Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 19 - Evidence of September 16, 2003
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 16, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S-10, concerning personal watercraft in navigable waters, met this day at 5:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Senators, our witnesses tonight are from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Mr. Meisner, the Acting Director General of the Marine Programs Directorate, is accompanied by Mr. Haché and Mr. Saheb-Ettaba.
Mr. Tim Meisner, Acting Director General, Marine Programs Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Honourable senators, I would like to start by thanking the members of the committee for providing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and specifically the Coast Guard, with an opportunity to speak to you on this important issue. I represent the Coast Guard in my capacity as Acting Director General of Marine Programs. The Canadian Coast Guard welcomes this discussion. We also commend Senator Spivak for her commitment to the environment and to boating safety.
I wish to assure Senator Spivak and this committee that safety and environmental protection are vantage points from which the Canadian Coast Guard accepts its responsibility for pleasure craft in Canada and from which we have developed our position on Bill S-10.
While the Coast Guard shares many of the same concerns as Senator Spivak, I regret that we cannot10. In our view, Bill S-10 would duplicate and possibly conflict with the current tools that the Coast Guard has at its disposal to protect the environment and to advance boating safety. Specifically, the Coast Guard sees no compelling reason to introduce a new process because the current legislation already allows for the Coast Guard to restrict or prohibit vessels, including personal watercraft.
I will provide some background on our current legislation and policy before getting into a more detailed examination of our position.
The public's right to navigate is recognized under common law. In terms of our discussion today, the Constitution Act provides the authority to make laws to regulate all matters related to navigation. This exclusivity of the federal jurisdiction has been confirmed a number of times by the Supreme Court.
The Canada Shipping Act provides the legislative basis to restrict boating for reasons of public safety, protection of the marine environment and public convenience. Under this legislative authority, cabinet has enacted the boating restriction regulations, which are the instrument by which boating restrictions are administered by the Canadian Coast Guard.
Relevant to this discussion, the boating restriction regulations provide a mechanism to restrict or prohibit the operation of all powered vessels, including personal watercraft, on Canadian waters. These regulations currently contain a number of schedules that set out the restrictions and prohibitions that apply to these vessels. All vessels, not just certain kinds of vessels, are prohibited using the boating restriction regulations.
Bill S-10 would, therefore, be a departure from our current practice whereby boating restrictions are applied to all motorized vessels. What is at issue, and where the Coast Guard and Bill S-10 part company, is that current Coast Guard regulations apply to all motorized vessels and do not provide for the restriction of a specific kind of vessel, such as a personal watercraft.
In addition to restrictions, a number of other measures could be established under the boating restriction regulations. For example, shoreline speed restrictions could be applied in participating provinces. Permits could be issued for events that may occur on a waterway where a restriction is in place. The maximum horsepower of vessels has been set for operators under 16 years of age, as well as the minimum age required to operate a vessel, including a personal watercraft. These schedules are amended regularly to add and, in some rare cases, to withdraw a restriction from a particular schedule following a request from a local authority.
Our philosophy, based on our experience, is that in the first instance, it is better to educate the public on what safe and responsible boating is, rather than to rely solely on regulation. I do not for a moment pretend to tell you that education and promotion campaigns are enough. However, I must tell you that our experience is that we get good results, including changed attitudes.
To support this approach, we have a suite of measures to fall back on to control the operation of powered vessels, including personal watercraft, in addition to the boating restriction regulations. The Coast Guard also administers the small vessel regulations and the competency of operators of pleasure craft regulations.
I believe it is worthwhile noting section 43 of the small vessel regulations and its significance to local communities. This section can be used to address irresponsible behaviour by an individual using any pleasure craft, including a personal watercraft. Under this section, warnings and then certain fines are available. That is why the Coast Guard is promoting awareness of section 43 of these regulations in partnership with the enforcement community, the marine industry, boating associations and municipalities. We also have the operator competency regulations, which require a certain level of knowledge to operate a pleasure craft. We believe that part of the success we appear to be having with safer boating is attributable to this initiative.
As honourable senators can see, we have measures available and that is why our view remains that boating restrictions may not always be the first or best way to deal with irresponsible behaviour by an individual using a personal watercraft.
At this time I think it might be helpful to compare what we at the Coast Guard see as Bill S-10's measures with those now available mainly through the boating restriction regulations. I would like to begin with some of the similarities.
Bill S-10 provides for a similar power to make regulations; a similar scheme of schedules annexed to the regulations; a similar process for requesting a restriction or a prohibition; and a similar provision with regard to local consultation.
In terms of differences, the proposed measures in Bill S-10 would have restrictions or prohibitions applying only to personal watercraft; the power to make regulations would be given to the minister, not to cabinet; provincial governments would be bypassed; and administrative constraints and deadlines would be imposed on the minister.
We believe that the Canadian boating public would not be well served by Bill S-10 because it would essentially result in two sets of boating restriction regulations: one for personal watercraft and the other for all other vessels. Further, Bill S-10 would create more regulation where regulations already exist to deal with personal watercraft, such as section 43 of the small vessel regulations.
While processes are increased, our view is that the bill would not increase safety and environmental protection. We would also like to draw the attention of committee members to an important challenge, which I touched on indirectly a moment ago: enforcement.
DFO currently relies heavily on the enforcement agencies, such as RCMP, provincial and municipal police forces and other agencies designated to enforce its regulations. The department recognizes that the agencies that enforce boating regulations for the Coast Guard are themselves already stretched to the limit and adding another layer of regulations may further erode this limited capacity. I am sure that this is not what Bill S-10 sets out to do.
Before concluding, allow me to return to the restriction question, which I believe to be the core of the matter before us. Although I have indicated that Bill S-10 would be a departure from current departmental practice, I would like to add that the Canadian Coast Guard would consider any application for a boating restriction brought to our attention.
Specifically, the Canadian Coast Guard would consider an application to prohibit or restrict the operation of personal watercraft on certain waters if this were made using the current boating restriction regulations process.
What do we consider when any application is made, including one for personal watercraft? First, we require that the proponent supply an identification of the problem — why the boating restriction is needed; second, we consider whether alternatives, including non-regulatory alternatives, are more appropriate; and, third, we ensure that consultation with those most likely to be affected by the restriction has taken place. We believe that this current approach is solid and that it continues to serve the public well.
The Coast Guard recognizes that the use of Canada's waters has changed considerably in the last generation. It would not be an understatement to say that a good deal of this change has occurred in the last 10 years. The advent of pleasure boating as a larger recreational pastime, along with significant technological changes such as the personal watercraft, compel the Coast Guard to keep up with this curve and to consider new ways of dealing with change and challenge. We think that we are making good progress, but we also think we can do better as time moves along. We are not opposed to doing things differently if that is what it takes to do our job well. At the same time, we need to be sure that we know clearly what we are dealing with and whether that identified issue requires a new remedy or simply an adjusted existing tool.
I do not believe that we have issues with personal watercraft that are beyond our current means to mitigate or resolve. That is why I wish to ensure that we clearly make the point today that we are not saying ``no'' to personal watercraft only restrictions, but rather, we are asking that this kind of restriction be assessed using the current tools that we have. Safe and responsible boating is a goal with which I think we can all easily agree. I believe the current system can continue to accommodate and advance that concept.
In conclusion, I thank you for this opportunity to present the Canadian Coast Guard's views to this committee. I welcome any questions on this matter.
Senator Spivak: Thank you for your presentation. I must say that I am somewhat puzzled by your statement that you would accept an application concerned with personal watercraft only. I want to draw your attention to one of many letters that I have received. Two ministers wrote to me and said that any proposal for a new schedule to the regulations to specifically prohibit PWCs would require full consultation with Canadians. Such a move would be considered a major change to current policy, likely affecting many individuals and commercial interests. They also said that current boating restriction regulations do not provide for restrictions against a specific type of vessel but do provide a means to prohibit or restrict all powered vessels, including personal watercraft.
