Regulations Amending the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations: SOR/2023-274

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 157, Number 26

Registration
SOR/2023-274 December 8, 2023

CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001

P.C. 2023-1227 December 8, 2023

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations under subsection 136(1)^{footnote a} of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 ^{footnote b}.

Regulations Amending the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations

Amendments

1 (1) Subsection 2(4) of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations ^{footnote 1} is replaced by the following:

• (4) No person shall operate a power-driven vessel or a vessel driven by electrical propulsion that has an engine power greater than the maximum engine power set out in column 4 of Schedule 4 in the waters described in columns 1 to 3 of that Schedule.

(2) Subsection 2(6) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (6) No person shall operate a power-driven vessel or a vessel driven by electrical propulsion in the waters described in Schedule 7 for the purpose of towing a person on water skis or on any other sporting or recreational equipment, except during the permitted hours set out in that Schedule.
• (6.1) No person shall operate a power-driven vessel or a vessel driven by electrical propulsion in the waters described in Schedule 7.1 for the purpose of allowing a person to wake surf, except during the permitted hours set out in that Schedule.

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by replacing paragraph (b) with the following:

• (b) a person who holds a provincial or federal fishing permit and whose livelihood depends on fishing; or
• (c) a person who is operating a vessel for the purpose of exercising a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

3 The portion of section 4 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 4 If a local authority seeks, in respect of certain waters, the imposition of a restriction that is of the same nature as a restriction imposed by any of subsections 2(1) to (6.1) and 11(2), the local authority shall undertake public consultations with parties that would be affected by the proposed restriction and submit to the provincial authority in the province for which the restriction is proposed, or to the Minister if no provincial authority exists, a request together with a report that includes

4 Paragraph 5(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the placement has been authorized by the Minister under subsection 6(1) and, except in the case of a sign that provides information with respect to a restriction referred to in subsection 2(7) or section 14, the sign meets the requirements set out in the standard entitled Signage Requirements and Recommendations — Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, published by the Department of Transport, as amended from time to time; or

5 (1) Subsection 6(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• 6 (1) The Minister may authorize in writing any person or class of persons to place a sign in an area for the purpose of indicating that a restriction on the operation of vessels has been imposed by any of subsections 2(1) to (6.1) and 11(2).

(2) Paragraph 6(2)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) maintain the sign, while the sign is in place, in the form required by the standard entitled Signage Requirements and Recommendations — Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, published by the Department of Transport, as amended from time to time.

6 Sections 8 and 9 of the Regulations are repealed.

7 Subsection 11(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (3) No person shall hold, in the waters referred to in any of subsections 2(1) to (7), a sporting, recreational or public event or activity during which vessels would be operated in a manner that is contrary to those subsections, unless the person is authorized to do so by a permit issued under subsection 12(1).

8 (1) The portion of items 16 and 17 of the table to section 16 of the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 1 Persons or classes of persons
16	A person employed as community safety officer by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety and appointed as special constable under Saskatchewan’s The Police Act, 1990, S.S. 1990-91, c. P-15.01
17	A person employed as conservation officer by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety and appointed as special constable under Saskatchewan’s The Police Act, 1990, S.S. 1990-91, c. P-15.01

(2) The portion of item 18 of the table to section 16 of the French version of the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Article

Colonne 1 Personnes ou catégories de personnes

18

Constable spécial ou inspecteur municipal des entités suivantes au Québec : municipalité d’Austin, municipalité d’Ayer’s Cliff, canton de Potton, canton de Stanstead, canton de Hatley, municipalité de Hatley, ville de Magog, municipalité régionale de comté de Memphrémagog, municipalité du village de North Hatley, municipalité d’Ogden, municipalité de Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley, municipalité d’Adstock, municipalité de Lambton, municipalité de Saint-Romain, municipalité de Saint-Joseph-de-Coleraine, municipalité de Sainte-Praxède, municipalité de Stornoway, ville de Lac-Brome, municipalité de Saint-Ferdinand, municipalité de Saint-Adolphe-d’Howard, ville d’Estérel, ville de Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, municipalité du canton d’Orford, municipalité de Saint-Hippolyte, municipalité d’Ivry-sur-le-Lac et municipalité de Lac-Simon

(3) The table to section 16 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 28:

Item	Column 1 Persons or classes of persons	Column 2 Geographic location
29	An enforcement officer appointed under the Canada Marine Act and employed by the Windsor Port Authority	Windsor Port

9 The portion of item 16 under the heading “Northeast Region” of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description
16	That part of Wabamun Lake that is a zone extending 100 m into the lake from the shoreline of the area indicated by signs and buoys to be the Wabamun Lake Provincial Park beach area or swim area

10 The portion of item 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations in columns 1 and 3 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)
4	That part of Big Tub Harbour, Tobermory, west of a line connecting a point at coordinates 45°15′23.4″ 81°40′44.8″ and a point at coordinates 45°15′19.7″ 81°40′42.4″	45°15′23.21″ 81°40′36.52″

11 The portion of items 5 and 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations in column 3 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)
5	45°15′23.21″ 81°40′36.52″
6	45°15′23.21″ 81°40′36.52″

12 Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 39:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description	Column 2 Local Name	Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System)
40	That part of the Richelieu River from Jeannotte Island at coordinates 45°38′51.3″ 73°12′07″ to Cerfs Island at coordinates 45°38′43.7″ 73°12′06.3″	Richelieu River	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″

13 The heading of Schedule 4 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Waters on Which Power-driven Vessels and Vessels Driven by Electrical Propulsion Are Subject to an Engine Power Limit

14 Part 2 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations is amended by adding, under the heading “Georgian Bay Area”, the following after item 28:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 Specific Location	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)	Column 4 Maximum Speed in km/h Over the Ground
29	That part of Big Tub Harbour, Tobermory, from the shore to a line connecting a point at coordinates 45°15′29″ 81°40′21″ and a point at coordinates 45°15′29″ 81°40′02″, except for the waters described in items 4, 5 and 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 1		45°15′23.21″ 81°40′36.52″	10

15 The portion of item 258 of Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description
258	Bleu Lake, within 20 m of the shore, except where power-driven vessels and vessels driven by electrical propulsion that have an aggregate maximum power greater than 7.5 kW are prohibited in accordance with item 252 of Part 5 of Schedule 3 (see Note 4)

