Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 31 - Evidence - June 4 sitting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 4, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9.32 to study Bill S-26, An Act concerning personal watercraft in navigable waters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Welcome to our hearings on Bill S-26, An Act concerning personal watercraft in navigable waters. This bill passed first and second readings last year, when it was referred to our committee for study.
[English]
Although this bill is formally known as a Senate public bill, we should recall that this bill is the initiative of our colleague Senator Spivak. The senator and her staff did the background research and oversaw the drafting of the bill.
I believe I am correct in saying that the present bill reflects the concerns for public safety and environmental protection that Senator Spivak has had for a number of years, and perhaps her exasperation with the inadequacy of the status quo.
We will hear from Senator Spivak, who will describe the problem as she sees it and her proposed solution. In the coming weeks, we will also hear from a number of other witnesses directly concerned with the bill.
As you know, senator, our questions will follow your presentation. The floor is yours.
The Honourable Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I introduced Bill S-26 in May of 2001. It was referred to committee in June of that year, having been approved in principle at second reading.
There is much support for this bill, with over 3,000 signatures on petitions. There have been hundreds of letters from across Canada and support from more than 70 organizations, among whom are municipalities, cottagers associations and many others. There are many press clippings and a national opinion poll that says this is what Canadians want.
On the face of it, Bill S-26 is simple. It recognizes the safety and environmental problems associated with personal watercraft, or PWCs. It recognizes that the federal government has the constitutional authority to deal with such problems, and it directs the government to do as it has done when other recreational boating problems have arisen. It directs the government to allow local people to determine the best solution. In the United States it is called home rule.
It is important to realize this is nothing new. I received a flyer asking: What is next? Will boats be restricted? As you know, boats are restricted through the Office of Boating Safety in approximately 2,000 places in Canada.
In Canada, governments have allowed local authorities to deal with virtually every other problem of recreational craft on the water. From water skiing, to fast boats, to boating regattas or races, they have done it through the boating restriction regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. Bill S-26 is simply an adaptation of the boating restriction regulation process. It would allow local people to decide where PWCs can be used safely, and where they pose too great a threat to safety or to the environment.
These are the bill's three elements: Recognizing the problems, acknowledging the federal government's authority to deal with them, and granting communities the choice and local control to decide where restrictions are needed.
The restrictions the bill contemplates are the type of restrictions that have been imposed in dozens of states in the United States. Some states now have speed limits. Most U.S. states have designated areas where PWCs are banned. The vast majority of states prohibit wake jumping — that is, using a PWC as a thrill craft that becomes airborne when it crosses its own wake or the wake of another boat. Almost all states have some restrictions on hours of use.
Bill S-26 would allow local authorities to create those kinds of restrictions, lake by lake and river by river. Cottagers in the Eastern Townships believe they need them to protect drinking water. Officials in the City of Winnipeg believe they need them for safety on the rivers, and are contemplating using the current boating restriction regulations to test this particular proposal. Year-round waterfront residents in British Columbia need them to maintain the peace, and cottagers in Ontario need them for all of the above reasons.
In June 1994, our own coast guard also thought it wise to allow local communities to restrict PWC hours of use and speed. Those restrictions were published in the Canada Gazette. Coast guard officials were responding to thousands of complaints from waterfront property owners, boaters and officials at Parks Canada. However, the boating industry objected, and a political decision was made to put a stop to the kind of restrictions that Bill S-26 would allow.
Since mid-1994, Canadians have had to live with the new federal policy that Bombardier, the Canadian manufacturer of PWC, set out in its January 1994 brief to the coast guard. That brief said, in part:
We believe the best way to improve water safety is not through restrictions on our product, but through education of our owners as well as all the other operators on the water.
What Bombardier believed in January, the government came to believe by August. For the first time, the coast guard's respect for local decision-making was overruled. The other half of Bombardier's positionm — that education was the solution — was embraced. The coast guard was instructed to find other ways to encourage safety. It found boater education. For the last several years, young people have had to pass written tests before operating motorboats. Starting this September, anyone driving a PWC or a 12-foot runabout with a small motor will have to prove boating competency by passing the same simple test.
I am in favour of boater education, but education without inland water training or testing only goes so far. I do not think any of us would like to see 16-year olds on motorcycles on our highways on the basis of written tests alone. However, by our current policy, we are letting them drive 150 horsepower PWCs anywhere they like without on-the- water testing.
In 1994, Bombardier also gave the government the rationale for its new policy. In its brief, the company said:
Personal watercraft are, first and foremost, considered power driven vessels under the Canada Shipping Act. They have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other boat using our lakes and rivers. It is unfair and perhaps discriminatory to single out personal watercraft for special restrictions not applicable to other boaters.
Months later, the policy of non-discrimination against personal watercraft by local communities was created. It is a policy that treats personal watercraft as if they were people. It is wrong to discriminate against them. It is a policy, and a way of thinking, that treats people — personal watercraft owners, other boaters and swimmers alike — as if they were widgets. I say that advisedly.