In fact, there have been several attempts, as you are aware, to have prohibitions of some kind or another on personal watercraft. The most notable one was in 1994 when Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and the Coast Guard all agreed that there should be some prohibition on the operation of personal watercraft. It was gazetted, but in the end, it was not allowed.
Are you suggesting, Mr. Meisner, that the policy has changed? What is the current policy of DFO on this issue? In another letter, it was not clear whether the policy has changed.
Mr. Meisner: It is a matter of whether we are talking policy, practice or philosophy. We have no written policy, but our practice has always been to place restrictions on motorized vessels as a group and not on specific kinds of vessels.
Having said that, the legislation gives us the authority to make restrictions for specific types, but in practice we have done that with a minimalist approach — not interfering as much as we could. We have never received an application for boating restriction regulations for PWCs alone.
Senator Spivak: Yes indeed, you have. You received one in 1994. Just a moment — there have been others.
Mr. Meisner: That was for a schedule, just to clarify, not for restriction of PWCs in a particular waterway.
Senator Spivak: Does not that require a schedule? Of course it does. I do not understand.
Mr. Daniel Haché, Acting Director, Safety, Environmental Response Systems, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: If I may, as a case in point, if you want a restriction for a particular type of vessel and no schedule exists, then we look at the case itself for a restriction; and eventually, in parallel, we will create a process for a schedule as well. However, we cannot just create a schedule without a case to be considered within it.
Senator Spivak: Of course. The point is, though, there are perhaps 2,000 applications made for other motorized vehicles, each of them with a schedule, so what are we talking about here?
Mr. Meisner: Each application is different.
Senator Spivak: I also want to ask if it is possible to restrict, according to your policy, just PWCs in a particular lake without affecting other motorized vehicles? I am a community member, and there was a group of people in the lake next to mine who wished to do that. The RCMP told them that you cannot.
Mr. Aziz Saheb-Ettaba, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: If you will allow me, I will respond from the objective legal point of view, not from the policy point of view — how the boating restriction regulations are drafted right now. Some schedules are provided right now, so if someone asks the Coast Guard to make a restriction — in a particular lake, for example, for PWCs only — it is not possible currently. However, we can deal with the PWCs like other motorized, engine-powered vessels; the PWCs could be restricted together with other pleasure craft having the same engine.
Senator Spivak: That was my understanding. Now has the policy changed?
Mr. Aziz Saheb-Ettaba: If you will allow me to continue. However, this does not prevent the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, from amending the boating restriction regulations in order to add the specific schedule that addresses only PWCs. It is not impossible to do it, but it will require an additional step to create that new schedule.
Senator Spivak: Okay. That is very clear. Thank you. I understand now what you are saying. In other words, the policy is the same; it has not changed.
My second question is, would that require full consultation? I was told at one point it would require full consultation with Canadians all across the country, not just in that particular lake. Am I mistaken in that?
Mr. Meisner: Adding a schedule to the regulations would require full consultation.
Senator Spivak: That is the same thing. In other words, if a group of people on a lake went through all those things — consultations, et cetera — just for PWCs, it would go through the boating restriction regulations and would then go to the minister. Where would this consultation with all Canadians take place?
Mr. Meisner: As a minimum, through the Canada Gazette.
Senator Spivak: Now I understand; whereas if I wanted to restrict just an ordinary boat, a normal boat, that is not the case?
Mr. Meisner: Not if the schedule is already in place.
Senator Spivak: That is very clear.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Spivak. I want to make sure that we understand, and that you understand, the difference of opinion that some of us may have with you. I think that the authors of the bill, and those who support the bill, understand the boating regulations — and we understand them even better now. We know that the boating regulations have always been there. The reason that this bill exists is because the action that its authors and sponsors and supporters wish the government and its agencies to take has not been taken. As you have just said, there is no schedule at present that permits the restriction of PWCs specifically in a particular waterway if the residents around that area want that to happen. That is precisely the shortcoming that exists in the present regulations, as seen by the people who support this bill.
With respect to some of the other things you said, about irresponsible behaviour, for example, irresponsible behaviour by an individual would result, I presume, in charges against that individual, whether he was driving an outboard putt-putt or a PWC or a ferry boat. That is not the point of this bill, or at least it is not the only point — to curb irresponsible behaviour. It does, as its detractors have pointed out, use a very large sledgehammer to kill perhaps a fly. If people are living around a lake and are generally bothered by these things — because it is an aesthetic question as well — that is the point of this bill. It is not just irresponsible persons, but persons who are operating a watercraft that cannot be steered when power is lost and which has, according to the information we have heard from others, resulted in a very high level of accidents of one kind or another. It is not only irresponsible behaviour that the supporters of this bill are looking at.
You mentioned in your address to us that the difference is that Bill S-10 would have restrictions or prohibitions applying only to personal watercraft. That is exactly correct.
I would like to ask three questions. You mentioned that the provincial governments are bypassed. Yes. This is a Government of Canada prerogative, is it not — shipping, navigable waters?
Mr. Meisner: Yes.
The Chairman: I take that as an irrelevant point. What is the present budget, give or take a nickel, of the Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries and Oceans for education with respect to the proper, safe and considerate use of PWCs?
Mr. Meisner: What I can give you is the budget of our Office of Boating Safety and the programs across the country, which includes both the regulatory and education aspects; that is about $9.4 million currently. I cannot split it between the regulatory and education aspects.
The Chairman: There is not a separate budget for education?
Mr. Meisner: No, we have an Office of Boating Safety that conducts both aspects.
The Chairman: Then I guess it would be equally impossible for you to tell me how many Coast Guard patrols there are on Lake Wabamun, or on the North Saskatchewan River, where I live, because it would be in the same budget, I presume. You said regulatory activities, and I presume enforcement, are included in that.
Mr. Meisner: No, we do not the enforcement.
The Chairman: All right, but observation. That is in the $9.4 million and we do not know how that is split up. Can you find that out for us? We would like to have a general breakdown of the $9.4 million. How much of it is for education, PR, advertising and courses, if there are courses? How much of it is for patrols, in the normal sense of the word; and, not incidentally, how much of it might be for administration and those sorts of things? Just a general breakdown would be helpful.
How long do you suppose it would take to get that information?
Mr. Meisner: It would be a week, probably. We have to talk to the regions as well to get the split. This is a national figure. It would take a week at the outside. We will get it more quickly if we can.
The Chairman: If you could, it would be much appreciated. I do not know whether that would be a determining factor in anyone's mind but we may get to the question of this bill before we get that answer. If you could get it to us more quickly, rather than more slowly, we would be grateful.
Mr. Meisner: If it is readily available, we could have it in a matter of days.
The Chairman: Thank you. I want to put Senator Spivak's last question in a different way. You say that the Canadian Coast Guard would consider an application to prohibit or restrict the operation of personal watercraft. I gather that would involve the making of a schedule.
Again, I am pointing out the difference between that existing policy and the one envisaged by the authors and supporters of this bill, which is that that would no longer be something that would be merely considered. It would be de facto. If the provisions in the bill happened one after the other, then they would be restricted.
There would not be an option to decide on anyone's part, except for the people directly involved, whether that would happen. That is a distinct difference that you have pointed out. It is precisely the point of the bill, if I understand it correctly.
Senator Christensen: I would like more clarification. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Quite obviously, the bill has been brought forward because of concerns of persons who live, in a recreational way, on waterways. They have huge investments, in some cases, in cottages. Personal watercraft are quite different from outboard motors, or even inboards, because of the way in which they are operated and the noise that they make, et cetera. That causes some persons much annoyance and disturbance. You go to these places for peace and quiet.
On page 2 you say specifically that the Coast Guard sees no compelling reason to introduce a new process. You are saying that you have the legislation. How, through the existing legislation, do we get to the point of what Senator Spivak is trying to accomplish? You are saying that you do not need this bill because you already have the authority. How do we do it?
