Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our government's position on Motion No. 441. As members know, this motion was moved by the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, who has suggested that the process for restricting the use of recreational boats should be changed.
The hon. member has proposed that the government review the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations to streamline the process and make it easier for local administrations to request restrictions on the use of vessels in certain waters.
Our government believes the process that is currently in place under these regulations needs no review. It is the result of consultation with Canadians and was designed specifically to provide an effective response to the legitimate needs of local communities.
This process has worked successfully for many years. Since 2008, it has been required under the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, which falls under the authority of Transport Canada. Before that, it was covered by the boating restriction regulations, for which the Canadian Coast Guard was responsible.
I would like to outline the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations process for the House to explain how it works and why it is effective. First I want to make clear that navigation is an exclusively federal responsibility under the Constitution Act, 1867. As a result, only the federal government can regulate it.
This was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2010 decision. In Quebec, the municipality of St-Adolphe-d'Howard enacted a bylaw prohibiting access by non-residents to local jetties, but the court overturned it on the grounds that the municipality did not have the legal authority to set its own rules.
However, under the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, any level of government, whether municipal, provincial or territorial, can ask Transport Canada to impose restrictions on the use of boats in a particular body of water. These restrictions may be requested to increase safety or to protect the marine environment. They may also be proposed in the public interest, for example, to reduce noise.
Restrictions may prohibit all boats from accessing a given waterway, or they may limit access only by certain kinds of vessels, such as those with a specified engine power or type of propulsion. The regulations make it possible to impose speed limits, restrict certain activities such as water skiing, or prohibit events like regattas.
These restrictions may apply at all times or be specific to certain times of the day, week, month or year. They may apply to an entire waterway or only part of it. That is flexibility. This flexibility allows local authorities to request restrictions that are fair and that accommodate boaters while also acknowledging the rights of other community members.
At the same time, imposing restrictions in this way should be a last resort. No one wants to be subject to regulatory requirements that can be made arbitrarily or without sufficient input from those who would be directly affected by them. The government would never consider making restrictions in that way.
For this reason, a requesting authority must demonstrate to Transport Canada that reasonable efforts have been made to work with communities to resolve any conflicts around use of the waterway in question. For example, alternative approaches must have been tried and documented. These include enforcing provisions of existing acts or regulations, as well as educating boaters and others through outreach about the effects of their activities.
This can be achieved, for example, by posting notices at waterway access points, organizing public meetings, contacting local associations to ask them to inform their members, conducting a flyer campaign, or appearing on local radio or television shows. These are inexpensive but effective means of reaching people in the community.
The authority should also show that all appropriate stakeholders have been consulted and have had the opportunity to make their views known. It is important to demonstrate that stakeholders have come to a consensus on what the best solution actually is and that this can be achieved only through a regulatory amendment.
Transport Canada offers assistance to local administrations that are considering how to address issues relating to recreational boating. Communities can also consult the local authorities' guide, which is available from the department.
What are some of the other legal considerations? If the requesting authorities are able to demonstrate a clear need for a restriction and can also show that all other possibilities have been exhausted, they can apply to Transport Canada for a regulatory amendment, something, by the way, that does not cost them anything.
As members of the House are already aware, there is a legal process in place for amending regulations. That process is guided by the Statutory Instruments Act and by the “Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management”. It applies to any proposed amendment to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, just as it applies to proposals to make any other regulations.
These instruments require a review of proposed regulations to ensure that they do not conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or with the Canadian Bill of Rights. They must not exceed the legal authority under which they are proposed.
Additionally, the impact of any proposed regulation must be adequately assessed, including a quantitative and qualitative analysis of expected costs and benefits, before cabinet considers the matter. The cabinet directive also requires that, where appropriate, first nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples are to be consulted.
This review of the legal and social impacts of regulatory requirements is an essential part of the process. It forms an important system of checks and balances that helps protect all Canadians from measures that are unfair or that would infringe their rights.
Furthermore, any proposed regulatory amendment is normally also published in the Canada Gazette, part 1 and is then open to public comment for a specified period. This ensures that potentially affected members of the public have every opportunity to participate in the process. All comments received are recorded and duly considered.
In the event that a proposed regulation is significantly altered following such comments, it is then re-submitted to the Canada Gazette, part 1 and is opened up to public consideration a second time.
This careful but rigorous process for making regulations also applies to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations themselves, which came into effect only after the necessary review and public consultation.
Consultation with stakeholders does not end when regulations come into effect. Transport Canada regularly consults with Canadians in various ways. For instance, recreational boaters communicate with Transport Canada officials through the National Recreational Boating Advisory Council, which provides advice on all questions of interest to the boating community. These include safety, security, and enforcement issues and related regulatory initiatives.
The Canadian Marine Advisory Council and its regional counterparts also hold regular meetings with representatives of Transport Canada. At these gatherings as well, recreational boating is a topic of discussion, and there is a standing committee dedicated to it.
In these ways, Transport Canada maintains close ties with the marine community, including those with an interest in recreational boating.
This ongoing contact with stakeholders, including provinces and municipalities, keeps the department informed of their concerns. As a result, Transport Canada is well positioned to take their views on marine policy, legislation, and regulation into full account.
To conclude, if a complaint is made to Transport Canada officials about this process, we will continue to respond to and support the community by developing their boating restrictions and processing their requests, where needed, for Governor in Council approval.
The process includes appropriate checks and balances to make certain that the government does not intervene inappropriately. It encourages communities to find ways to solve their own problems, and it requires public input at several stages. It also contains safeguards to ensure that regulatory measures do not infringe upon Canadians' constitutional or other legal rights.
In short, the system already takes great care to prevent unnecessary or unjust regulation. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to vote against Motion No. 441.