16 Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 339:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description	Column 2 Local Name	Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System)	Column 4 Maximum Speed in km/h Over the Ground
340	That part of the Saint-Maurice River between a line connecting points at coordinates 46°22′13.51″ 72°34′39.44″ and 46°22′07.51″ 72°34′44.60″ and a line connecting points at coordinates 46°22′05.20″ 72°33′26.81″ and 46°21′55.38″ 72°33′27.93″	Saint-Maurice River	46°20′58″ 72°31′44″	10
341	That part of the Saint-Maurice River between a line connecting points at coordinates 46°22′05.20″ 72°33′26.81″ and 46°21′55.38″ 72°33′27.93″ and a line beginning at a point at coordinates 46°21′34.05″ 72°30′24.82″ to a point at coordinates 46°21′23.32″ 72°30′24.24″ and ending at a point at coordinates 46°20′50.87″ 72°31′50.70″, except where the speed limit set out in item 342 applies and where the prohibition set out in item 8 of Part 6 of Schedule 1 applies	Saint-Maurice River	46°20′58″ 72°31′44″	5
342	That part of the Saint-Maurice River that is south of Saint-Christophe Island between a line connecting points at coordinates 46°21′57.01″ 72°32′48.81″ and 46°21′47.88″ 72°32′56.34″ and a line connecting points at coordinates 46°21′32.88″ 72°32′08.44″ and 46°21′23.83″ 72°32′20.05″	Saint-Maurice River	46°20′58″ 72°31′44″	10
343	Within 60 m from the shore of Duhamel Lake	Duhamel Lake	46°08′31″ 74°38′16″	10
344	Duhamel Lake outside the zone described in item 343	Duhamel Lake	46°08′31″ 74°38′16″	30
345	Within 50 m from the shore of the Richelieu River between the points at coordinates 45°49′43.7″ 73°08′27.5″ and 45°37′40.3″ 73°11′06.5″	Richelieu River	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″	10
346	That part of the Richelieu River from the Bellevue Campsite at coordinates 45°38′01.8″ 73°11′17.4″ to the Groupe Thomas Marine at coordinates 45°39′36.6″ 73°11′49.2″	Richelieu River	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″	10
347	That part of the Richelieu River from the Handfield Inn at coordinates 45°40′20″ 73°11′31.1″ to the Saint-Charles cable ferry at coordinates 45°41′38″ 73°11′22.5″	Richelieu River	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″	10
348	That part of the Richelieu River from 500 m upstream of the Régie de l’aqueduc intermunicipale du Bas-Richelieu water intake at coordinates 45°46′17.1″ 73°10′35.3″ to 300 m downstream of the Saint-Denis cable ferry at coordinates 45°47′18.6″ 73°09′42.4″	Richelieu River	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″	10
349	That part of the Richelieu River between the points at coordinates 45°49′43.7″ 73°08′27.5″ and 45°37′40.3″ 73°11′06.5″ outside the zones described in items 345, 346, 347 and 348 and item 40 of Part 6 of Schedule 2	Richelieu River	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″	50

17 The portion of item 26 under the heading “Northeast Region” of Part 5 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations in columns 1 and 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 Local Name
26	That part of Wabamun Lake known locally as Moonlight Bay at coordinates 53°33′39″ 114°26′50″, which includes all waters northeast of the rail bridge that crosses Wabamun Lake	Moonlight Bay

18 The heading of Schedule 7 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Waters in Which Towing a Person on Any Sporting or Recreational Equipment Is Prohibited Except During the Permitted Hours

19 Part 5 of Schedule 7 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 66:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description	Column 2 Permitted Hours	Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System)
67	Duhamel Lake		46°08′31″ 74°38′16″
68	That part of the Richelieu River described in items 345, 346, 347 and 348 of Part 3 of Schedule 6		45°42′43″ 73°11′28″
69	That part of the Richelieu River described in item 349 of Part 3 of Schedule 6	all hours except from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″
70	That part of the Richelieu River from the Groupe Thomas Marine at coordinates 45°39′36.6″ 73°11′49.2″ to the Handfield Inn at coordinates 45°40′20″ 73°11′31.1″		45°42′43″ 73°11′28″

20 Part 6 of Schedule 7 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 1:

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 Local Name	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)
2	Pinawa Channel between the points at coordinates 50°12′56″ 95°55′30.9″ and 50°16′12″ 95°52′46″ (see Note 1)	Pinawa Channel	50°12′56″ 95°55′30.9″ to 50°16′12″ 95°52′46″
3	Lee River within 100 m of the shore between the points at coordinates 50°18′41″ 95°51′29″ and 50°23′07.4″ 95°49′38.3″	Lee River	50°18′41″ 95°51′29″ to 50°23′07.4″ 95°49′38.3″

Note 1: This prohibition applies from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

21 The Regulations are amended by adding, after Schedule 7, the Schedule 7.1 set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

22 Schedule 9 to the Regulations is repealed.

Coming into Force

23 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

SCHEDULE

(Section 19)

SCHEDULE 7.1

(subsection 2(6.1))

Waters in Which Allowing a Person to Wake Surf Is Prohibited Except During the Permitted Hours

PART 1

Alberta

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 Local Name	Column 3 Location Reference (Alberta Land Titles Act Reference System)
Southern Region
1	Paine Lake	Mami Lake	2-28-W4
Central Region
1	Unnamed reservoir	Blood Indian Creek Reservoir	17-26-9-W4
East Slopes Region
1	Rock Lake		52-2-W6
2	Chain Lakes, as indicated by signs		14,15-2-W5
Northeast Region
1	Skeleton Lake, as indicated by signs		65-18,19-W4

PART 2

British Columbia

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 General Location	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)
1	Whiteswan Lake	Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park	50°08′23″ 115°29′00″
2	That portion of Premier Lake south of a line extending from the southeast corner of Lot 11021 to the northwest corner of Lot 11869	northeast of Wasa	49°56′31″ 115°39′20″
3	The Nicomekl River, from the railway trestle at Mud Bay to the dam west of King George Highway	Surrey	49°03′29″ 122°52′10″
4	Heffley Lake, the narrows and small bays at each end of the lake as designated by the signs	northeast of Kamloops	50°49′55″ 120°04′01″
5	Hidden Lake	east of Enderby	50°34′15″ 118°49′16″
6	Whitetail Lake	approximately 15 km northwest of Canal Flats	50°13′ 116°02′
7	Parts of Green Lake as signed	Whistler	50°09′ 122°57′
8	Big Bar Lake	near Clinton	51°19′ 121°48′
9	Elk and Beaver Lakes and those parts of Elk and Beaver Lakes in the interlake area except between 11:00 a.m. and one hour before sunset unless a sporting, recreational or public event or activity for which a permit has been issued under these Regulations is being held	northwest of Victoria	48°32′ 123°24′
10	The waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries lying within the flood plain of the Columbia River north of a point at 50°21′13.4″ 115°52′51.9″ (approximately 1.6 km northwest of Fairmont Hot Springs) and south and east of a point at 51º28′48″ 117º09′33″, on the northernmost tip of a small island (approximately 1.8 km south of Trans-Canada Highway bridge at Donald) but excluding the waters of Windermere Lake	Columbia River main channel	50°55′04.3″ 116°22′47.9″

