWC deaths in recent years compared with a 29 per cent decrease in deaths among people who use small boats. As you know, the accidents and deaths from PWCs are as a result of blunt trauma and not drowning.
Do you have any more recent studies that show that PWCs are really safer than anything else around?
Mr. Currie: Quite frankly, I do not. The dossier I presented the last time contains a table. I brought a copy of that and I can dig into it, if you wish.
Senator Spivak: This is a fairly recent life-saving study that I am talking about.
Mr. Currie: I do not have a copy of that, Senator Spivak. They probably produced a new drowning report. However, it has not reached my desk.
My point is that the only data I have at my fingertips here is the data I introduced last September. That is the OPP chart that indicated information on fatalities in the province of Ontario. Even the Water Incident Research Alliance, WIRA, does not yet have any national data available on water-related injuries and accidents. I cannot comment. I can introduce the statistics I introduced before. That is the extent to which I would answer your question.
The Chairman: We have those.
Senator Spivak: In 1998, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada recommended that manufacturers change the designs to allow for braking and that they develop special helmets. Has progress been made in these areas with regard to the braking, which is one of the big problems?
Mr. Currie: That is where Mr. Dyck was going with the off-throttle steering. With due respect to all of us, we are all Canadians. I dare say that at one time we have all gone skating. We all know that if we take four or five strides on our skates — whether on a rink, a canal or wherever — and then we stop, we have momentum and we continue forward until we coast to a stop. PWCs are no different. Obviously, it is not a person on a pair of skates. However, it is an object such that when you build up some speed, regardless of how fast you are going, and then you stop whatever is providing the forward motion, you will coast.
Senator Spivak: They do not have a rudder.
Mr. Currie: That is right. That is why it is called off-throttle steering. The off-throttle steering concept that is in now in use is designed to give the PWC operator the opportunity and the ability to steer the craft when there is no throttle input. That is what off-throttle steering is all about. As of the 2006 model year, all PWCs will be equipped with an off- throttle steering system.
Senator Spivak: Will they be equipped with a rudder as well?
Mr. Currie: No. It is an off-throttle steering system. Every company, within the latitudes of the requirement, is able to design and develop its own method by which this is accomplished. However, there is a range of speeds at which the craft is to offer certain types of manoeuvrability. This will avoid the situation where a person, while moving in one direction, relaxes on the throttle but desires to avoid an object, which could be a person or a dock, or it could be simply a desire to let the machine slow down in the middle of the lake and casually coast off to the right. That is what off- throttle steering it all about.
The industry switches model years in August of each year. That means that around about the middle of 2005, as inventories deplete — and certainly by the fall of 2005 — the product that will appear on the market will also be equipped with the off-throttle steering system. That is because we do not produce craft for one market. What is produced is produced for the entire North American market. By September or October 2005, we will have in this country 2006 product that is equipped with off-throttle steering. At this point, most manufacturers have some products that are already so equipped, but not everyone and not all products.
Senator Spivak: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.
You or Mr. Dyck very correctly pointed out that people with their PWCs are instructed that they should not do this and that. However, I have looked at the advertisements that the companies put out for these PWCs. They are designed to hike up the testosterone, or whatever it is, beyond all belief. It is a thrill-craft.
Now you have 215-horsepower. The horsepower has been going up. When they first started, they were 50 or 60. What are you saying about that development and what it means for safety and pollution? Remember that the market is geared to those aged 18 or 24 to 40. They are geared for that speed. Look at the movies.
What do you think? What is your view about the increase in horsepower and what that means for safety and pollution?
Mr. Currie: As far as I am concerned, the pollution question has been answered.
The product that is on the market today is EPA 2006 certified and CARB 2008 certified. Whether or not we all agree that those are the appropriate standards for this country is not the issue. That is the best and the highest standard that we have got to work to for now, and that is the way the product is built.