The policy is protecting personal watercraft manufacturers but it is not protecting the people on the water. PWC manufacturers have not been required to address well-known, serious design defects that lead to accidents and injuries. No department has warned PWC owners when massive recalls were issued. People have not been allowed to try to protect themselves by setting restrictions on their lakes. The policy seemingly disregards and denies the mounting toll of deaths and injuries in PWC accidents. It judges them to be so unimportant that the government does not even gather complete accident or injury statistics across the country.
This bill would change one important aspect of that federal policy: People who know local water conditions best would have the right to decide where personal watercrafts can be used safely, and where PWC riders could unwittingly harm themselves, others or the environment.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has legislative authority to make this bill redundant. The minister only has to add new schedules specific to personal watercraft to the boating restriction regulations, then communities could apply to be listed under those schedules. By and large, we would only have process and enforcement matters to deal with. For a time I thought the previous minister was moving in that direction, but that did not turn out to be the case.
The bill is simple but it is supported by evidence that is often technical — evidence that witnesses will discuss. I would like to outline that evidence with reference to the reports and supporting material in your briefing binders. First, what exactly is a personal watercraft? The bill contains the following definition that was recommended by our legal drafters:
... an enclosed-hull, water-jet-driven pleasure craft with no cockpit, that is designed to be used by one or more persons, while straddling, sitting, standing or kneeling.
It is similar to the definition contained in the regulations proposed in June 1994 and published in Part I of the Canada Gazette. In popular terms, PWCs are jet skis or sea-doos — names adopted from their trade names. They look, and often sound, like modified snowmobiles on water but without skis and without a rudder or a propeller, which leads to one of the main safety problems. More on than later.
Most PWCs are powered by two-stroke gasoline engines, although manufacturers are beginning to produce models with lower-emission, four-stroke engines. The first commercially available jet ski, introduced in 1974 by Kawasaki, had a 32 horsepower engine. Today, racing models have up to 160 horsepower engines. Even smaller models have 85 horsepower. Speeds reach 100 kilometres an hour or more.
For much of the 1980s, the popularity of personal watercrafts was limited to people who had the confidence to handle a powerful machine while standing. It was Bombardier that pushed the envelope, according to its promotional material, and designed a model on which riders could be seated. When two-seater models became standard, the Canadian company produced PWCs that carry three or four people. In section six of your binder, you will find information on some of this year's models. In the late 1980s, the popularity of PWCs soared. In the United States, their number increased almost tenfold between 1987 and 1996 — growing from 92,000 to 900,000.
Few people know exactly how many PWCs have been sold in Canada, and those who know are not telling. One of our witnesses, Charles Komanoff, asked the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association, CMMA, for that figure in order to prepare his brief to us. As you will see in the October 29 letter he received from Mr. Sandy Currie of the manufacturers association, the manufacturers consider this information confidential. The number that the CMMA has used until recently is between 80,000 and 100,000 PWCs in operation in Canada. That is not the number sold; that is the number still in use. The comparable figure for the U.S. is now 1.2 million.
It is important for us to know, even roughly, not just how many PWCs are around, but also their vintage. You will hear a great deal, I suspect, about the design changes that have made PWCs less polluting, less noisy and safer, all of which are to be applauded. However, we are not considering safety in the showroom; we are considering it on the lake. It is important for us to have some rough idea of how many PWCs were sold without rudders, for example, and how many of them are likely to be buzzing around this summer. Until we have other evidence, the best we can do is go with the manufacturers' own numbers. Six years ago, manufacturers estimated that there were 53,650 PWCs in Canada, which could mean that up to half the PWCs now in use are pre-1977 models.
In the first section of your binder, you will find the bill and the coast guard's proposed regulations from June 1994 on which the bill is patterned. You will also find the minutes of a meeting in August 1994 at which those regulations were officially quashed and the comments that the coast guard officials had prepared for that meeting in reply to the boating industry's objections. You will see Parks Canada's correspondence with the Energy Committee, the government's current policy and process on other boating restrictions, plus documentation from one lake group that had to wait four years for a boating restriction.
In sum, these documents tell the story behind the refusal to allow boating restrictions specific to PWCs. They show how Bill S-26 parallels what coast guard officials tried to do in 1995, and where Bill S-26 differs, the documents will help to explain why.
I turn first to the bill. The preamble recognizes that the safe use of our lakes and other waterways is a matter of national importance, that there is public concern about safety and environmental problems created by PWC use, and that the current regulations under the Canada Shipping Act are not sufficient. Clause 2 gives the necessary definitions and clause 3 contains the purpose, which is to give local authorities a legal means to impose restrictions while respecting federal authority. Clause 4 outlines the method. It requires public consultations at the local level, including consultation with law enforcement officials. It requires the community to determine ``for health, safety or environmental reasons'' what restriction is required or whether a ban is needed. It requires passage of a resolution by that local authority and it requires that evidence of consultation and the resolution be sent to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It requires the minister to publish any proposed restrictions in the Canada Gazette and sets a 90-day comment period. It also provides a mechanism for the community to amend its resolutions based on those comments.
The public consultation requirements are extensive. In fact, they go beyond what the government requires for other boating restriction regulations. The reason is found in the following clauses that reduce, but do not eliminate, ministerial discretion.