Mr. Meisner: In response to your question and Senator Banks' third question, the caveat that I put on it is that we would consider it, given that it was submitted under the current process, which includes consultations with all those who would be impacted by such a restriction. I am saying that we have the tools to put a restriction in place. We would consider putting in a restriction on personal watercraft if it went through the process of consultation that we use for all our other restrictions. We have that process in place to be in tune with the federal government's regulatory policy to ensure that all consultations hear both sides of the story.
We would not put in an automatic restriction. It would be considered. That is what I meant.
Senator Christensen: You go on further on page 4 to say that the schedules are amended regularly to add, and in some rare cases to withdraw, a restriction, following a request from a local authority.
Mr. Meisner: Which is subject to consultation.
Senator Spivak: I have a supplementary question. Full consultation is provided for in the bill, including with lawmakers.
I do not understand. I thought I had it clear from what Mr. Saheb-Ettaba said. You can only do that if you restrict all motorized vehicles in a particular area. You cannot do that, I thought you said, unless it goes to the minister, and the minister agrees that we should have a schedule just for PWCs.
You do not, in fact, have it in the current legislation. The current regulations do not allow an easy way to do that.
The Chairman: Is what Senator Spivak just said true?
Mr. Meisner: The current regulations do not have a schedule for prohibiting personal watercraft. One could be added. That is all I am saying. The tool exists. You can still add it to the consultation process.
Senator Spivak: That is exactly what the bill wants to do.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Senator Christensen has the floor.
Senator Christensen: It seems to me that the department is saying that they have the tools, they have the ability to do it, and the additional legislation being proposed is redundant. You already have the tools and it can be done. How can it be done and why is it not being done when needed?
Mr. Meisner: Why is it not being done? I will reiterate that since 1994, including since this bill was drafted, we have not received an application for a personal watercraft prohibition. In the case in 1994, it was determined through the consultation program that many parties were against it.
Senator Christensen: You are saying that if the requests are forthcoming, it can be dealt with?
Mr. Meisner: It can be dealt with through the current process of consultation.
Mr. Haché: If I may, there is a schedule and there is a regulation. What we would need as a trigger to consider adding a schedule would be a specific case where a restriction is needed for PWCs only on a particular body of water. That would take one consultation track at the local level, but adding a schedule would take another consultation track at the national level.
Senator Christensen: Once you had it at the national level, then you could automatically take any request down to a local level.
Mr. Haché: Once the schedule is in place, then others would be consulted only at the local level.
Senator Christensen: Once you have a schedule, it can be implemented at the local level.
Mr. Haché: That is correct.
Senator Christensen: The big question then is how to put in place the process for developing that schedule that could be used by local groups on specific lakes or rivers when they wished to do so. Perhaps we are not looking at new legislation, but creating a national schedule that can be applied at any time to any specific area.
Mr. Haché: To be clear, that schedule has to be triggered by a specific case.
Senator Christensen: Yes.
The Chairman: The procedure following that is at the pleasure of the minister, correct? If I make an application to have PWCs prohibited on my lake, the beginning of the procedure that follows from that would involve establishing a schedule, dealing with both local and national consultations and the approval of the minister. Is that correct?
Mr. Haché: Basically, recommendations go all the way to the Special Committee of Council.
The Chairman: What council?
Mr. Meisner: Privy Council.
Mr. Haché: SCC — Special Committee of Council.
Senator Spivak: Cabinet.
The Chairman: It is subject to cabinet approval.
Senator Milne: If the residents of one particular lake succeed in getting this all way through the various and assorted steps and a schedule is drawn up, then that schedule can be applied to other lakes that may also want to ban PWCs?
Mr. Meisner: Correct.
Senator Milne: No one knows how many lakes there are in Canada. They cannot be counted.
Mr. Meisner: It would be done on a case-by-case basis once the schedule is put into place.
Senator Milne: The minister would have nothing else on his plate for years and years.
Mr. Meisner: That is how the system works for motorized vessels. Individual waterways are added to that schedule as needed.
Mr. Haché: You have to realize that the consultation for a particular case is at the local level. The consultation for adding a schedule is at the national level.
Senator Spivak: That is the point of the bill.
The Chairman: I want to make absolutely sure that we understand. In the event that such an application were made by an individual, it would still come down to the discretion of the Governor in Council as to whether to proceed. Is that correct?
Mr. Meisner: At the end of the day, yes.
The Chairman: The point of the bill is to say, ``No, no'' — not ``you may,'' but ``you shall.'' That is the significant thing.
Senator Spivak: There are problems with navigation.
Senator Buchanan: This is interesting. I am not following something here about the minister's approval. Let me tell you a little story. Back in the early 1980s, we passed some regulations in Nova Scotia governing Ski-Doos. One of the regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act was that before you could drive a Ski-Doo across a highway in Nova Scotia, you had to get the permission of the Minister of Transportation. One of the members said, ``This means that next Sunday, when I am out with my friends and we are skidooing around the countryside and come to Highway 101, I will have to get off, get on the pay phone to the Minister of Transportation and say, ``Hey, we are down here in the Annapolis Valley and we want to cross Highway 101. Please give your permission.'' We recognized immediately how silly it was to have to get the minister's personal approval to do this.
Are you saying that the minister's approval must be obtained when someone makes an application about certain watercraft on a lake?
Mr. Meisner: No, it is just a one-time event to make the regulation. The minister would make a recommendation to the cabinet committee. Once that regulation is in place, that restriction is there. He does not have to approve it every time.
Senator Buchanan: Would your bill not look after that?
Mr. Meisner: The point is that that is a duplicate of a tool we already have.
Senator Buchanan: You do not do it now.
Let me tell you another story. My wife and I were talking about a story in the newspaper the other day. I told her that we have a senator in Ottawa looking after this. I do not know if you read this story, but it is one of the most bizarre I have ever read. Someone over here in Wakefield, Quebec, on the Rideau River, was out on a personal watercraft and ran over a bear cub at least six times. He tries to drown the thing. He hooked it up with a rope and towed it behind his watercraft. Yet I am told that nothing could happen to the guy. How could he be so irresponsible and do that kind of thing and have nothing happen to him?
Senator Spivak: He just needs education. That is all.
Senator Buchanan: You must have heard about that.
Mr. Meisner: I think the issue was not the way he drove the boat but the way he treated the animal.
Senator Buchanan: He was roaring around the Rideau River. They were watching him from the shore.
Mr. Meisner: Under section 43 of the small vessel regulations, you could charge him with irresponsible driving. That tool is in place.
Senator Buchanan: Who would charge him?
Mr. Meisner: All our regulations are enforced by police forces — RCMP, OPP, whoever would have jurisdiction where he was.
The Chairman: In the circumstance that Senator Buchanan is referring to and that has been referred to by others, and a complaint having been made, it is possible that the minister, and if not the minister then the cabinet, might say, ``We will not pursue this''?
Mr. Meisner: Yes, no question. The consultation results come in. If you have a proposal that 80 per cent are against and 20 per cent are for, quite likely the minister will say, ``No, we are not proceeding.'' If he does proceed, cabinet may turn it down.
The Chairman: The point of bills is to make things more clear.
Senator Spivak: It is not only possible that it may happen; it has happened a few times. For example, people on Quadra Island, B.C. requested it in 1996, with the support of the local council and the B.C. government; 87.5 per cent said they did not want Jet Skis in the freshwater lakes and 76.25 per cent did not want them in the surrounding seas. It was rejected anyway.
In my own province, the people on the lake next to mine wanted a restriction on PWCs and were told ``No.'' The point is that there are about 20 steps in those boating restriction regulations and sometimes it takes about four years, and at any step, some bureaucrat can say, ``No, you cannot,'' and that is it. That is the point.