PART 3

Ontario

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 Specific Location	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)
1	North Branch Muskoka River from Bracebridge Falls to the mouth of the Muskoka River	45°02′23″ 79°18′28″ to 45°01′30″ 79°23′35″	45°02′ 79°19′
2	Joseph River connecting Lake Joseph to Lake Rosseau from the Ames Point entrance at 45°09′58″ 79°41′42″ to Joseph River Shoal at 45°08′28″ 79°38′50″		45°08′ 79°39′
3	Shadow River		45°15′ 79°39′
4	South Branch Muskoka River from the intersection with the Muskoka River to Muskoka Falls	45°00′ 79°18′	45°02′ 79°19′
5	Indian River except for the part known as Mirror Lake		45°06′ 79°34′
6	The narrow channel of Twelve Mile Bay between the coordinates set out in column 2, in Muskoka District	45°04′52″ 79°58′00″ to 45°04′52″ 79°57′45″	45°05 80°00′
7	That part of the Magnetawan River fronting the Village of Magnetawan, Municipality of Magnetawan	45°39′40″ 79°38′50″ to 45°40′00″ 79°38′20″	45°46′ 80°37′
8	That part of the Burnt River, Somerville Twp, Victoria County, from Lot 11, Concessions 6 and 7, to the entrance of Goose Lake, Lot 24, Concession 1, all lying within Somerville Twp, Victoria County	44°41′ 78°42′ to 44°35′ 78°46′	44°35′ 78°46′
9	That part of Robillard Lake known as Long Lake within the limits of the Municipality of Charlton and Dack, as described in column 2	47°48′37″ 79°59′54″ to 47°48′36″ 80°00′10″	47°49′ 80°08′

PART 4

Nova Scotia

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 General Location	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)
1	Tidnish River, upstream from Irwins Point		45°59′ 64°03′

PART 5

Quebec

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description	Column 2 Permitted Hours	Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System)
1	Châteauguay River from point A at coordinates 45°22′15.23″ 73°45′13.20″ to point B at coordinates 45°22′47.44″ 73°45′07.28″		Point A: 45°22′15.23″ 73°45′13.20″ Point B: 45°22′47.44″ 73°45′07.28″
2	Châteauguay River from point B at coordinates 45°22′47.44″ 73°45′07.28″ to point C at coordinates 45°22′58.93″ 73°46′09.17″		Point B: 45°22′47.44″ 73°45′07.28′ Point C: 45°22′58.93″ 73°46′09.17″
3	Châteauguay River from point B at coordinates 45°22′47.44″ 73°45′07.28″ to point D at coordinates 45°24′01.49″ 73°45′06.44″		Point B: 45°22′47.44″ 73°45′07.28′ Point D: 45°24′01.49″ 73°45′06.44″
4	Within 60 m of the shore of Masson Lake		46°02′33″ 74°02′06″
5	Laviolette Lake		46°00′ 74°08′
6	Morelle Lake		45°59′48″ 74°06′29″
7	Deauville Lake		45°59′ 74°06′
8	Pas de Poisson Lake		46°01′ 74°07′
9	Lake Lenore		46°00′ 74°07′
10	Long Lake		45°59′ 74°05′
11	Tondohar Lake		46°00′ 74°07′
12	Quévillon Lake		46°00′ 74°06′
13	Lake Mimi		46°00′ 74°09′
14	Gascon Lake		45°59′ 74°08′
15	Lake Sainte-Adèle		45°57′ 74°09′
16	Millette Lake		45°58′ 74°11′
17	Bouthillier Lake		45°57′19″ 74°12′46″
18	Renaud Lake		45°56′ 74°12′
19	Matley Lake		45°57′ 74°11′
20	Richer Lake		45°57′ 74°12′
21	Des Seize Îles Lake	from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.	45°54′ 74°28′
22	Within a perimeter of 60 m from the shore of Charlebois Lake		46°05′ 74°03′
23	Vingt Sous Lake		45°57′ 74°22′
24	Cornu Lake		45°58′ 74°23′
25	De la Montagne Lake		45°59′ 74°19′
26	Major Bay of Des Sables Lake		46°02′ 74°17′
27	Centre-Ville Bay of Des Sables Lake		46°02′ 74°17′
28	Within 100 m of the shore of Archambault Lake		46°19′ 74°15′
29	Within 100 m of the shore of Baribeau Lake		46°21′ 74°10′
30	Within 100 m of the shore of Beauchamp Lake		46°18′ 74°12′
31	Within 100 m of the shore of Bouillon Lake		46°16′ 74°11′
32	Within 100 m of the shore of La Clef Lake		46°23′ 74°13′
33	Within 100 m of the shore of Des Aulnes Lake (Isidore and Garon)		46°22′ 74°11′
34	Within 100 m of the shore of Lake Léon		46°22′ 74°16′
35	Within 100 m of the shore of Major Lake		46°21′ 74°12′
36	Within 100 m of the shore of De la Montagne Noire Lake		46°12′ 74°16′
37	Within 100 m of the shore of Ouareau Lake		46°17′ 74°09′
38	Within 100 m of the shore of Perreault Lake		46°20′ 74°07′
39	Within 100 m of the shore of Raquette Lake		46°15′ 74°20′
40	Within 100 m of the shore of Rochemaure Lake		46°22′ 74°10′
41	Within 100 m of the shore of Lake Saint-Onge		46°22′ 74°08′
42	Within 100 m of the shore of Sombre Lake		46°20′ 74°05′
43	Within 100 m of the shore of Sylvère Lake		46°21′ 74°04′
44	Within 100 m of the shore of the Saint-Michel River (Michel)		46°18′ 74°16′
45	Within 100 m of the shore of the Noir River		46°23′ 74°16′
46	Within 100 m of the shore of the Du Pimbina River		46°21′ 74°14′
47	Within 50 m of the shore of Blanc Lake		46°20′ 74°13′
48	Manitou Lake	from 10:00 a.m. to noon and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.	46°03′36″ 74°22′30″
49	Fraser Lake		45°23′ 72°11′
50	Berry Lake		48°46′40″ 78°22′26″
51	À Fillion Lake		48°49′56″ 78°23′40″
52	À Magny Lake		48°51′25″ 78°23′00″
53	Brompton Lake, northwest of a line connecting point D at coordinates 45°28′23″ 72°08′53″ to point E at coordinates 45°28′26″ 72°08′48″ (Larochelle Bay)		45°26′ 72°09′
54	Brompton Lake, north of a line connecting point F at coordinates 45°28′13″ 72°08′04″ and point G at coordinates 45°28′10″ 72°08′06″ (Du Barrage Bay)		45°26′ 72°09′
55	Leamy Lake, the north passage linking the lake to the Gatineau River and the northern half of the south passage linking the lake to De la Carrière Lake		45°27′ 75°43′
56	Les Trois Lacs Lake: (a) in the beach and swimming areas delineated by a line running perpendicular to the shore to a point at coordinates 45°47′45″ 71°53′25″, thence to a point at coordinates 45°47′35″ 71°53′30″, and thence returning perpendicularly to the shore; and		45°48′ 71°54′
	(b) on the remaining part of the lake	from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
57	Southwest Nicolet River: (a) from Les Trois Lacs Lake exit at a point at coordinates 45°48′10″ 71°54′40″ to the existing dam at a point at coordinates 45°47′50″ 71°55′00″; and	from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.	46°13′ 72°36′
	(b) from the entrance to Les Trois Lacs Lake at a point at coordinates 45°47′32″ 71°52′15″ to a point at coordinates 45°47′37″ 71°51′47″	from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
58	Saint-Louis Lake, in that part of the lake located between a line drawn from the wharf of Saint-Louis Park to the western limit of René Lévesque Park and a line drawn in the direction of and extending from 6th Avenue in Lachine		45°26′ 73°42′
59	Blanche River between Blanc Lake at coordinates 46°19′42″ 74°12′38.1″ and 46°19′42.8″ 74°12′32.9″ and Ouareau Lake at coordinates 46°18′11.9″ 74°10′12.6″ and 46°18′06.6″ 74°10′05.6″		46°18′09″ 74°10′10″
60	Croche Lake within 50 m of the shore, except where the vessel follows a trajectory perpendicular to the shore		46°21′ 74°06′
61	Du Pimbina Lake within 50 m of the shore, except where the vessel follows a trajectory perpendicular to the shore		46°23′ 74°14′
62	Provost Lake within 50 m of the shore, except where the vessel follows a trajectory perpendicular to the shore		46°24′ 74°16′
63	Those portions of Saint-François-Xavier Lake not included in item 256 of Part 3 of Schedule 6	from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.	45°52′53″ 74°21′32″
64	Duhamel Lake		46°08′31″ 74°38′16″
65	That part of the Richelieu River described in items 345, 346, 347 and 348 of Part 3 of Schedule 6		45°42′43″ 73°11′28″
66	That part of the Richelieu River described in item 349 of Part 3 of Schedule 6	all hours except from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays	45°42′43″ 73°11′28″
67	That part of the Richelieu River from the Groupe Thomas Marine at coordinates 45°39′36.6″ 73°11′49.2″ to the Handfield Inn at coordinates 45°40′20″ 73°11′31.1″		45°42′43″ 73°11′28″