Several of the clauses say that the minister ``shall.'' Most important, the minister shall publish the community's proposed restrictions in the Canada Gazette and shall order them into law, subject to clause 6. Clause 6 gives the minister limited discretion to refuse to order a restriction or a ban if navigation would be obstructed, impeded or rendered more difficult or dangerous. Again, this was on the advice of our legal counsel and ``navigation'' here means navigation in general, not the navigation of PWCs.
Clause 7 deals with the ministerial order to add or remove a designated area from a schedule, as the local authority has requested. Clause 8 requires the minister to keep records of all resolutions and their disposition.
Clause 9 establishes the prohibition against operating a PWC, except in accordance with the restrictions, and sets a maximum fine of $2,000. The fine was set on the advice of our legal drafters who thought the figure would be in line with new levels of fines under the Canada Shipping Act. Many have complained that it is out of line with other similar offences that carry fines of $500. This is one area where we should consider an amendment, if that is your wish.
Clause 10 gives the minister the authority to make regulations, including establishing the schedules to restrict or ban PWCs in specific areas, exempting law enforcement officials from those restrictions in carrying out the act, which is how the minister might also set further requirements for consultations, signage or other matters.
Clause 11 is the requirement that the minister report to Parliament, which would allow parliamentarians to keep watch on how the act is being used by local authorities and what resolutions are refused by the minister.
I want now to turn to the regulations that the coast guard published in the Canada Gazette Part 1 on June 4, 1994. These were proposed boating restriction regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. One of them — PWC restrictions on a lake in Quebec — followed much the same path as this bill proposes. It came from the local community where local consultations were held, and it was published for comment. The other came from Parks Canada. The coast guard had gone so far as to design the signage. There is an icon representing a PWC and rider. There are two schedules setting out locations where PWCs would be restricted.
At Lac aux Quenouilles in Quebec, PWC use would be limited to the three-hour period between 1330 hours and 1630 hours daily, and speed would be restricted. That is based on the 1994 proposals. Off Pacific Rim National Park on the west coast of Vancouver — a park that the Prime Minister created when he was in charge of parks — from June 1 to September 30, riders would be restricted to having their fun between 1300 hours and 1800 hours. That is, five hours each afternoon. Restrictions at Pacific Rim National Park, according to another document obtained through access to information and placed in your binders, were requested ``because of dangerous use of craft among bathers and surfers.'' That document shows that the coast guard received 13 letters of support for the regulations, including support from provincial authorities in Ontario and Saskatchewan, and from communities in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. It also received 11 letters of protest and responded to each of the comments.
After the 30-day comment period, there was an unusual meeting. It was held on August 17, 1994 at the coast guard headquarters in Ottawa. You will find the minutes of that meeting in your binder. They show that the proposed restrictions had the support of the RCMP, which was armed with accident figures. Coast guard rescue officials had statistics showing that PWCs had a higher rate of collisions than any others small vessel. Parks Canada staff stood behind the department's request, saying that the safety of all had to be considered. Ontario and Quebec officials spoke in favour of them.
However, a spokesman from marine manufacturers was there complaining that PWCs ``had been singled out for special treatment.'' Individual manufacturers supported that position. The Canadian Marine Trades Federation also opposed the regulations, suggesting that better inspections would make these regulations unnecessary.
You also have a summary of the written objections and the coast guard's responses. At the end of the day, the chairman summarized the decisions, including the decision that the regulations would not proceed. Why? Ostensibly, they would not proceed because it was too late in the season, and there was the threat of a lawsuit. The regulations did not surface again in time for the next boating season — nor did the lawsuit.
In fact, coast guard officials were under instructions to find other ways to deal with PWC problems. A cabinet committee had set the policy, as it was entitled to do. The other ways that the coast guard found included phasing in written tests for all operators of powerboats and PWCs and the imposition of age restrictions — although distinction was drawn between PWCs and other boats. In some provinces, a 10-kilometer limit near shorelines was established, and a new licensing régime is being created for all boats, not just for PWCs. And still the PWC problems persist.
In 1994, two other important things were happening. The minutes also document them. Since PWC manufacturers could not meet the safety standards for boat manufacturing — and still do not meet them — voluntary industry standards were being developed through the International Standards Organization, or ISO, and the Society of Automotive Engineers, or SAE. In 1994, ISO standards for fuel, electrical and ventilation systems were being discussed. In item 5a of the minutes, the chairman indicates progress on that standard, which our officials eventually adopted. The item explains one part of the coast guard's position on regulation prior to August 1994.
Comment 5 in the written objections to the regulations reads:
It is unjust to discriminate and focus solely upon any one group of boaters or type of boats,
— although we discriminate against water skiers. The coast guard's response:
The industry is seeking different standards for the craft and the nature or use of the craft is different.
The last part of the response states the obvious: When riders circle for hours on lakes, jump wakes or zoom by swimming areas, PWCs are used for sport, not transportation. In fact, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board in 1998 described PWCs as a recreational boat designed for ``riding entertainment.''
The first part of the response reads: ``The industry is seeking different standards...'' meaning different manufacturing safety standards. 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 third important comment refers to the general process and procedures for boating restriction regulations. Changes were in the wind in 1994, although there is little indication of what those changes were, and no documented discussion in the minutes of the meeting.