I know you are looking at the boating restriction regulations, but this is a process that many people feel is not a good one.
The other point I would like to make, and this is just a comment that I hope I am allowed to make without asking a question, is that in the memo between the Minister of the Environment and the motor marine association or whatever it is called, PWCs are singled out as a separate kind of vehicle, as is the case in many court cases in the United States. There is a reason. They are sports vehicles, and, sometimes, extreme sports vehicles, and not the same as other boats, because the whole idea is speed and the performance of tricks. I wanted to point that out to you.
This is not another layer of regulations. I do not know why you say that. You have 2,000 schedules. This would be another schedule. It is not another layer. Do you know what I mean? You have all those schedules for all those other boats that people use all across Canada, so why would it make it harder for people to regulate?
My final point is that Mr. Vollmer, and I believe he is here today, said at a meeting in May 2003 on the Coast Guard and the Canadian Marine Advisory Council that the Office of Boating Safety has a lack of support staff and funding to do its job properly and offered to do that. Enforcement is a huge issue, but until you can get the message into the public realm that it is a problem, you have to make it easy, or at least possible, for citizens of a local community to be able to access tools to do what they would like to do on a lake, and in many instances, they have already done so with other boats. It seems to be a problem with this.
Do you have a comment on those comments?
Mr. Meisner: First, on your example at Quadra, I am not familiar with it.
Senator Spivak: There are lots of examples.
Mr. Meisner: That was going to be my comment. There are lots of examples concerning PWCs and non-PWCs where it has not gone through the implementation of a schedule or addition to a schedule for various reasons — where there was not any support.
Senator Spivak: Just a bureaucrat, or the RCMP, will not let it go further.
Mr. Meisner: If it were just a bureaucrat, I would think they would have very good reasons to stop it, for example, not enough supporting data or whatever.
Senator Spivak: How would you know?
Mr. Meisner: I would hope that through the consultation process there is feedback as to why it is not going any further. That is part of our process and policies, to give feedback, not just stop it without a reason. I cannot comment on your particular case, but there are all kinds of cases that do not go through to fruition for various reasons.
As for the PWC being a specific boat, I do not think we have any debate there. It is different from other the types of boats, but under the policy we have used to date, the practice has been to regulate all motorized vehicles and vessels. There are also other vessels that are designed for speed and doing tricks. We have historically not had a specific schedule for a particular type of boat. That is a practice that we recognize. With the changing use of the waterways and the advent of recreational boating, we would consider it. If a case were put forth, we would put it through the consultation process.
You also mentioned the layering approach.
Senator Spivak: It is okay; you do not have to comment on that. We understand what you are saying.
I just have a final comment. As with any other public policy issue, such as the tobacco issue, where the public interest is involved, there is always a struggle between those who make their living from selling these things and those who want to do this, and citizens who do not want to do this.
I see that clearly. It is not that everybody is dying for this to happen. Some people are not. However, the vast majority of people are interested in having this resolved in some way. You have to have a process to do that fairly and properly, and that is the problem.
In 1994, the reason it was not implemented — let's be straight about it — was that the industry lobbied against it. That is what happened. There has been heavy lobbying by the industry against this bill. I find that surprising, because it seems to me that in any business the customer is always right. You should try to accommodate people to the extent that they would be happy to buy your product if they liked it and agreed with it.
Anyway, that is the situation. That is why, if the minister decided tomorrow to put in a schedule, we would not need this bill. I do not think that the minister will decide that tomorrow unless we keep up the pressure.
Senator Christensen: You can make a request.
Mr. Meisner: I am repeating myself, but if there were a request for a restriction in a specific waterway we would put it through the process and it would be considered.
Senator Spivak: The point is there have been.
The Chairman: They would be considered, but in the past, when that has happened, they have been considered and stopped; is that right?
Mr. Meisner: I think Senator Spivak has many more examples than I do at my disposal.
The Chairman: We have others as well.
Senator Spivak: I have one question about the environmental problems. Are we talking about the environment in the boating restrictions? Where is the environmental damage mentioned?
Mr. Meisner: In the legislation.
Senator Spivak: I should be clear but I am not.
Mr. Meisner: Under the legislation, the Canada Shipping Act, you can make regulations for environment, safety and public convenience.
Senator Spivak: That is right, the most recent amendments.
Mr. Meisner: The existing one. The new one has not come into force yet.
Senator Spivak: I am told they have not been applied yet. Yes, they have been working on an environmental protocol for the boating restriction regulations. A working group is looking at an internal policy document and guidelines, but there is no public consultation planned, and apparently, Mr. Vollmer, who offered his services, argued that the assessment costs would be huge. Therefore, they might deal with environmental concerns in the future, but Bill S-10 includes them right now.
Mr. Meisner: We deal with them now. We actually have restrictions in place. We have the example of Elk River, where we have one in place for environmental purposes, but again, it bans all motorized vessels.
Senator Spivak: Right. It is a Catch-22 here.
Mr. Meisner: The objective is environmental protection. It was deemed that all motorized vehicles had to be banned for protection of the environment.
The Chairman: I have two final questions on which I would appreciate your comments. First, we have heard testimony to the effect that by comparison with all other motorized vessels, Sea-Doos, if I can use a brand name, and the like are markedly and demonstrably less safe and more prone to cause accidents. I would like you to comment on whether you have any knowledge of that.
Second, I would like you to comment on whether you understand, or have taken into account or would take into account, in your view, the aesthetic questions that people who support this bill have in mind, which is not to hear loud noises outside their window on Sunday mornings.
Mr. Meisner: I will go to the second point first. If I am at a cottage on a lake, I do not like to hear either PWCs or speedboats, so why not ban all motorboats?
Senator Spivak: It is not the same.
Mr. Meisner: It is for me. I do not like the sound of any motorized vessel. It is a question of a personal preference and personal tolerance. If you are a cottage owner who also owns a PWC, maybe you will tolerate more than others. It is a complex question and you have two sides to every story.
With respect to the first question, I do not know. I will ask Mr. Haché if he can answer that one.
Mr. Haché: I do not have the data in front of me on the greater number of accidents with PWCs. I can get back to you on that.
The Chairman: I was wondering about an anecdotal or personal, experiential reaction.
Mr. Haché: Anecdotally, yes.
The Chairman: The evidence we have heard, statistically, anecdotally and otherwise, is that they are flat out dangerous by comparison with a putt-putt.
Senator Spivak: It is the trauma. Apparently, most accidents with PWCs involve blunt trauma. It is not drowning. There are probably more drownings on other types of boats, but the blunt trauma is more common. That is what the hospital association that keeps track of this information has indicated.
The Chairman: Could you let us know as quickly as you can find out whether you have statistics in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that would address that question? The ones that we have received have been from Coast Guards elsewhere and from other people in other countries. Do those specific statistics exist in Canada?
Mr. Meisner: I have just been told that we do have fatality statistics for some provinces but not all. Where they exist we can provide them, but they do not exist everywhere.
The Chairman: They do not exist nationally.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Your testimony has been most helpful and we all now understand the boating regulations much better than we did before, although we have been hearing about them for a long time.
Our next witness will be Mr. Todd Lucier, who represents Northern Edge Algonquin Inc.
Senator Cochrane: I wanted to find out how many personnel were involved in this policing issue.
The Chairman: There are zero people from the standpoint of policing.
Senator Cochrane: They were asked to send you the breakdown of the annual budget. I wanted to know how many people were involved in policing.
The Chairman: There are not very many and they have zero powers of enforcement.
Senator Cochrane: They also say that the responsibility is in the hands of the RCMP. Their budget is just as heavily burdened.
The Chairman: It is, but the Coast Guard have no enforcement capability.
Senator Buchanan: They have none.
The Chairman: They cannot say, ``Stop.'' They cannot search a boat. They cannot stop a boat or a ship. They are not peace officers. They have no more powers than a guy on the street.