PART 6

Manitoba

Item	Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description	Column 2 Local Name	Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System)
1	Assiniboine River	Assiniboine River	49°52′17″ 97°26′50″ to 49°53′09″ 97°07′41″
2	Pinawa Channel between the points at coordinates 50°12′56″ 95°55′30.9″ and 50°16′12″ 95°52′46″	Pinawa Channel	50°12′56″ 95°55′30.9″ to 50°16′12″ 95°52′46″
3	Lee River between the points at coordinates 50°16′12″ 95°52′46″ and 50°18′41″ 95°51′29″	Lee River	50°16′12″ 95°52′46″ to 50°18′41″ 95°51′29″

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

Seven issues are addressed by this regulatory initiative — engine power limits, updating exemptions, technical requirements on signage, wake surfing restriction, new restrictions, designation authority and administrative corrections.

Engine power limits

Subsection 2(4) of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (VORR) imposed restrictions on engine power limits of power-driven vessels or vessels driven by electrical propulsion only for waters in public parks and controlled access bodies of water that are described in Schedule 4 of the VORR. Many local authorities pointed to the incoherence of Schedule 4 versus other restrictions. The criterion of “public parks and controlled access bodies of waters” greatly limited the scope of application for this type of restriction and was misaligned with the other restrictions available in the VORR that are not limited by application to certain types of bodies of water. Many local authorities wanted to specify an engine power limit on a local body of water that is not within a public park or controlled access body of water and, because of the limited scope of application of subsection 2(4), had to apply for another form of restriction. For example, many local authorities wishing to request a maximum engine power restriction have instead requested a speed limit because an engine power limit was not available as an option. Engine power limits are easier to enforce than speed limit restrictions because the latter requires active monitoring, the use of detection equipment that at times may not provide reliable and accurate readings, and the gathering and production of evidence. On the other hand, a restriction on engine power is easier to enforce because a simple visual inspection of the engine can confirm its power. For example, with such a restriction in place, any vessel equipped with an engine over 10 hp would not be permitted to be operated on the designated body of water.

Updating exemptions

The VORR exempted persons who hold a provincial fishing permit from vessel operation restrictions established on specific bodies of water (identified under Schedules 1 to 4). For example, a person who holds a provincial fishing permit may operate a power-driven vessel on bodies of water where such vessels are otherwise prohibited. However, under the VORR, persons holding a federal fishing permit were not explicitly listed as benefiting from the same exemption, even though they were undertaking the same activity. Although most of the waters listed in the Schedules (relevant to subsections 2(1) and (4)) require provincial fishing permits only, there are certain waters listed in the Schedules that are tidal (e.g. Tyee Pool) and are therefore subject to a federal fishing licence. Even though Transport Canada’s (TC) policy has been to exempt federal licences from the restrictions, the exemption needs to be made explicit to ensure that persons with federal fishing licences can continue to benefit from the same rights as their counterparts with provincial fishing licences.

In addition, there was a need to include in the VORR a regulatory exemption to specific restrictions (e.g. operating a vessel in restricted waters) to allow Indigenous peoples to exercise their existing rights as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The rights of Indigenous peoples have always been protected under the VORR; however, explicit wording is needed for absolute clarity, and to avoid any confusion from a compliance perspective. This will formalize TC’s current approach to exempt Indigenous peoples from these restrictions when they are exercising their rights.

Technical requirements on signage

Sections 8 and 9 of the VORR contained the technical requirements on signage. Because guidance around signage was embedded in the VORR, updates required going through the regulatory process, which can be a lengthy process. Given how often updates to signage guidance may be needed, the regulatory process is not a practical or effective option: TC would need to propose amendments to the VORR frequently to keep signage requirements up to date. As such, since 2018, TC has published signage guidance in a policy document, TP 15400E (PDF). This publication allows TC to revise and update signage guidance promptly as needed to ensure that relevant changes are communicated quickly and efficiently to local authorities. However, while local authorities use TP 15400E as a reference for guidance on signage and make updates accordingly, the formal requirements remained in sections 8 and 9 of the VORR. Having provisions in two different documents, which are out of sync, could lead to ambiguity and/or confusion. Incorporating TP 15400E by reference in the VORR will eliminate the possibility of ambiguity and help ensure that regular updates to signage requirements are communicated to affected stakeholders, and implemented, in a timely manner.