As far as local communities are concerned, we only know what eventually resulted. You will find it in something called the ``Local Authorities Guide to the Boating Restriction Regulations.'' The introductory clause is included in the binder. Among other thing, that clause outlines the 20-step process that now confronts small rural municipalities or large cottage associations when they want to protect their lakes.
Next to it you will find documentation of what happened to the Moot Lake Cottage Owners' Association when it tried to use this process. For this cottage association in Ontario, it took four years and the attention of scores of officials in the township, at the provincial level and in Ottawa. Its application was delayed by the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal Privy Council office. All this for a 10-kilometer speed limit on a 50-acre lake where submerged rocks should restrict speed, if common sense were applied. All this because one new property owner had the legal right to ignore what his neighbours said about safety and insisted on using a PWC unwisely.
I call your attention to the comment from the man who spent years trying to return safety to his lake. He said:
I dread the prospect of giving first aid to new, selfish people who have steadfastly refused to listen — to listen and respect our knowledge of the lake's boating conditions.
This first section of your briefing book, taken as a whole, is the story of local efforts to deal squarely and legally with PWC problems. It is the story of the coast guard's initial solution — which is very similar to this bill — and it is the story of the policy that resulted, one that is exactly what the manufacturers requested.
Bill S-26 is in response to that policy and in response to a local situation. I began my investigation almost four years ago. I began because there was a terrible accident on West Hawk Lake in Manitoba, where I spend part of my summers. A young man was virtually beheaded in that PWC accident. My neighbours wanted to know what to do to prevent other deaths. When we receive strong local support for Bill S-26, we often find a history of a tragic death. People in the communities near Shuswap Lake, British Columbia; Sylvan Lake, Alberta; West Hawk Lake, Manitoba; Georgian Bay, Ontario and Lac Magog, Quebec know the tragedies first-hand. In the last five years there have been 20 deaths and 122 near-drownings and serious injuries reported by daily newspapers — newspapers, I would remind you, which cover these accident only sporadically, and usually just on holiday weekends. Ten deaths were reported by urban newspapers in 1997 alone.
I have patterned Bill S-26 as closely as possible to what the coast guard itself proposed in 1994 because it is consistent with how we in Canada deal with other safety or environmental problems on the water: We let local people decide. We have a federal government that regulates on behalf of local communities, and we require public consultations. What we do not do, in the matter of water skiing for example, is allow the manufacturers of waterskis to set public policy. Bill S-26 narrows ministerial discretion because, sadly, manufacturers had undue influence in 1994. I want public consultations, as I am sure you do, not private consultations with cabinet ministers, to determine what is in the interests of safety and the environment.
Some critics suggest that it is harsh to go further than the coast guard's proposal in 1949 and to allows bans on any lake. My response is that we have evidence that was not available eight years ago. For safety reasons alone, bans in some areas are entirely appropriate, and nothing new. In a little lake next to my lake, motorboats are banned. No one thinks it is a big deal because it is a very small lake. It is for canoeing and fishing, so they ban motorboats, and that is fine.
The bill also reduces the number of steps that local authorities must take in applying for a restriction. It reduces them because the 20-step process is arduous and a deterrent to local groups, particularly to volunteer-run cottage associations or municipal staff in rural areas. Bill S-26 proposes that the local resolutions go directly to the minister. In a lake next to mine, Falcon Lake, a group of people met to discuss PWCs, and the RCMP told them, ``Don't even bother; it won't happen.''
Some people in Quebec would like to see provincial officials involved as they now are in administering other boating restriction regulations. I believe the minister could require that under clause 10(e), or we can deal with it through an amendment, if you like. Provincial officials in four other provinces are also administering the process for the federal government, but it is my understanding that several of them are contemplating withdrawal, and there is no public demand to keep them involved.
I will now highlight some of the material in other sections of your briefing book. I will cover them quickly because they are matters that will also be covered by other witnesses.
Section 2 has a short summary of restrictions imposed by U.S. states where boating restrictions are a state, not federal, matter. I have chosen the U.S. data because North America has been the prime market for PWCs. Other countries have regulated them. In Australia, for example, they have been banned from Sydney Harbour. The U.S. example is the one most comparable to our own because we share waterways, we share manufacturers, and we have similar statistics on per capita ownership. We see that 51 states set a minimum age for PWC drivers, and Canada's minimum age of 16 compares favourably to limits elsewhere. There the good news ends. We see that 44 states put limits on wake jumping, 38 states have bans in specific areas, and 12 states set specific speed limits. We have none of these limits anywhere.
Section 3 is the second most important section in your briefing book. It is the section on safety. I have included two comprehensive, popular articles on the subject, one from the U.S. and the other from Canada. I invite you to read them at your leisure, but I would like to highlight the third paragraph in the first article that puts, in lay terms, one of the chief safety problems.
In 1998 the National Transportation Safety Board criticized the basic design of all personal watercraft: ``Personal watercraft have no braking mechanism. They coast to a stop, and while coasting, there is no turning ability.''