Senator Buchanan: They actually have to take Mounties with them.
The Chairman: That is right. They could also take fisheries officers. They have no enforcement capability, none.
Senator Spivak: It is still a low priority.
Senator Cochrane: It still is.
The Chairman: That is something we are looking at, by the way, Senator Cochrane, in the National Security Committee. We are considering whether the Coast Guard, or some members, at least, should be made peace officers.
Senator Cochrane: The Coast Guard is out there and their job is enforcement.
The Chairman: No, it is not. One would think that it is, but it is not.
Senator Buchanan: The American Coast Guard is much different from ours.
The Chairman: Our Coast Guard's job is the maintenance of the seaway, maintenance of buoys and aids to transportation. They also transport enforcement officers to the site when necessary and when they can get hold of one, but they have no enforcement capability. In fact, their union agreement requires that their members never be placed in harm's way. They cannot stop a ship or do anything like that. That is a waste of resources, in the view of some people.
That will partly answer your question.
We are now joined by Mr. Lucier.
Mr. Todd Lucier, Northern Edge Algonquin Inc., as an individual: Honourable senators, I absolutely have a message to deliver today. If one lake community gets to move first to ban personal watercraft on that lake, I lobby for our lake, for many reasons that I will share with you today. The only way to look at the importance of the proposed legislation that the Senate is currently considering is to look at an individual case and to examine how all the issues come to bear on that case.
The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Lucier, but would you tell us please about the place from which you come? What is Northern Edge Algonquin Inc.?
Mr. Lucier: Northern Edge Algonquin Inc. is an ecology lodge worth a little over $1 million. It sits just outside Algonquin Park. We offer a number of experiences, some to the public, including canoe- and sea-kayak-based experiences. We have international visitors who come to Canada for the quintessential Canadian experience of paddling a canoe in Algonquin Provincial Park or viewing moose or howling with wolves or going sea kayaking. We take those tours all over Canada. We do introductory sea-kayaking clinics on our lake. We also do educational programs. We take people out on the lake quite often for educational experiences. We do corporate executive retreats. We create an atmosphere that is somewhat set apart from the city existence that people have come to experience in their day-to-day lives. People come to us looking for the sounds of nature. There is a poem on the inside of the brochure that senators have been given today:
Slipping deeper and deeper
Into an Urban trance,
Ears are deafened to the voices
Of the natural world.
Their singing beckons the spirit
And urges the senses
To surface and awaken
To the song that is ever present
But often ignored.
That is what we offer our clients, to the extent of averaging $20,000 in income on a really nice weekend for just one, very small ecology lodge on the edge of Algonquin Provincial Park. I should inform honourable senators about why our operation takes place in this location. We searched for over a year to find an access point to put boats in the water for people to come and buy the experiences that we provide and go into Algonquin Provincial Park.
Algonquin Park is 200 kilometres by 200 kilometres. No personal watercraft or water-skiing is permitted on those lakes. A distinction is made in the rules to allow motorized boats on those lakes, but a problem has clearly been identified with personal watercraft interfering with the experience people want to have in those parks.
No investor in the ecotourism industry has the option of setting up an ecology lodge within a protected area, a conservation area or a park. The industry, including lodges such as ours, can only be established outside the borders of those reserves. The serious problem that we have is that when people come to us for the experience that we are offering in the park and for the learning experiences that we provide on the lake, we cannot control what happens on the lake. Personal watercraft are zipping up and down the lakeshore in front of our clients and, in some cases which have been documented by video, doing loops around people in sea kayaks. Sea kayaks sit very low in the water so there is a safety issue involved there. Jet Skis are zipping around beginners who are there to learn sea kayaking. Some are international tourists who have come to experience Canadian nature. They are upset, either when they leave or when they come back, by encountering these vehicles. They have no problem with people in motorboats. Frankly, people who want to go fishing take a motorboat out to a spot and drop anchor. They do not bother anybody. They make a trip across the lake and stop.
We offer experiences on weekends. That is when we make our money. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, nothing is happening at our place. Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, that is when we make our dollars from people coming from Toronto or people travelling internationally.
There are only eight or nine Saturdays per season. On those eight or nine Saturdays, three Jet Skis on a small lake like ours can make it a busy place for six hours a day. We are looking for opportunities and places to take our clients to give them this quintessential Canadian experience or to teach them how to paddle a canoe or introduce them to wildlife. Meanwhile, people are using these vehicles to tear up the shoreline on purpose so they can have easy access to get their boats in and out. Then they just drive the Jet Skis around in circles and go wave-jumping. Jet Skis are wonderful toys, but we have many established places in Canada where these vehicles can go and be at home. We do not have one quiet place in Canada to offer the experiences that I want to offer. There are many people like me who are investing thousands of dollars to offer international travellers that peaceful, ultimate Canadian experience.
We need to find a way for local municipalities, local governing bodies or even provincial governments to say, ``You know what, if you want to set up your business in this area, your investment is safe; we will look after you.''
I put my business on the edge of an internationally renowned provincial park, a resource that gets over $1 million dropped into it every year. I thought putting my business within three or four kilometres of the border of that park was a safe bet. Right now, it is getting to the point where it is not a safe bet that on Saturday and Sunday, at the time when my clients want to visit, that we will be able to avoid these vehicles. Our lake is small. I can take a group of people out to an island to paint. We had a partnership with the National Gallery last year. We have a partnership with the Art Gallery of Ontario this year to offer the Tom Thomson experience.
This is a lake that Tom Thomson painted on, and our clients are coming to experience what it is like to be Tom Thomson. Since the late 1800s, this lake has been an access lake for Algonquin Provincial Park for the canoeing experience. That is what our guests are coming for. Not to be able to offer them that because we cannot control what happens outside our front lawn is, quite frankly, shameful. Internationally, this is what we sell in Canada, and we need more of it.
I have made many points here that identify some of the values of visitors who come to have this experience. On a good long weekend, over 200 people will come to this lake to paddle into Algonquin Provincial Park. A third of those, roughly, are on guided experiences. People are paying about $170 per day for a guided experience in Algonquin Park.
My neighbour can walk or drive down to the Jet Ski rental place, rent a Jet Ski and destroy my income or destroy the experience for my clients in 15 minutes. People get turned off.
If this is not the doorway to protecting the investment in ecotourism in Canada, I would like to know what is. Where is one quiet place we can offer these experiences, and how can we spur investment in this type of industry? That is what I think we are after. There are many people clamouring for the Canadian experience. The Canadian Tourism Commission advertises all over the world that this is quiet, that it is natural, that it is special. When we cannot protect people from these vehicles, we cannot offer what we want to offer.
One particular issue is access to protected areas. Federally and provincially, there is a strong movement towards creating protected areas so people can have the wilderness experience. However, you must have the business sector coming in and offering canoe rentals, offering to take people on guided experiences, offering the naturalist version of the experience, which draws in value-added investment and economic activity. Parks by themselves do not generate a lot of economic activity. These businesses cannot locate in the conservation reserve or in the protected area. They have to move to the edge, as we have. One of the brochures in the package that the senators were given has a map of our facility showing where it sits on the edge of the park.
There are a number of different brochures in here that give you a sense of what we sell and the struggle that we are up against. For example, on the ``Journey to the Edge for a Restorative Getaway,'' I do not put a little picture of a personal watercraft in the background because it is not compatible with what I am selling.
Our lake is very shallow. The people who get in the boats here could be 100 metres offshore and be standing with their heads above the water. The personal watercraft can and often do travel between people swimming out in the water.
The smell of gasoline in the water an hour after the last Jet Ski has left is distasteful. I did not have to put up with this five years ago.
Another thing we offer is canoe trips to see moose. There are fewer moose visible these days from our lake, but we do see them in Algonquin Provincial Park. The loons and herons on our lake are somewhat endangered by these vehicles. It is covered in the report, so I will let it go at that.