Wake surfing restriction

Many communities and environmental groups have raised concerns about the environmental impact of wake surfing, which can erode shorelines with excessive wave action and cause safety issues for other boaters in high traffic areas due to the speeds involved. When wake surfing is identified as a safety or environmental issue on a body of water, the only existing restriction available to local authorities was under Schedule 7 and involved a blanket prohibition on all towing activities (e.g. water skiing, tubing). This approach led to restrictions on some recreational activities that were not specifically identified as an issue such as waterskiing or tubing. As a result, some local authorities refrained from applying for any restrictions at all, leaving safety and environmental concerns from wake surfing unaddressed.

New restrictions

TC has received applications from local authorities for 21 new restrictions on six bodies of water. Below is an overview of the issues for each body of water where new restrictions will be introduced.

Big Tub Harbour (Ontario)

Fathom Five National Marine Park and the surrounding region has experienced significant growth in tourism over the past decade. This significant increase in demand has resulted in a corresponding increase in commercial and recreational vessel use in Big Tub Harbour, as well as changes in traffic patterns, types of watercrafts, and operator skill and experience.

A change in how Big Tub Harbour is managed was required in order to protect the park’s natural and cultural resources while ensuring safe, enjoyable experiences for visitors and residents, and contributing to a sustainable tourism industry throughout the region.

Richelieu River (Quebec)

Safety, environmental and public interest issues have been identified on the Richelieu River dating back more than 20 years. The river accommodates high traffic levels and is very narrow and shallow in places. The volume of boat traffic, speed, noise and wake (waves observed over one metre) caused by some boats introduces safety problems on the water, poses a risk to safety on private docks (danger of people falling off the dock and into the water) and leads to a loss of enjoyment for residents. Also, high levels of wake can cause degradation of banks and erosion of riparian land. A boat’s wake can damage other vessels, docks, and the shoreline. It can also be a risk for swimmers, divers and people on small boats that might capsize. Operators need to be aware of how their boat’s wake might affect others when choosing a safe speed. Opportunities for recreational activities, such as swimming and the use of human-powered boats, were limited due to the speed and wake generated by larger vessels.

Additionally, the water quality is deteriorating, and the river ecosystem is being impacted by the resuspension of sediments and materials caused by excessive wake. Several species of fish are also found in the river — 75 of the 116 species of freshwater fish in Quebec live in the river and at least 25 reproduce there, including the copper redhorse (a species at risk), which is found exclusively in the Richelieu River. The drinking water intake located in the community of Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu, which serves nearly 21 municipalities, draws its water from the river. A failure to intervene on the Richelieu River could compromise water treatment in the future.

St-Maurice River (Quebec)

For many years, a portion of the Saint-Maurice River has encountered various safety problems, such as high-speed motorboats; conflicts between water body users, which are exacerbated by the proximity of the Saint-Lawrence River and an increase in higher-speed vessel traffic due to the Saint-Lawrence being a popular waterway for these vessels; environmental issues (e.g. shoreline erosion); and issues related to the public interest (e.g. breakage of quays). These problems are encountered on a daily basis. A serious accident also occurred in 2012 where the speeding of a boat caused the death of two people at the entrance to the Saint-Maurice River.

Duhamel Lake (Quebec)

For several years, boats operating at high speeds on Duhamel Lake have put the safety of swimmers and small boats, including pontoons, at risk. Also, the waves generated by boats operating at high speeds on Duhamel Lake cause environmental issues such as bank erosion, the disappearance of beaches, the spread of Eurasian watermilfoil, and the resuspension of sediments. Public interest issues created by the waves include the breaking of quays or damage to water intakes and moored boats.

Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba)

The Pinawa Channel and Lee River have a high density of boat traffic, and the traffic continues to increase, which has resulted in safety and environmental concerns. Several factors contribute to the safety concerns present on the Pinawa Channel and Lee River, such as large waves, speed, proximity to shore, and conflict between user groups.

Wake boat use along these bodies of water has been increasing over the past five years. The continued use of wake boats on the Pinawa Channel and the narrow sections of the Lee River has contributed to accelerated shoreline erosion, caused damage to private property, swamped boats of other recreational users, and created a growing safety concern along the waterways.

Designation authority

To address concerns about boating safety, promote safe boating practices, and ensure compliance with the VORR, it is common for municipalities with limited capacity to request the designation of enforcement personnel who are not currently authorized by the VORR. Most police forces across the country are currently designated under the VORR.

The Port of Windsor has requested that port enforcement officers be authorized to enforce the VORR within the limits of the Windsor Port Authority.

In addition, due to changes to titles of enforcement officers and departmental names from which the authorities descend, amendments to section 16, items 16, 17 and 18 are required to properly state the title of Quebec special constables in the French version of the VORR, and to update the Government of Saskatchewan’s departmental names and enforcement officers’ titles.

Administrative corrections

In consultation with local authorities, TC discovered several minor errors and inconsistencies in the text of the VORR, such as geographical coordinates misrepresenting the body of water impacted by the restriction. Administrative corrections ensure that the most reliable and up-to-date information is contained within the VORR, thereby enabling water body users to understand and comply with the restrictions and supporting more effective enforcement of the listed restrictions.

Background

The VORR, made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA 2001), provide the ability to regulate boating activities and navigation in Canadian waters. Restrictions are set out in subsections 2(1) to (6) and 11(2) and are registered in the seven schedules of the VORR, which specify the type of restriction (listed below) and the location of the body of water where it applies.

These navigation restrictions include

• waters where all vessels are prohibited;
• waters where power-driven vessels and vessels driven by electrical propulsion are prohibited;
• waters on which power-driven vessels are prohibited and vessels driven by electrical propulsion are subject to a limit on their engine power;
• waters on which power-driven vessels and vessels driven by electrical propulsion are subject to a speed limit and/or subject to a limit on their engine power;
• waters where towing a person on any sporting or recreational equipment, or allowing a person to wake surf, is prohibited except during the permitted hours; and
• waters where a sporting, recreational or public event or activity is prohibited.

Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations modernization

In 2016, TC launched an initiative to modernize the VORR. As part of Phase 1, national stakeholder consultations were held to identify issues. One of the main concerns from stakeholders was the complexity of the application process and the length of time required to approve restriction proposals. Phase 1 was completed in 2019 with the update to the Local Authorities’ Guide, which clarified the application process for a vessel operation restriction.

In summer 2019, Phase 2 was initiated to assess ways to streamline the government process for implementing vessel operation restrictions. TC is currently exploring options that would allow a municipality to submit a request at the end of a boating season (by the annual mid-September deadline) and have the requested restriction in place by the next year’s boating season.

Finally, Phase 3 of the modernization initiative is under way in response to the former Minister of Transport’s mandate letter commitment to “work with provinces, territories and willing municipalities on solutions to allow them a greater role in managing and regulating boating on their lakes and rivers so that they promote free access, while ensuring the safety of boaters and the protection of the environment.” Policy analysis is under way, and consultations were launched in October 2023 to develop options to fulfill this commitment.