Or, as the writer put it: ``When the throttle is off, a speeding jet ski is like a car on ice. It can't stop. It can't turn, and the driver has no control.''
I also ask you to note the section on official reports of vehicle defects. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Division, the American Medical Association's journal and the Transportation Safety Board have been trying to quantify and correct the off-throttle problem since 1965. More recently, as the second article shows, the courts have been imposing their own solutions.
The collision expert from Calgary quoted in the second article will be one of our witnesses. I ask you to remember that Mr. Paulo is also a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers committee that is developing PWC standards and a former official of Transport Canada.
Next you will see the U.S. Coast Guard statistics that show the trend in PWC use, in accidents, in injuries and in fatalities. Unfortunately, the statistics only go to 1997, but what is significant here is ratio of injury to accident: one injury for every 2.3 accidents, and the ratio of injuries to deaths: almost 24 injuries for every death. It is significant because we simply do not have similar accident statistics in Canada.
We have more detailed U.S. Coast Guard statistics for the year 2000. Here we see the accidents involving PWCs accounted for 1,580 injuries and 68 deaths. We see that of 5,437 collisions between vessels, PWCs accounted for 2,287, or 42 per cent of them, although they account for only 10 per cent of all registered boats. They were involved in almost 30 per cent of the accidents of all types.
Not surprisingly, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board decided to look at the deaths, injuries and accident characteristics associated with PWCs. It issued a report that is referenced in the material in your binder. Instead of the full report, you will see what the board decided to do about the problems. In June 1998, it wrote the manufacturers, telling them to:
Evaluate personal watercraft designs and make changes to improve operator control and to help prevent personal injuries. Consider such items as off-throttle steering, braking and padded handlebars and operator equipment such as personal flotation devices and helmets.
It also told them to develop, with the coast guard, comprehensive standards specific to the risks of PWCs and told the coast guard, by June 2000, to determine the feasibility of providing PWC drivers with more control in off-throttle situations.
Finally, in this section is more information from the U.S. It quantifies the massive recalls of PWCs for production or design problems that could lead to fires or explosions. That information led my staff to use the U.S. Coast Guard's Web site to search for other recalls. We found that more than 500,000 units have been recalled for significant safety defects. This sounds incredible to me, but those are their statistics. That is somewhere between one-half and one-third of all PWCs manufactured. It is laudable that manufacturers are catching defects. It is worrisome that such a low percentage is being repaired — 38 per cent of the 126,000 units that Bombardier recalled for defective fuel tank filler necks on its models for three years. It is worrisome that our coast guard has never warned Canadian owners about these recalls.
This section on safety and the next sections on environmental impact give you an idea of the range of problems on our lakes and coastal waters. Section 4 has Environment Canada's description of the pollution problems. In just one hour, the hydrocarbon emissions from a 70 horsepower two-stroke engine equal the emissions of a new car driven 8,000 kilometers. Many PWCs are higher horsepower and are used hour after hour on small lakes. In this section, you will also find two excellent Library of Parliament reports on how the government is attempting to deal with the emissions problem and other environmental impacts of PWCs. Our witnesses will offer more information.
In section 5, you will find a summary of an excellent paper on the matter of noise written by another of our witnesses. You will see what one manufacturer has been doing to reduce noise emissions. You will see the chart that puts the quieter Sea-Doo in a decibel range between a vacuum cleaner and city traffic. One of the bill's supporters wrote that she lives on the Rideau Canal, where the noise from PWCs reaches disturbing levels. She compared it to living alongside the 401.
Section 6 presents you with some of the changes in PWC design in recent years: a learning key for beginners, a rudder-like system to improve steering, a four-stroke engine to reduce emissions and a direct injection system. All of these are laudable, but all of these are in show rooms and not on the machines that other boaters and lake-front property owners must deal with, by and large.
Nor have some of these systems been independently evaluated. For example, Bombardier agreed to have its machine involved in independent testing of other prototype systems designed to improve steering, but it declined to have its off- power assisted steering tested. Without any add-on to improve steering, the Sea-Doos tested avoided collisions at 20 miles an hour, but had a success rate ranging from 0 to 17 per cent at 30 miles an hour and failed the test completely at higher speeds. That is the performance of models that left the showroom a few years ago and are now on the lakes, where safety is paramount. I have included some of the promotional material for this year's models so you can see what the manufacturers are telling potential customers.
In the final section you will find a summary of the public response to Bill S-26, printouts of the 70 organizations behind it, and Canadians who took the time to write letters. You will also see highlights of a national poll. Roper Reports Canada, a national syndicated marketing and public opinion service, surveyed Canadians this past winter. It asked whether local municipalities should have the authority to set rules for PWC/Jet Ski use. Fifty-nine per cent answered yes. On the no side, there was 18 per cent. I would be happy to provide you with a breakdown of that poll.
Parliamentarians are not here to do simply what the polls tell us, although we should be cognizant of public opinion. We are here to do what is best for the country. I am confident that when these hearings are over, it will be clear that we should pass this bill. PWC problems persist, and the federal government has the responsibility, along with the authority, to deal with these problems. To date, it has not done so. It is also clear that the local communities have been denied the right to protect their lakes. Bill S-26 will reverse that policy.