``Arts in the Wild'' is a big partnership activity offering people a learning experience in our environment. A Jet Ski does not go with the Tom Thomson painting experience. When you are sitting on an island offering these experiences to people who are paying $700 for the weekend, a Jet Ski zipping by does not cut it.
Paddling Ontario is one example. There are 24 members now. These are all people who offer non-motorized experiences.
On our lake, five different companies offer the type of experiences we do. None of them offer motorboats. None of them even owns a motorboat, let alone a Jet Ski.
This lake is different. This is an article from the New York Times, ``In Canada, Wet Meets Wild''; ``A Novice Paddles to Her Heritage''; and ``Canoeing in Algonquin Park: Little Traffic on a Watery Highway.'' This was a three-page article on our facility in the New York Times. Guests who have picked this up have some idea of what they are getting into. Imagine being the guide taking out those people who are excited to see the Canadian wilderness as they paddle down the Amable du Fond River to Algonquin Provincial Park. They may have seen a motorboat on the river, but a Sea-Doo comes flying by them just as they are entering the mouth of the river. It is very distasteful. It is not compatible with the product that Canada is offering the world.
Please, senators, this bill must go forward and be made as strong as possible.
This is a partnership we have with Ontario Northland. We are marketing this to corporate executive types in downtown Toronto: Get on the train. Go out and paddle. This is a multi-thousand dollar marketing campaign that is threatened. It is just not compatible.
After we sat down and said, ``Let us start putting together and investing all that we have into this project. Let us invest everything we have,'' to have an individual come along and destroy that, behaving in a 100 per cent legal manner, is not right. I urge honourable senators to do something to protect and encourage investment in these types of resources.
On the last page of the document I have given you, I am suggesting some things that this bill could do. Bill S-10 can allow for the establishment of restrictions on personal watercraft on bodies of water that abut provincial parks or conservation reserves, so that you can encourage entrepreneurs to start businesses with some measure of protection for the investment that they are making.
Local communities could identify themselves as being places to go for quiet. A few years ago I wanted to start a new marketing campaign. I thought, you know, this is the marketing campaign of the century: ``Quiet.''
In a forest without a body of water, you can provide people with quiet and nature sounds. You can guarantee that not one of these vehicles will come by. However, everybody wants the waterfront. People want to be on the water. Can we not protect just a few bodies of water from these vehicles when we have thousands and thousands of square kilometres of water where they can go?
I am out in the middle of nowhere. There is not even electricity on this lake. We are solar powered. The residents of this lake have said, ``Do not bring hydro in because it will destroy everything. There will be too many people, too many expectations, bigger homes, the whole nine yards happening out there.'' The residents do not want telephones. There are no telephones except for little satellite computer telephones that we use. The lake has historically been an access to Algonquin Provincial Park, and there is no way to stop Jet Skis from ruining it all.
I hope honourable senators have some questions for me. I could go on and on.
Senator Finnerty: How many cottages are there on this little lake?
Mr. Lucier: It is covered in the document. There are 50 buildings on the lake, if you look at a topographic map, but those are not all cottages. There are 30 to 40 cottages on the lake. Three cottages have Jet Skis, but this is a public lake.
Senator Finnerty: How do they get access to it if everything is private?
Mr. Lucier: People can drive to the lake and put a boat in the water. That is what happens in Algonquin Park. You drive there and put the canoe in the water. You can do that with Jet Skis, and people do.
They may come up to visit at a cottage.
Senator Finnerty: I did not know you could do that on a private lake.
Mr. Lucier: There is public access to most lakes.
Senator Finnerty: I find it odd, but they cannot go into the park.
Mr. Lucier: They do take them down the river but you cannot legislate common sense with the operation of these vehicles, unfortunately. You have to provide an opportunity for people to keep them away from an area. Many of these people come up from Toronto for the weekend, rent a vehicle, and go out on the lake to find a spot to camp. By the time the OPP go out to investigate, they are usually gone.
Senator Finnerty: How large is the lake?
Mr. Lucier: It is about 400 hectares, which is two kilometres by two kilometres.
Senator Buchanan: It is not very big.
Senator Finnerty: It is too small for watercraft.
Mr. Lucier: I was hoping that this issue would be covered in the bill. Scientists should look at the carrying capacity of a lake to have gasoline dumped into it. How big should a lake be to accommodate personal watercraft? Could we draw a line and create a limit according to the size of the lake?
Senator Spivak: It has been done in the United States in many areas.
Mr. Lucier: Our lake is so shallow that most of it is less than 10 feet deep, which is perfect for these vehicles. However, you can smell the pollution they are dumping into the lake. Many people draw their drinking water from the lake. You can just imagine going to the well and smelling gasoline in your water or going to the lake to get your water and smelling gasoline. Algonquin Provincial Park was established to protect the water quality, which is one of the reasons that these vehicles are prevented from going in there and the size of motors is limited. The water from our lake all flows into Algonquin Provincial Park. It has been identified by the Minister of Natural Resources as an enhanced management area for its ecotourism value — for what we do — and for its natural heritage value.
We can legislate land use in Ontario. There is a great document on Ontario's Living Legacy site, but it is a land-use strategy. You can identify areas as having these special values, but you cannot do anything about the water except at the federal level.
Senator Buchanan: Is that your wife behind you, Mr. Lucier?
Mr. Lucier: Yes. I would like to introduce a few people here with me today. A couple of Canada World Youth students arrived this week to stay with us. We have Felix from Kenya and Mussa from Tanzania. As well, my wife Martha and my son Timothy, who has come to Ottawa today to learn about the process of government, are with me today.
The Chairman: You are all very welcome.
Senator Buchanan: First, your wife mentioned something to you that is interesting. There are restrictions in Algonquin Park.
Mr. Lucier: Most parks are conservation reserves.
Senator Buchanan: Is that not under the federal government?
Mr. Lucier: It is under the provincial government, which can draw lines around a protected area such as that. They develop regulations for parks to prohibit certain vehicles.
The Chairman: Is Algonquin a provincial park?
Mr. Lucier: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Most federal parks, except for one in Manitoba —
Mr. Lucier: — Riding Mountain National Park. I spoke to a person involved in the process there and they have banned personal watercraft in the park.
One of the main problems is that if you want to see growth in this industry, you have to protect people's investments.
Senator Buchanan: You were here when the other witnesses gave some evidence.
Mr. Lucier: Yes.
Senator Buchanan: Have you or has anyone else on your lake made an application to prevent personal watercraft from going there?
Mr. Lucier: I spend a great deal of my time trying to protect access to the resources that we enjoy by dealing with forestry companies in respect of forests and the trails we use on Crown land and by trying to look after the values that my guests are coming here for. It seems to me that for all individuals, there is a maze set up and the cheese is in the middle. We spend years and years trying to get to the cheese.
Senator Buchanan: Did you hear Mr. Meisner? He said that applications could be made to restrict personal watercraft.
Mr. Lucier: Senator Buchanan, I heard him say that. The truth of the matter is there is paperwork involved, and having dealt with forestry companies, I have learned that they will protect what you have but they do not want to put anything on paper. They will look at an individual circumstance and shake their heads at the thought of dealing with all of it. They prefer to move on, leave people alone and continue their activities. That is not the way to do it.
The Chairman: The short answer to Senator Buchanan's question is you have not made an application to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a restriction.
Mr. Lucier: That is correct, I have not.
Senator Christensen: I am from the Yukon, so I know all about wilderness. I just returned from a nine-day kayaking trip in southeast Alaska's icy waters, photographing and following humpback whales, which was wonderful. There were no personal watercraft or boats.
There is a national ecotourism association, is there not?
Mr. Lucier: No, there is not.
Senator Christensen: I think there is. I know some of our people in the North belong to it.
Mr. Lucier: There is no formal national ecotourism association but there are provincial associations in Quebec and Saskatchewan.