Engine power limits

The issue around the engine power limits restriction not being open to all types of bodies of water was initially raised by stakeholders during the VORR modernization consultations. In addition, over the years, many local authorities, including local authorities with current speed restrictions in place, have also reiterated their wish to be able to use engine power limit restrictions versus speed limit restrictions as the latter is more complicated to enforce.

Incorporation by reference

Incorporation by reference is a drafting technique that may be used to bring the content of an external document into a regulation. Documents incorporated by reference have the same force as the regulation into which they are incorporated.

An ambulatory reference means that the incorporation of a document includes any future changes to that document without a need to remake or amend the regulation into which it is incorporated. An ambulatory reference allows routine and/or technical updates to be made to standards and guidelines without the need to complete the regulatory process, which can be complex and time-consuming.

The relevant authorities that allow for the use of incorporation by reference in the VORR are found in section 32 of the CSA 2001.

Wake surfing

The topic of wake surfing has been a discussion with stakeholders for quite some time. Local authorities who have identified wake surfing activities as problematic on all or portions of their bodies of water have been asking for a way to address these issues without limiting other types of recreational activities (e.g. waterskiing) that may not pose a problem. Under Schedule 7 of the VORR, wake surfing activities could be prohibited but the restriction would also apply to all towing activities. Removing wake surfing from Schedule 7 and creating a unique wake surfing schedule in the VORR respond to local authorities’ desire to address issues in a more precise manner.

New restrictions

Each year, TC receives applications from local authorities to impose or amend restrictions on navigation in order to enhance the safety of navigation, to protect the environment and/or to protect the public interest. These applications are prepared according to TC’s Local Authorities’ Guide, which provides guidance to local authorities on how to prepare a restriction submission. The Local Authorities’ Guide provides information on how to clearly describe the problem, tips on finding non-regulatory and regulatory alternatives to the VORR, information on the consultation process, how to assess the benefits versus costs of the restriction, and advice on enforcement of restrictions. It also helps to ensure that applications are consistent with the guiding principles of the Cabinet Directive on Regulation.

Designation authority

A law enforcement entity can be designated under section 16 with the authority to enforce the VORR. In order to be designated, a formal request must be made to TC; the request can come from any level of government —local, provincial or federal. Upon review and approval of the request, the VORR needs to be subsequently amended to include the designated person or class of persons for enforcement purposes. A designated enforcement officer may prohibit the movement of any vessel or direct it to move as specified, stop and board any vessel at a reasonable time, direct a person regarding the operation of equipment on board the vessel and request any information or documents in the possession of any person on board the vessel.

TC received an application for section 16 designation from the Windsor Port Authority. By approving this designation, the Windsor Port Authority is now able to enforce the existing restrictions in Schedules 2 and 6 that are within their jurisdiction.

Administrative corrections

In the case of coordinates changes, local authorities identified some imprecision in geographic coordinates, which could create confusion for both regulated stakeholders and enforcement officers.

Objective

Engine power limits

The objective of amending subsection 2(4) of the VORR is to provide local authorities with the opportunity and flexibility to restrict engine power on local bodies of water where higher-powered vessels could pose safety and environmental risks.

Updating exemptions

The objective of amending the exemption under paragraph 3(1)(b) is to ensure that persons with federal fishing licences can continue to benefit from the same rights as their counterparts with provincial fishing licences.

The objective of introducing a new exemption under subsection 3(1) is to ensure clarity and certainty about the existing rights of Indigenous peoples as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Technical requirements on signage

The objective of incorporating by reference sections 8 and 9 (technical requirements on signage) is to ensure that changes to technical requirements for signage are disseminated quickly and efficiently to authorities responsible for posting such signage on their bodies of water. In turn, more efficient communication of technical requirements for signage is expected to contribute to improvements in navigation safety for local boating communities.

Wake surfing restriction

The objective in removing wake surfing from Schedule 7 and creating a new schedule is to provide local authorities with an option to apply for a prohibition that specifically targets issues generated by wake surfing activities without having to adopt other unnecessary restrictions.

New restrictions

The objective of the new restrictions is to enhance the safety of navigation, to protect the environment and/or to protect the public interest on the identified bodies of water.

Big Tub Harbour (Ontario)

The objective of the new restrictions is to improve navigational safety and protect the public interest by prohibiting all types of vessels and implementing a maximum speed limit to decrease the risk of collision due to the narrow waterway and vessel traffic in the harbour.

Richelieu River (Quebec)

The objective of the new restrictions on the Richelieu River is to protect the public interest, address environmental concerns and improve boating safety issues caused by speeding and wake surfing, which result in the degradation of banks, deterioration of water quality and threats to the river ecosystem.

Saint-Maurice River (Quebec)

The objective of the new restrictions is to protect the public interest, increase the level of safety of navigation and improve the environmental landscape in this body of water by implementing a speed limit.

Duhamel Lake (Quebec)

The objective of the new restrictions is to improve and enhance the safety of navigation, address growing environmental concerns and protect the public interest by implementing maximum speed limits and prohibiting towing and wake surfing.

Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba)

The objective of the new restrictions is to enhance safety, protect the public interest and improve the environmental conditions by limiting towing and wake surfing under certain conditions and prohibiting wake surfing at all times within one specified segment of Lee River and one specified segment of Pinawa Channel.

Designation authority

The objective of designating port enforcement officers employed by the Port of Windsor is to provide for the enforcement of the VORR within the limits of the Windsor Port Authority.

The objective of amending section 16, items 16, 17 and 18 is to ensure proper enforcement officer titles and responsible authorities departmental names are utilized to conserve enforcement designation status.

Administrative corrections

The objective of the Regulations for correcting geographic coordinates is to ensure clarity and certainty about restrictions for water body users and enforcement officers.

Description

Engine power limits

The Regulations amend subsection 2(4) of the VORR that prohibits operating a power-driven vessel or a vessel driven by electrical propulsion that has an engine power greater than the maximum engine power set out in Schedule 4 in waters in public parks and controlled access bodies of water. The Regulations remove the reference to parks or controlled access bodies of water in subsection 2(4) and in the title of Schedule 4. These changes will allow the restriction to apply to all types of bodies of water and provide local authorities with the option of establishing an engine power restriction on their bodies of water.

Updating exemptions

The Regulations update the exemption under subsection 3(1)(b) for a person who holds a provincial fishing permit and whose livelihood depends on fishing, by adding federal fishing licences to the exemption.

In addition, the Regulations make explicit an exemption to restrictions under subsections 2(1) to (4) to ensure clarity and certainty about the existing rights of Indigenous peoples as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. For example, an Indigenous person fishing for food, social or ceremonial purposes is exempted from restrictions under subsections 2(1) to (4) as applied on the body of water where they are exercising their rights.