I welcome your questions.
The Chairman: It is my understanding that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans believe the issue of personal watercrafts can be addressed under existing legislation. Could you relate the discussion that you had with them on that question and your opinion of the department's position?
Senator Spivak: I think that is true. As I said in my brief, if the minister wished to put in a schedule for personal watercrafts, it would be easier for the community to apply for the restrictions they want.
That is the department's position. I think the intent is there and the motivation is a good one. The problem is in the follow-through.
The boating regulation and restriction is a 20-step process. At any point in that process, a bureaucrat or the RCMP, or someone else, can say, ``That is it. That is the end of it.'' I think it makes good common sense to make that step simpler.
Moreover, the government policy suggests that there needs to be consultation with all Canadians, not just the local community. The boating restrictions say that the request for a restriction requires that the need for implementation be assessed and that public consultation be held at the local level. That is not a new policy. However, it is very onerous to go through those steps. I am suggesting a simpler way.
I would be happy were my bill irrelevant. It would be a wonderful solution if the department took its own steps.
The Chairman: You are saying that, under this bill, the federal government would deal directly with municipalities. If so, what do you think the provincial reaction would be to such a measure?
Senator Spivak: As I indicated, some of the provinces do not want to be involved. The provinces could be involved; that could be an amendment. I am not hung up on that. I am hung up on local control and simplicity so that people can actually get what they want.
It is not a new thing. There are 2,000 places where there are all kinds of restrictions in Canada. It is becoming more onerous. In the actual, specific instance of PWCs, the manufacturers are up in arms and fighting against this legislation. I do not know why they should. If they have a good product, people will buy it and no one will impose restrictions. They are fighting tooth and nail so that the cabinet, as in 1994, will be under pressure not to allow local communities to do impose restrictions. I do not think that is fair.
The Chairman: You have listed numerous negative effects of personal watercraft use. Is it possible for you to assign priorities to these effects? Is the key concern, for example, public safety or environmental degradation? Is it depriving others of the quiet enjoyment of their property?
Senator Spivak: I believe safety is uppermost. I think the public sets its own priorities. In each community, people react for different reasons. In my own city of Winnipeg, it is because the riverbanks could be eroded. PWCs are very harmful to riverbanks. The residents along the banks of the river were up in arms when there was a request to licence PWCs along the Red River. City Council denied that; they would not allow it.
That is the way things should be. I think people should have the right, once they have consulted with their neighbours and there is a majority decision in the community, to petition their government and to have their concerns looked at.
The Chairman: Is it possible for the industry to produce a personal watercraft that would be socially acceptable, one that is less powerful or quieter?
Senator Spivak: First, PWCs are socially acceptable in some lakes. There is a lake in Saanich, British Columbia, where PWCs are banned as a result of a noise bylaw. The industry has not challenged that. If they did, it would not stand. Next door there is a big lake. PWCs are there, and no one complains.
The problem with the notion that they are just like other boats is that they simply are not. They are an extreme sport. The advertising is aimed at people who like thrills and speed. That is great. People should have fun, but not where kids are playing, and not where swimmers are, or where people fish. Each community should have the right to decide that.
Something that is socially acceptable? I am not sure how you would define that in numbers or in terms. However, the key principle is not what I think but what each local community has decided to do, and they should be allowed to do that easily.
Senator Callbeck: I commend you for your concern about safety, public waterways and the environment.
You mentioned in answer to a previous question that the current process has 20 steps. That is really the problem; it is too cumbersome. What steps are you proposing should be eliminated?
Senator Spivak: The bill proposes that there be consultation, for example, with law enforcement officers, the local community and with the province, if that is their wish. The resolution then goes to the minister directly. The minister has to go through the usual process, such as gazetting and allowing for other comments. He also may use his discretion. That cuts through a lot of red tape.
I do not have this committed to memory. I do have a document from the Office of Boating Safety, and it has outlined all the steps. If you like, I could send you a copy of that. From personal experience, I know that any bureaucrat or any person can say ``Forget it,'' and that is the end of the process.
There are two things here. First, because the federal government has control over all the navigable waterways in Canada, the issue is between the federal government and the local municipalities. Because I was worried about the constitutionality of this situation, I have a letter from a constitutional expert, and, apparently there is no constitutional problem. That is what he says.
Senator Callbeck: Do you feel that we cannot make an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act or improve the regulations? The Canadian Marine Trades Federation said if the existing regulations were properly enforced with a more clearly defined inspection system, there would not be a need for extra restrictions.
Senator Spivak: Yes, there are regulations, and if the minister would put a schedule in there, that would be a help. People could apply, and they would not feel that they could not get the result. We have the 1994 decision.
This goes some steps further, and it cuts through the process. I think PWCs are the most rapidly growing section, and I am sure the marine manufacturers will have the statistics. They are growing exponentially. Perhaps this problem did not need to be addressed a few years ago in such detail, but maybe it needs to be now. If the minister took steps, this bill would be irrelevant, and I would be happy to have it die.
The problem and the process are the issue, not necessarily the strategy. The strategy is not to say there is no problem, and that is fine. That is not true.