Senator Christensen: There is certainly a territorial association. It is my understanding they have a loose national association as well.
Mr. Lucier: The Canadian Tourism Commission has a kind of development club that involves people who do this kind of thing across Canada, but there is no formal organization.
Senator Christensen: There is a major problem in all of this. Certainly, Senator Spivak has gone to a great deal of trouble to develop a piece of proposed legislation to try to address this problem.
We are dealing with an S-bill, which means that it began in the Senate. It then must go to the House of Commons after it passes third reading in the Senate. When it comes before the House, if the minister is not willing to accept it or to incorporate it into existing legislation, it will not get very far. We do have a problem, and as I say, Senator Spivak has brought a great deal of excellent information forward, including documentation. I think that we should try to address the problem.
We were told just a little while ago that if we could get a national schedule, then persons such as you could apply to the department. If that schedule is in place, then the application could be made. It seems to me that it would be excellent, not only for ecotourism associations, but also for wilderness tourism organizations right across the country to get on the department's case and in fact get that schedule in place so that you could avoid all of the myriad of paperwork that is currently required.
Certainly, Senator Spivak has done the homework to back up what is required. However, you have not done that.
Mr. Lucier: Senator Christensen, there is no national association.
Senator Christensen: There are tourism associations.
Mr. Lucier: There are tourism associations, yes.
Senator Christensen: There is a meeting next month, in Montreal, of the national group.
Senator Spivak: I just wanted to say that in my conversations with the minister's staff, I said to them, ``You do it; this legislation is unnecessary.'' I got no answer, really, but it would be very simple if the minister put that schedule in. The only thing then that would need to be addressed — and I think they are looking at that — is the process of the boating restriction regulations; just do not ask. There is not enough staff; it can take four years; at any stage, someone can say, ``Forget it.'' That is the other thing. There are actually a couple of problems here.
Senator Christensen: That applies to your bill as well if it were implemented?
Senator Spivak: No, they would not go through the same process. It just says, ``goes to the minister.''
Senator Christensen: It still has to be enforced. There is a problem, we have identified it, and it seems to me there should be some way to solve this, because the possibility of two pieces of legislation to deal with watercraft just does not work. How do we do it, and how do we make recommendations so that it can happen? That is all you want; that is all any of us want.
Senator Spivak: Yes. It is really not me. It is the people out there.
Senator Christensen: It is everyone who deals with wilderness. That is one of our greatest assets in Canada, our water and our wilderness. Economically, it is a huge seller right across the world, as we have what most people do not have any more. I am trying to think out loud and not getting very far here.
Senator Spivak: There are some areas where municipalities have put in place regulations. If anyone were to challenge them, they would be struck down because only the federal government that can do that, but actually they have not been challenged. I do not know. Maybe you could try that route while we are waiting for a positive solution.
The Chairman: Sort of like vigilante law.
Senator Spivak: You are right.
Mr. Lucier: Along with legislation comes an opportunity to educate the public about it. At present, we are fearful of being vigilantes on the other side, posting signs that the cottage association or the lake association or the municipality has determined this shall not happen here. People tear down signs that restrict their personal rights all the time — this happens on our trails in the neighbourhood.
If there is a document or a force of law somewhere that backs up that sign, it will stay there; and then it becomes normal. Let us develop a norm. Right now in the province of Ontario, if an individual wanted to start a remote place like we have — a fly-in operation, let us say — and establish the type of thing we are doing on a remote northern lake, there is nothing to stop anyone from coming in, gaining Crown land access to that lake, tearing it up and parking a vehicle there and just doing it over and over again. I think force of legislation would stimulate economic development in this industry, because individuals would have a framework to operate from; they would not have to go through the maze. They could go to a regional or municipal government and say, ``That is the tool — that law right there is the tool. I want to invest X hundred thousand or X million dollars and develop a project here, but I have to know it will be forever protected.'' If it were possible to build these kinds of facilities in protected areas, it would be done. People would be building them in conservation reserves or in provincial or national parks. You cannot do it.
That is why we are on the edge.
Senator Finnerty: Did you ever try meeting with all the cottage owners? We did on our lake. We had a meeting of the minds. When it was explained in detail, when we showed the water tests and how it was deteriorating over the years with motors on the lake, everyone finally agreed that it was a serious problem.
Mr. Lucier: I think with this industry it goes way beyond the cottage association. As I mentioned, there are 200 people who every weekend would vote to get those Jet Skis away.
The Chairman: If you went to the other people on your lake and got them to agree that there would not be any Sea- Doos, would not that help?
Mr. Lucier: That would help, but I think the issue I am raising here is that it is a public lake. It is a public resource, and the people coming to this lake do not want them there. Hundreds of them every weekend do not want them there. Even if the cottage association could get 85 per cent saying, ``Okay, we do not want them there,'' and went to a minister to maybe sign it or not, and now add 200 names to the 20, you have 220 to 3. I think there is a problem here that goes beyond cottagers. This is what I am addressing here. If I could add up those hundreds of people using this lake, it would go beyond a formal request.
Senator Spivak: That is the point, you see. People do not always have time and energy to do this so you have to set up a framework to make it easy for them. We will have to wait and see.
Senator Finnerty: We just harassed everybody who came on the lake and they quit coming. We made life so miserable, they did not want to come.
Mr. Lucier: Did you run trip lines across the lake?
Senator Finnerty: Just about — one of the neighbours had a shotgun and fired it in the air.
Senator Buchanan: I want to go back to this Algonquin Park. Are you saying that on a lake in Algonquin Park, personal watercraft are not permitted?
Mr. Lucier: On thousands of lakes in Algonquin Park.
Senator Buchanan: Where did that restriction come from — under what authority?
Mr. Lucier: The park?
Senator Buchanan: It does not matter.
Mr. Lucier: Are you suggesting that individuals made that happen?
Senator Buchanan: Is there a lake? Is there an Algonquin Lake? I am not familiar with the area.
Mr. Lucier: No, there are thousands of lakes.
Senator Buchanan: Are you saying those personal watercraft are not permitted on those lakes?
Mr. Lucier: In the provincial park, that is right.
Senator Buchanan: Why?
Mr. Lucier: Because Algonquin Provincial Park has all kinds of restrictions on behaviours that were established, many of them —
Senator Buchanan: How did those restrictions become enacted?
Mr. Lucier: The park has a formal management plan. Algonquin Provincial Park is quite different from any other park.
Senator Buchanan: It would have to be federal.
The Chairman: No. There are provincial parks in, I think, at least seven or eight of the provinces.
Senator Buchanan: There must have been a delegation of legislation.
The Chairman: No, they are on provincial Crown land and subject to provincial administration. They are owned and run by the province, which makes the rules.
Senator Spivak: It is different. They have a mandate and a mission and they operate under those rules.
Senator Buchanan: I know that. However, why is it that the Government of Ontario could not administer your lake?
Mr. Lucier: This is an issue I brought to the World Tourism Organization. I was in Cuiaba, Brazil, when the delegation was preparing for the International Year of Ecotourism, and this issue ended up in the formal document that came out of that meeting.
Conservation areas, inherently, have conservation measures put in place to protect the resource. The problem, such as we have, with access to those resources is that we have to develop outside that border, and those restrictions end at the border. That is why there is a line.
You have to have a buffer there. The document that came out said there is a need to protect the values that people are coming for in the protected area outside the protected area also.
Senator Buchanan: There is something missing here, because under the Canadian Constitution all matters affecting navigation on all waterways in this country are federal responsibilities.
Mr. Lucier: Yes. That is why I am here.
Senator Buchanan: It is an exclusive federal jurisdiction. How did the Government of Ontario get past that exclusivity?
Mr. Lucier: I do not know.
Senator Buchanan: How did they take over control of those lakes in provincial parks? It had to be delegated to them by the federal government.
