Transport Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

[André Bélanger]

Let's take paddleboarding as an example. It's important to note that paddleboarding is the equivalent of BIXI biking on rivers and lakes. It's an extremely accessible activity, and it's becoming increasingly widespread. Regulations must set limits on boating speed, indeed, but they must also define separate reserved areas for swimmers, for low-wake craft, and for large motorboats.

This type of regulation exists on public roads, but not on bodies of water. People have the impression that a body of water is not a public highway. So they think it's every man for himself and that the water belongs to everyone.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

If we were ever to establish a national regulatory framework, we'd have to keep in mind the notion of cohabitation and take into account the various uses. There should be places where certain uses are not allowed, for example.

There are about 10,000 lakes in Quebec, and I don't know how many rivers. If we had to regulate all the lakes and rivers individually, it would take hundreds of years.

Should there be some sort of basic regulation to build on, without the need to post regulations everywhere?

[André Bélanger]

Imagine the opposite. Right now, the burden of proof is on the applicant. You have to show that there was no awareness among users and that water bodies should therefore be regulated.

If, on the contrary, we allowed some form of temporary regulation, measuring its impact on both the population and the water bodies, and regularly reviewed this regulation, we could have a national standard.

This could make it easier to implement regulations and validate them quickly. The burden of proof would then be on demonstrating that these regulations are not appropriate, rather than demonstrating the opposite, i.e., that regulations are needed, which is currently the case.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

This leads me to ask you a question I've already asked another witness. What could be considered a reasonable timeframe for the implementation of a regulation, from the moment a local will is expressed and the moment a process is set in motion?

Witnesses told the committee that it would take three or four years, from start to finish, for a regulation to be put in place. Personally, I've seen a case where the process took seven years.

I'd like your opinion on that.

[André Bélanger]

We need a maximum of two years. As we know, elections are held every four years, and it takes two years to reach a consensus with elected representatives and officials. It will take another two years for regulations to be put in place.

If there's a change in elected officials following an election, we've at least won a regulation. Consequently, a two-year period seems perfectly reasonable to me. We need a first year to test the mechanisms and a second to implement them a little more formally.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

You raised the notion of effectiveness as regards three aspects, namely the social aspect, the aspect related to the environment and biodiversity, and the aspect affecting safety.

Do these three aspects come together at some point?

[André Bélanger]

Currently, the Boating Safety Guide covers issues related to user safety. In terms of environmental capacity, there is a challenge, as Mr. Rennie demonstrated earlier. As for social capacity, this is the community's ability to accept nuisances or to accept interactions between the type of craft and the type of use.

On the Bonaventure River, for example, fishers don't have the same perception of the water as canoeists. So we have to find a balance, and that's what we mean by cohabitation. This is measured by surveys and satisfaction assessments. When we do this type of exercise, we're able to grasp the population's receptiveness to the regulations.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

So the notion of cohabitation should be added to the process, as it is not currently taken into account.

[André Bélanger]

Yes, it should be added.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

It's 5:25 p.m. Mr. Bélanger and Ms. Massey-Cantin, I know you have to leave. On behalf of all the members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for joining us, and wish you a pleasant evening.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There we go, Mr. Chair. I guess the witnesses I wanted to ask questions to have to leave, so that's unfortunate.

Which witnesses do we still have with us? I see Mr. Thomson and Mr. Gullick on Zoom.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have Dr. Vermaire and Dr. Rennie. The two professors are here with us, sir.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's fantastic.

Thank you to the IT folks for the view of the room there.

Thanks to all of our witnesses for joining us for this study. It's a really interesting one.

I was remarking at one of our last meetings about how different the context is across Canada. We're talking about recreational boating and its impact on aquatic environments, and a lot of that seems to be a result of high density of use. There are many parts of northern Canada where the density of use by recreational boaters is exceptionally low, so I would assume that the impacts are consequently low as well.

Listening to Dr. Rennie's and Dr. Vermaire's testimonies, it sounds like there's really a proven link between intensive use by pleasure craft and these impacts on shorelines and on the aquatic environment.