Senator Callbeck: We talked before about these 20 steps being cumbersome, and you wanted to set up something that can cut through quickly. You mentioned that cottage owners would have public consultation. Let us say a group of cottage owners wanted to ban PWCs. That is what you are giving me?
Senator Spivak: They tell you how to do that. This has happened before in many other places around boating restrictions, and there are problems, I suppose, with the designation of the community, et cetera, but the minister has always had a hand in that. It has worked for other kinds of things. I would say that now we need to cut through that process. The boating regulations say there is a five-step consultation plan. They say use flyers, posted notices, consult about the problem, strike a committee, follow up and resolution. It is right here.
Senator Callbeck: Starting in September, people will be required to take a test before they are allowed to operate Sea-Doos. What kind of test will that be? What is involved?
Senator Spivak: It is a written test, but I am not familiar with it. I do not know what that involves exactly.
Senator Callbeck: Has that been done in other countries?
Senator Spivak: I think so. I think the Americans have this, but they go further. It is not just the issue of PWCs but also the issue of congestion, increased number of boats and increased horsepower that are problems all over. Talk to the people in Georgian Bay or the Muskoka area. It is a problem all over. The basic problem is compatibility of use. You have water skiers, surfers, canoers, swimmers and fishers. We do not allow trucks to go down certain roads in our cities for good reason. We do not allow dirt bikes on playgrounds. Why are we letting anarchy reign on the lakes? It is not safe, and we need to address that issue. This is just one small part of addressing it.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned that you think the United States has this type of test.
Senator Spivak: In the United States, it is not the federal government that has the responsibility for all the water. It is state-by-state. It is a responsibility of the state. I imagine in different states, there are different things.
Senator Callbeck: Are there statistics to show that the safety has improved?
Senator Spivak: I am not aware of any statistics in that respect. There are other restrictions in the United States that we do not have here. They restrict wake jumping and many things. Lake Tahoe has banned PWCs totally. No national park has any PWCs in it. The last one in my own province has banned them. The test is compatibility of use.
There are many other places where I think they are fine. I am sure local people would think they are great, and that, too, is fine.
Senator LaPierre: I have three points. Would Kyoto not take care of the emission of the petrol from these boats?
Senator Spivak: It is not being taken care of by Kyoto, but the minister of the environment is looking at the issue of emissions. There has been a memorandum of understanding that has been signed by the manufacturer of PWCs and the minister that looks at the new models, which have to cut their emissions, and there are design features for cutting emissions.
However, I do not know how many thousands of boats are out there with the old system, and they put 30 or 40 per cent of the fuel, unburnt, into the water because that is the way the engine works. They are very polluting. I gave you the statistics from the department of the environment. The emissions are horrendous. It is great that we are now looking at cutting those emissions. The answer with respect to the emissions is that they will be reduced.
Senator LaPierre: Can these boats be recalled to be re-equipped?
Senator Spivak: That would be quite a thing to do for 100,000 PWCs or more.
Senator LaPierre: I would not want you to belittle the societal value of noise. Sometimes I am invited to a lake that the rich own, and they always have immense boats in front of their chalets. They are the cottage people who complain about somebody in the middle going very fast on this skidoo-type equipment. They themselves make an enormous amount of noise with their big yachts that go everywhere. There is that problem. It is a status symbol for them.
There is also the phallic symbol of the young using speed and noise to be able to catch the chick on the shoreline, or whatever the equivalent of ``chick'' is for boys on the shoreline. That plays a great part. I would like to think that the municipality, confronted by an army of testosterone-equipped people, will decide not to have anything to do with it, and let them play as they wish. Is that possible?
Senator Spivak: I have nothing against the issue of testosterone and looking to catch chicks. However, it cannot be allowed to happen everywhere. You do not want those 16-year olds with 150 horsepower going in among the swimmers, the canoers and the fishers. You do not want them impinging on the rights of cottage owners who have some right to peace and quiet.
The issue of noise is a big issue in our society, period. Noise pollution is something that is being addressed in many different ways. However, I am not dealing with that here, strictly speaking. That is part of it, but not all of it. That lake in Saanich that I told you about has placed a restriction on PWCs based on a noise bylaw that they have. It would not stand up in court, however.
Senator LaPierre: If I have a boat that goes ``vroom,'' and if I go among the boaters, the fishers and the children and I hit one or damage property, surely the Criminal Code would take care of that.
Senator Spivak: That is fine. That has nothing to do with what I am doing. It does not restrict what I am doing. I am looking at restrictions dealing with the operation and use of boats.
Senator LaPierre: I think you are belittling the matter of federal-provincial jurisdiction. You suggested to us that in the United States it is handled by the state. I think there is more and more infringement by the federal government of provincial responsibilities insofar as municipalities are concerned. This may be the instrument whereby the Rubicon can no longer be crossed, and it will deal with this issue. This is obviously a municipal matter, which is the direct responsibility of the provincial government. Could we have one of the legal opinions that you have received on that point?
Senator Spivak: The letter is not in the book; we will send it to you.
The issue here is that navigation of all waters, no matter where they are in the provinces or municipalities, are strictly a federal responsibility. The bass might be municipal, but they are a federal matter. There is no stipulation that the provinces must be involved, although the municipalities are creatures of the provinces. That is one principle, and it is an important principle.