Senator Spivak: Probably.
Mr. Lucier: I do not know, because Ontario just created a number of new reserves and conservation areas. They will have restrictions.
Senator Buchanan: We created them in Nova Scotia too, but the RCMP patrols those lakes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Our provincial government never had control of the lakes. We did, if the federal government delegated the authority to us. The federal government would have to have delegated the authority to the Government of Ontario to give them exclusive jurisdiction over navigation on those lakes in the provincial parks.
Mr. Lucier: One would think.
Senator Finnerty: It is possible. Where our cottage is, there were 27 lakes. The provincial government said that they would make this a Northern Ontario park. It is called Kettle Lake Park. Only canoes are allowed.
Senator Buchanan: That authority had to be delegated by the federal government, because the federal government, under the Constitution, has exclusive navigational authority on all waterways in this country.
The Chairman: The reverse is true. The Government of Canada cannot create a national park without agreement of the province.
Senator Buchanan: They do have authority to expropriate.
The Chairman: It has never been done.
Senator Buchanan: They tried to do it in Nova Scotia once, but they did not succeed.
The Chairman: We should find out the answer to that question.
Senator Buchanan: Too bad we did not ask the experts when they were here.
The Chairman: We should have, but we were not thinking of provincial parks at that time.
Senator Christensen: You were talking about the World Tourism Association and the Year of Ecotourism. Is that this year or next year?
Mr. Lucier: That was 2002.
Senator Buchanan: May I read something to you?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Senator Buchanan: ``The public's right to navigate is recognized under common law. In terms of our discussion to date, the Constitution Act provides the authority to make laws to regulate all matters relating to navigation. This exclusivity of the federal jurisdiction has been confirmed by the Supreme Court a number of times.''
Senator Spivak: Yes.
Mr. Lucier: Your suggestion, Senator Buchanan, is that the province got permission from the federal government to do this. I would think so.
The Chairman: Perhaps they just did it vigilante style and nobody questioned them.
Senator Spivak: That happens in places, but not in parks. For example, there are no Ski-Doos in Banff, a federal park.
The Chairman: There is no McDonalds in Banff. There are lots of things you cannot do.
Senator Spivak: That is the way to go.
The Chairman: I will be the hostile questioner. You have talked to us mostly today about the danger to your business. You are on an industrial quest, in effect. The first thing that you said is that there are lots of places where people who have these machines can go and use them. Where is that?
Mr. Lucier: Every waterway in Canada.
The Chairman: What about the people who live on those waterways?
Mr. Lucier: Individuals can take these vehicles on any waterway where there is public access.
The Chairman: Right, but your argument would carry over to say that people living on any waterway who would rather not have these vehicles would also be able to apply, under whatever regulations that exist or under this bill if it passes, to have those personal watercraft restricted from that waterway, whether it was the St. Lawrence River or Lake Huron.
Mr. Lucier: That is one way, which I would suggest that the bill look at. The other way would be by size of lake. Small lakes should have them removed as well.
The Chairman: Some Americans have done that. You would agree that whatever objections you have, from the business standpoint, not the aesthetic one, might also pertain to people on any other waterway, including the St. Lawrence? Do not people who have cottages on the Thousand Islands in the St. Lawrence River have the same rights to quiet?
Mr. Lucier: The case that can be brought for this lake is the historical nature of what has taken place. This lake has been used for over a hundred years recreationally by canoeists.
The Chairman: In Canada, every lake was used first by canoeists.
Are there any operators of Sea-Doo rentals and the like on your lake?
Mr. Lucier: No, there are not.
The Chairman: One assumes there are a dozen or 15 places where I could rent a personal watercraft and take it to that lake and zip around?
Mr. Lucier: I do not know the names and addresses of people who rent these vehicles.
The Chairman: What about their businesses? You talked about the importance of economic development. We have heard people who are in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling personal watercraft talk about the damage to their industry and the employment problems that will occur if this bill were to pass. An economic development question cuts both ways. I do not know how many people you employ, but that industry employs thousands. Economics is a tough argument here.
Mr. Lucier: Would you like me to respond?
The Chairman: Yes. That is why I asked the question.
Mr. Lucier: Economics is a very important issue regarding Jet Skis. There is no doubt about it. The economic impact of my business employing 10 or 12 people on a long weekend or 7 people year-round is not great. I am only one business and already we employ 35 per cent of what the forestry industry in our area employs. I am just one small operator. If you add up all the operators on our lake, we employ more than the forestry industry in our district. That is a significant impact, and it is growing like crazy.
Sea kayaking tours in the province of Ontario grew exponentially. It doubled last year. It will double again. It is not a stagnant industry. We are growing.
I do not believe that the Sea-Doo industry will be adversely affected by having a few lakes as quiet areas. We are creating opportunities for business by creating quiet areas.
The Chairman: I do not know if we are talking about 1 or 2 or 10. Your argument boils down to saving your business instead of theirs.
Mr. Lucier: My argument does not say anything about their business.
The Chairman: Exactly.
Senator Spivak: This bill does not ban Sea-Doos. People might ban them on one little lake. On the lake right next to it, the people may not care.
You have to balance things, as the government does constantly. Some people have said that the trees in the forest are worth more standing than cut.
We have a scarce resource here in Canada. We have wilderness, which many countries do not have. If we destroy it, we are crazy.
This is a business argument. It seems to me that there are ways to balance this. You have dirt bike racing in certain areas. You have drag racing in certain areas. You have horse racing in certain areas.
If you want to have Sea-Doos, designate some areas where they can go. Leave the rest of the people alone. Believe me, they will not be out of business.
Senator Finnerty: There are thousands of lakes.
Senator Spivak: They will not be out of business, because if they can convince the public that this is a good thing, the public will snap it up. This is the free market, you know.
The Chairman: Not exactly.
Senator Spivak: They want to prevent the free market from working.
Senator Buchanan: Could I make a comment? We mentioned the difference between here and the U.S. I spend some time in New Hampshire from time to time. The lakes of New Hampshire, particularly the ones I know, are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state's constitution, not the federal. They do not get involved at all.
Someone once said the federal government has exclusive power to do this, that and the other, and they cannot delegate, but I am here to tell you that they can. In Nova Scotia and other provinces, under the Criminal Code of Canada, gambling is an exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Government of Canada, but they have delegated that authority to the provinces, if the provinces want it. The provincial governments run the gambling casinos in Nova Scotia and in Ontario.
Senator Spivak: We have to take that up, too.
Senator Buchanan: In the same way, the federal government has exclusive rights over navigation on all waterways, and they delegated that to the Government of Ontario. Go to the Government of Ontario. The election is on its way. Mr. Eves is a great guy.
Senator Finnerty: I know a guy named Dalton who is going to be the next premier.
Mr. Lucier: I would like to make a closing statement. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Senate to ensure that the Canadian Tourism Commission is offering what they say they are offering. The mission of the Canadian Tourism Commission is to offer people an opportunity to connect with nature and to experience diverse cultures and communities. Connect with nature — that is what the Canadian Tourism Commission wants to offer internationally. We cannot offer that right now. That is what we are selling the world, and we cannot supply it.
Senator Spivak: It is in every magazine.
Mr. Lucier: The vision is to provide world-class natural and leisure experiences — world class. Where is our world- class flat water paddling if we cannot restrict Jet Skis? The Canadian Tourism vision says that we do that while preserving and sharing Canada's clean, safe, natural environments. The tourism industry will be guided by the values of respect, integrity and empathy.
If the Canadian Tourism Commission is a federally mandated body that works with industry and has that as their mandate, it is the Senate's responsibility to call on the Government of Canada to make sure that there is consistency and that we can indeed have an emerging ecotourism industry in Canada that places us internationally as the best destination in the world for silent paddling environments.
I thank honourable senators for the opportunity to make this presentation and for their well-thought-out questions.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.