In your view, is the extent of the impacts worth a concerted federal approach to regulating recreational boating to minimize those impacts?

[Dr. Colin Rennie]

As an academic, I'm always much better at the science and the engineering than the policy. I think that's more in your purview.

From what I've seen, I think the general understanding is that boat wake can impact shorelines, both in terms of bank erosion and impact on species. For example, Professor Vermaire has been looking at the impact on nests of shoreline birds. If there were a policy that tried to minimize those impacts, I certainly would support it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Are the findings that you've come up with in your research fairly consistent with what you see across the academic literature, or are there varying findings from the research community when it comes to the impact on aquatic environments?

[Dr. Colin Rennie]

I think I can say that what we've seen is consistent with previous literature, yes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Dr. Vermaire, do you want to add your thoughts on that?

[Dr. Jesse Vermaire]

I agree that it's consistent across the literature, but a lot of factors go into the impact. A lot of that has to do with shoreline habitat as well. If the shoreline has its natural vegetation there, including aquatic plants, the impact tends to be less, because the vegetation reduces wave energy.

In terms of regulating boats for shoreline erosion, I think it's also important to think about the shoreline itself and what that looks like in terms of its vegetation and also its slope and topography and things like that.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This committee study builds on a previous study that was proposed by my colleague, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, which looked at shoreline erosion on the St. Lawrence River.

Looking at other jurisdictions around the world that have experienced this kind of erosion and have connected it to recreational boating, are there some jurisdictions that you feel are managing those effects in a more proactive or a more progressive way than Canada is currently?

[Dr. Colin Rennie]

I can't say that I have an answer to that question. That's a very good question that's worth pursuing.

Last time, I did an extended brief after the meeting, based on questions that emerged, and I sent that back to the committee. It might be worth taking look at that.

[Dr. Jesse Vermaire]

I'd agree with that. I don't know off the top of my head head either.

I do know that there are maybe not jurisdictions, but other academics looking at different options for where you need to harden shorelines. Natural shorelines are always the best option in conserving that vegetation, but in instances where shoreline hardening needs to be done to stop erosion, people are studying different methods that can still provide shoreline stability but increase the biodiversity around it, as opposed to just riprap or a plain concrete wall.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

I'll turn now to Mr. Thomson and Mr. Gullick.

Both of you gentlemen mentioned the flare program and your concerns about that. I'm wondering how the government could best finance any programs around collecting and disposing of flares from recreational boaters. It seems to me that an obvious approach would be to add a deposit so that there's some incentive for boaters to return them properly and have them disposed of properly or to incentivize someone else to pick them up from the beach or from the garbage and dispose of them properly.

Has there ever been a discussion about a deposit program similar to one we have for soft drink containers?

[John Gullick]

Not that I'm aware of.

That's part of the problem, because there is no way of funding the collection and disposal of flares as you have suggested doing through having a deposit or whatever.

There's also the cost to the marinas and the chandleries. They have to have bunkers to store these flares while they're waiting to ship them off to one of the manufacturers for disposal. There's a cost there as well. It's very difficult to get people to even think about that, let alone really do something about it.

We introduced this program in 2014—by “we”, I mean Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons, CanBoat—because there was a growing need to be able to dispose of these flares. We got funding for that program over eight years from the boating safety contribution program, but that funding stopped last year. Even though we applied, we were not accepted.

My understanding is that this year we reapplied for next year and the two years following, and that the program had been put on hold—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gullick.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We have Mr. Lawrence next.

Mr. Lawrence, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The majority of my questions will be for Mr. Gullick and Mr. Thomson.

I'll start with you, Mr. Thomson.

We've heard a lot of talk about the luxury tax, but actually, in a lot of our testimony, it should really be renamed the “union workers and small business tax”. It's had a tremendous impact on the workers who construct these boats and a tremendous impact on those individuals who are involved in the tourist industry.

Would you agree with my analysis and, quite frankly, with the testimony of other witnesses?