Here is another principle: Local control. People, in their own lakes and in their own areas, should have some say in what goes on there. Supposing they were going to land jet planes on your lake; you would not want that. I am taking an extreme example, but I think people should have locating control.
According to the legal advice that we received — and I will send you that letter from an eminent person in Ottawa — there is no constitutional problem with this.
Senator LaPierre: Madam Chair, will we continue to study this issue?
The Chairman: We will need to finish with this bill.
[Translation]
Senator LaPierre: We will all the same continue the study one way or the other. Will there be other witnesses?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator LaPierre: We are going to conclude with Madam at the end of the meeting?
The Chairman: Yes, at the end of the proceedings.
Senator LaPierre: So we will conclude with Madam. I am looking forward to it.
[English]
Senator Phalen: I am a cottage owner who has been coping with this kind of problem myself. I have considered roping in a swimming area. I do not know if I am allowed to do that, but I will try to do so. My real concern is that people come in too close. I also see it on the beaches.
In your proposed act, you said that, ``The purpose of this act is to provide a method for the local authority to propose to the minister that restrictions be applied.'' ``Local authority'' is a municipality. Do you mean by that each municipality, or the organization of the municipalities within a province? In my case, if it is a municipality, we could have a number of municipalities on the same lake with different rules.
Senator Spivak: That is a problem for the minister to deal with, but it has worked. The process for boating restrictions regulations now in force has that same principle.
Senator Phalen: Why could you not say, for example, ``the Nova Scotia municipal association, which includes all municipalities,'' They could then draft regulations respecting lakes within the province so that the rule is the same.
Senator Spivak: I suppose that could happen. For example, the entire association of municipalities in all of British Columbia is in favour of this bill. If they are all in favour of it, I presume that they could do that. Common sense will prevail. There are ways of doing things, as long as you are not prevented from doing so by some bureaucrat who is sitting in some office and does not know your lake.
Senator Phalen: I have a concern that the purpose as stated is too narrow.
Senator Adams: When I was in Rankin Inlet a year ago, I heard you talking on the radio about that complaint.
I am concerned about Bill S-26. Most of the districts that you are talking about and most of the statistics are American. I do not often stay in Ontario in the summer. I go up North, but I cannot go swimming because the lake is too cold. We have to use a wet suit if we want to swim.
Your statistics are not very Canadian. People can swim 12 months a year in Florida or in California, but that is not the case here. There are people who use boats and Sea-Doos at their cottage. You have a licence to drive a car but there is a speed limit on the highway, and if you get caught speeding you are fined, and you lose points on your licence.
However, with lakes, there is lots of water there and you can go anywhere. How can you regulate a speed limit on a lake or in a cottage area? A fisherman might want to go to deeper water to catch a bigger fish. Those are the kinds of things that we have worked on for the last two or three years. However, we still have a problem enforcing it because no one can enforce it on every cottage and lake. Even if we pass Bill S-26, we have no means to enforce it. How will we force people in the cottage area to abide by the law?
Senator Spivak: I agree with you that enforcement is a problem. It is a common problem everywhere on the lakes. The solution is for people to take safety more seriously. However, it seems to have worked on the two lakes in British Columbia that I was mentioning. People are told, ``You cannot have your PWCs here but you can have them there,'' and they seem to follow those restrictions. In Ontario and Quebec where the lakes are heavily used, enforcement is a problem. I do not have an answer to that in this bill. It is a general problem, I think.
Senator Adams: In the meantime, I think a fine of $2,000 is rather heavy. People in the community, even cottage owners, like to have some fun while staying at their cottages. If you had a regulation like that, maybe some people might not want to bother going to cottages in the summer because there are too many restrictions on their kids. People have to pay property taxes on their cottages.
Senator Spivak: There are many different ways of having fun. Teenagers like to canoe, they like to surf and they like to water ski. Everything is fine if it does not interfere with other people. It is fine if you can do it out in the middle of a huge lake. However, if such craft are going to kill loons, spoil the fish or pollute the water, you have to deal with all those issues and see if you can find a commonsense solution. It is not one thing or the other. I am sure that PWCs will operate fine in many places. However, in some places they will not. It is a problem on tiny lakes. Boats are also a problem, as people have found, on tiny lakes. In areas of the eastern United States, they have restrictions based on the size of the lakes. You have to use common sense and you have to trust the local people to make the right decision. That is my view.
Senator Adams: Perhaps it is a problem at some of the lakes where there are many retired people who do not want to listen to high-speed motors and maybe you need to regulate. When people want to buy a cottage, they should be told, ``Right now, we have so many Sea-Doos, people water skiing and speed boats.'' Maybe some kind of notice could be given to people who pay close to $10,000 for such machines because it is difficult if they cannot have fun with them and have to pay a $2,000 fine. It is difficult because kids want to have speed.
Senator Spivak: That is a problem. In a country that has produced the Canadarm so that we can go to the moon, we should be able to figure out how to reduce the noise and the emissions and regulate where we zoom around. I think that is possible.
The committee adjourned.