Technical requirements on signage

The Regulations remove sections 8 and 9 of the VORR, which contained the technical requirements on signage, and incorporate by reference the signage guidelines in an existing TC publication (i.e. TP 15400E). Incorporation by reference of a Transport Publication for the purpose of providing explanatory material in support of the VORR is authorized by the CSA 2001.

Wake surfing restriction

The Regulations remove wake surfing from the previous Schedule 7 (restrictions on all towing activities) and introduce a new schedule that specifically provides for restrictions on wake surfing. This will allow a local authority to apply for a prohibition on wake surfing without prohibiting all other towing activities, except during permitted periods. The restriction does not prohibit the use of wake surfing boats but restricts the activity of wake surfing as described in each restriction. The Regulations necessitate amendments to the Contraventions Regulations to establish a fine for the contravention of the new restriction as is currently the practice for all other restrictions under the VORR. The amendments to the Contraventions Regulations will be introduced as part of a separate regulatory proposal anticipated in 2024. Until amendments are made to the Contraventions Regulations, specific wake surfing prohibitions will not be enforceable via tickets.

New restrictions

The Regulations introduce 21 new restrictions to six bodies of water in response to requests made by local authorities. These restrictions are established on either all or a delineated area of the respective bodies of water. The new restrictions are summarized below.

Table 1: New restrictions

Body of water	Restrictions
Big Tub Harbour (Ontario)	The VORR prohibited all vessels on a portion of Big Tub Harbour in Tobermory, Ontario. The Regulations expand the boundaries of the existing prohibition from the shore along the perimeter of the harbour to the widest portion of the channel. On the portions of Big Tub Harbour where the vessel prohibition does not apply, the Regulations establish a 10 km/h speed limit from the shore to a line at the mouth of the harbour.
Richelieu River (Quebec)	The Regulations prohibit power-driven and electric propulsion vessels along the Richelieu River from Jeannotte Island to Cerfs Island. The Regulations also establish a speed limit of 10 km/h along the following 4 segments: within 50 metres from the shore of the Richelieu River, over a section of 20 kilometres, at the beginning of the municipalities of Saint-Antoine-sur-le-Richelieu and Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu until the end of the municipalities of Saint-Marc-sur-Richelieu and Saint-Charles-sur-Richelieu; between Bellevue Campsite to the Groupe Thomas Marine; between the Handfield Inn to the Saint-Charles cable ferry; and between 500 metres upstream of the Régie de l’aqueduc intermunicipale du Bas-Richelieu water intake to 300 metres downstream of the Saint-Denis cable ferry. In addition, the Regulations establish a speed limit of 50 km/h over the same section of 20 kilometres outside of the 10 km/h zones described above. The Regulations prohibit towing and wake surfing at all times over the section of 20 kilometres along the Richelieu River inside the 10 km/h zone (close to shore). The Regulations also prohibit towing and wake surfing at all times on the Richelieu River from the Groupe Thomas Marine to the Handfield Inn. Finally, the Regulations prohibit towing and wake surfing along the Richelieu River from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, over the section of 20 kilometres outside the 10 km/h zone (further from shore).
Saint-Maurice River (Quebec)	The Regulations set a speed limit of 10 km/h along a 1.5 kilometre stretch of the Saint-Maurice River beginning in the north, a little above Ruisseau Lachapelle Beach (Dog Beach) up to the Radisson Motorway Bridge. The Regulations also set a speed limit of 5 km/h on the Saint-Maurice River between the Radisson Motorway Bridge and ending at the mouth of the Saint-Lawrence River, except for waters where other restrictions apply. The Regulations set a speed limit of 10 km/h on the Saint-Maurice River between south of Saint-Christophe Island to the Duplessis Bridge.
Duhamel Lake (Quebec)	The Regulations set a speed limit of 10 km/h within 60 metres from the shore of Duhamel Lake. The Regulations also set a speed limit of 30 km/h on all other parts of the lake outside of the shoreline restriction. The Regulations prohibit towing and wake surfing at all times on Duhamel Lake.
Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba)	The Regulations prohibit towing from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, on Pinawa Channel, between the entrance to Pinawa Channel and the Old Pinawa Dam. The Regulations also prohibit towing at all times on Lee River within 100 metres of the shore between the Rock Pile (the narrow passage on the Lee River) and the mouth of the Lee River. Furthermore, the Regulations prohibit wake surfing at all times on Pinawa Channel between the entrance to Pinawa Channel and the Old Pinawa Dam. Finally, the Regulations prohibit wake surfing at all times on Lee River between the entrance to Pinawa Channel and the Rock Pile (the narrow passage on the Lee River).

Designation authority

The Regulations designate port enforcement officers employed by the Windsor Port Authority as enforcement officers under section 16 of the VORR. The enforcement designation enables these officers to enforce local restrictions within the limits of the Windsor Port Authority. There are currently three restrictions within the limits of the port: one with a full prohibition on power-driven vessels and vessels driven by electrical propulsion on a delineated portion of the Detroit River; and two speed limit restrictions on separate delineated parts of the Detroit River.

In addition, due to changes to titles of enforcement officers and departmental names from which the authorities descend, amendments to section 16, items 16, 17 and 18 are introduced to properly state the title of Quebec special constables in the French version of the VORR and update the Government of Saskatchewan’s departmental name changes and enforcement officers’ titles.

Administrative corrections

The Regulations correct the geographic coordinates, the name and/or the description for three bodies of water: one in Alberta, one in Ontario and one in Quebec. These minor changes are expected to result in a slight benefit to users and enforcement officers by providing clearer descriptions and accurate geographic coordinates of each respective restriction.

Regulatory development

Consultation

A presentation on the proposal was given to stakeholders at the spring 2022 Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) national meeting of the Standing Committee on Recreational Boating. No comments were received at that time. Stakeholders who participate in these meetings include boating safety organizations, law enforcement marine units, boating safety course providers, Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards, industry, academics, and others with an interest in recreational boating. Further discussions took place at the fall 2022 CMAC. There were questions raised by industry representatives on the new wake surfing schedule. Industry representatives were concerned that further restrictions were being introduced into the VORR, and TC officials reconfirmed that wake surfing is already a restricted activity under Schedule 7 and that this amendment would introduce the opportunity to restrict only wake surfing versus all towing activities.

An online consultation with marine stakeholders, including Indigenous groups, was held from December 7, 2022, to February 6, 2023, for a 60-day comment period. A few comments were received on the proposed new restrictions in Big Tub Harbour, Saint-Maurice River and Lac Duhamel. These comments were split between support for the new restrictions and opposition, with commenters feeling that the restrictions were going too far. Following TC’s assessment of the responses received, including the rationale provided by local authorities for the introduction of restrictions, it was decided that the safety and environmental benefits outweighed the potential negative impacts; therefore, the proposed restrictions would remain in the submission.