With respect to the other issue, I believe that what we are really talking about comes back to the knowledge and skill of the operator and the mental attitude of the boat operator. It really does not have much to do with whether the product is equipped with a 75-horsepower motor or a 125-horsepower motor.
Senator Spivak: Some of these have 215-horsepower motors and some of the drivers are 16 years old.
Mr. Currie: They are over 16 because the law requires that.
My 14.5 aluminium foot with a 15-horsepower motor in the hands a person who does not have the skills and has not been taught to operate that boat is an accident waiting to happen. The same is true of a person in a powerboat operating in the mouth of the Niagara River on a day when there is a strong east wind. The same is true about a PWC in the hands of an unskilled or person lacking the appropriate skills with bad behaviour habits.
It is not the fault of the product. The issue relates to the habits, knowledge and the mindset of the person who is operating the boat.
Senator Christensen: Ms. Gelfand, if this bill were to pass, do you think it would foster an attitude of responsibility in the manufacturers of PWCs?
Ms. Gelfand: That is a very good question. I am not sure if it would. It would probably assist and help. Anything that allows communities the opportunity to decide what they want to have happen in their community in terms of mechanized travel of any kind, be it all-terrain vehicles or personal watercraft, would help. I cannot speak for the manufacturers, because I am not one. I am concerned about how we live in harmony with the natural world. I would hope that it might have an impact. I hope that it would encourage PWCs manufacturers to work with naturalist's groups and talk about where on the lake boats should go. How do we advertise these crafts?
The naturalists got very upset over the Subaru ads. I do not know if you saw the SUV ads advertising climbing mountains and dominating nature. Another Subaru ad showed a vehicle's windshield with a pile of bugs as if it were a good thing that these vehicles were killing all these insects.
It is all about humans taking over and dominating nature rather than recognizing that humans are part of nature and that nature is what feeds us: It gives us clean air and clean water. The way we treat the earth will decide how the earth treats us in the end.
Senator Christensen: Do either of you gentlemen want to address that? If the bill were to pass, what effect do you think it would have on the industry?
Mr. Dyck: I return to part of my submission where I say that we do not need Bill S-8. The present boating restriction regulations include shoreline speed restrictions. They include hours of operation restrictions. They restrict inappropriate behaviour. We have all that in the BRRs.
Senator Christensen: You say it is not necessary. However, should the bill pass, would it not reinforce what is already there?
Mr. Dyck: Mr. Currie mentioned, we are dealing with about a year.
Senator Spivak: Four years.
Mr. Dyck: It would take four years to get to Coast Guard headquarters. It could take up to a year to be processed. Mr. Currie suggested that they could be considered quarterly. It would speed things up. I cannot speak for him but I think that was the point he was trying to make.
The present process is quite adequate. It is probably the way in which we are dealing with it that is not.
Senator Milne: If the present process is adequate, it relies upon proper policing. On the lake on which I have a cottage, a police boat comes one day a year. That is not proper policing. Perhaps it does fall back to the cottagers' association to actually do something about these problems.
Mr. Dyck: Bill S-8 would not address the enforcement either.
Senator Milne: It would allow the cottagers' association to say that no boats should be on the lake.
The Chairman: When you leave, you may want to take with you the report that was referred to earlier. It is based on information from the Coast Guard with respect to the number of vehicles that are out. It talks about the number in the same order of magnitude. It says that there were about 52,000 PWCs on the water compared with 1,182,000 powerboats. However, it also points out that the death rate per 100,000 is very nearly double for personal watercraft what it is powerboats.
We will ensure that you have a copy of the report when you leave because you may wish to send us a note to question it or refute it.
The number of deaths per 100,000 for personal watercraft according to this life-saving society survey, which is based on Coast Guard information, is 11 per 100,000. The powerboat number is six per 100,000.
I thank you very much, witnesses. I thank you for observing the admonition that I gave you. I am grateful for that, as are members of the committee. I have to ask all persons here who are not members of the committee and its direct staff to leave forthwith because we have a little bit of business to address.
The committee continued in camera.