A significant number of comments were provided on the proposed new restrictions on the Richelieu River in Quebec. A letter campaign in opposition to the restrictions was initiated at the local level, with TC receiving approximately 450 opposing letters. The commenters stated that they did not agree with the restrictiveness of the proposal and noted that one municipality was not fully supportive, based on wording from their municipal resolution. TC confirmed that, despite the feedback, the municipality continued to support the changes and that it had the budget required for the eventual signage requirements. This is the second time that TC has received restriction requests for the Richelieu River. Previously when opposition was voiced, the four local authorities applying for the restrictions withdrew their request and undertook further consultations. At that time, those opposed to the restrictions felt that consultations focused on the issues and not on the proposed solutions that were put forward in the amendment request. The current proposal did receive support from several commenters supporting the restrictions from a safety and environmental perspective.

The application process for local authorities is onerous, requiring both time and resources. As these local authorities have taken the time to consult further and reapply, their commitment to implementing restrictions on the Richelieu River is apparent. As well, respecting the request of local authorities was at the heart of the former Minister of Transport’s mandate letter commitment to allow provinces, territories, and local authorities to have a say in managing their local waterways. For those reasons, TC agreed to include the proposed new restrictions for Richelieu River in proposed amendments to the VORR.

TC received over 20 supportive comments on the proposal to remove wake surfing from Schedule 7 and create a new separate schedule for that activity. A few comments, including from an industry association, against the proposal were also received. Some comments recommended a more general approach to restricting wake surfing activities along the lines of distance from shore and in certain depths were provided. In addition, many of the supporters requested that wake boarding activities be included in the new schedule for wake surfing. TC assessed the possibility of adding wake boarding to the new schedule: however, as wake boarding is a towing sport that does not require the creation of a wake, it was decided to keep it under the current Schedule 7.

TC also received supportive comments on the proposed changes to subsection 2(4) (engine power limits), with one commenter opposing the proposed changes. Many local authorities have been waiting for the possibility of using engine power limit restrictions versus speed limit restrictions, as they are easier to enforce. Engine power limits are easier to enforce than speed limit restrictions because it is difficult for enforcement officers to issue tickets for speed offences on the water. One of the constraints is that the operator must remain stable when using a speedometer and enforcement officers hesitate to solely rely on this information. On the other hand, engine power enforcement is easier to enforce because for example, if the maximum engine power is 10 hp, anything higher than 10 hp cannot be used on that body of water.

Finally, TC received one supportive comment from a First Nation community on the proposed exemption to certain restrictions in respect of the exercise of Indigenous rights.

As required by the Local Authorities’ Guide, applications for new restrictions under the VORR require comprehensive consultations with stakeholders by local authorities in advance of submitting the restriction requests to TC. These consultations include discussions that do not solely focus on the introduction of restrictions, but also consider alternative, non-regulatory solutions. Local authorities applying for restrictions held multiple consultations with residents, businesses, and other potentially impacted stakeholders. In general, feedback received by participants supported applying for restrictions on boating operations for their respective body of water since the VORR were seen as the most viable options for the local authorities moving forward.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 17, 2023, with a 60-day comment period. All comments received were posted on the Canada Gazette website on September 16, 2023. In total, 720 comments were received. Most of the comments were related to the 21 new restrictions being proposed on six bodies of water, particularly the new restrictions on Richelieu River. Additionally, over 100 comments were received on the proposed amendments to the body of the VORR. Comments are summarized by theme below. Also, a What We Heard Report summarizing all comments was prepared and posted on TC’s website in October 2023. All commenters were advised of the release of the report.

It is important to note that, following a review of all comments received on the regulatory submission, it was determined by TC that no changes to the regulatory text were required.

Engine power limits

A total of 13 comments was received regarding the proposed amendments to subsection 2(4) on engine power limits. Nine comments were received in support of the proposed amendment to the engine power restriction, which will enhance navigation safety and environmental protection on more waterways.

Two comments opposed engine power limits in general as they would discriminate against larger and more powerful boats. TC understood this concern but ultimately determined that it would be appropriate to leave the decision to local authorities to set engine power limits as local authorities would be in the best position to identify and assess potential impacts to users and, accordingly, determine reasonable limits. One commenter suggested that local authorities should not have decision-making powers on navigable waters. TC disagreed with this statement as the spirit of the VORR is to provide local authorities with decision power on solutions to address waterway issues, which they are more equipped to assess. Indeed, current efforts under the VORR modernization initiative aim to provide more responsibilities to local authorities. Lastly, one commenter believed that other legislation and regulations, e.g. the Small Vessel Regulations, could address the dangerous operation of vessels better than engine power restrictions. While the Small Vessel Regulations contain general boating safety provisions, most waterways also need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis so that issues specific to the waterway can be addressed through vessel operation restrictions.

Updating exemptions

Only one comment was received on the proposed exemptions under the VORR. The commenter did not support having exemptions for fishers but did not provide a reason. TC believes that exemptions for fishers from certain restrictions of the VORR must be explicitly mentioned in order to ensure that persons with federal fishing licences can continue to benefit from the same rights as their counterparts with provincial fishing licences.

Wake surfing restriction

The proposal to remove wake surfing restrictions from Schedule 7 and include them in Schedule 7.1 in order to create a restriction that focuses on wake surfing issues received 41 comments. Of these, 21 commenters were in support of the proposed new schedule on wake surfing as it will enhance navigation safety, enhance environmental protection (e.g. mitigating erosion effects), and protect the public interest, for example, by mitigating potential damage to shore infrastructure such as docks. Over the years, wake surfing has been seen as a major issue of concern on local waterways not adapted for this sport.

Three commenters questioned why wake boarding was not part of the restriction since the sport, which involves pulling a person on a wake board usually behind a wake boat, can also be practised using the vessels ballast systems to create a larger wake to ride on. TC assessed the inclusion of wake boarding in the new schedule. However, since wake boarding, like other towing sports, does not necessitate the creation of a wake (unlike wake surfing, which relies on the creation of a wake), it was not included in the restriction. Local authorities will still have the option of introducing a broad towing restriction (e.g. prohibiting wake boarding, waterskiing) under Schedule 7 of the VORR if waterway issues related to these recreational activities are identified.

Three commenters suggested banning wake surfing across the country. TC believes that this would be unreasonable as it would discriminate against a water sport that can be practised safely on adapted waterways suited for the activity.

Nine commenters suggested establishing a national policy that would introduce wake surfing restrictions based on length, width, and depth of waterways. TC assessed this possibility and concluded that, due to the nature and characteristics of different waterways, local authorities are better equipped to understand the issues and propose unique solutions on their respective bodies of water. Two commenters suggested a restriction be introduced that would manage excessive wake given that other recreational activities can be conducted on a wake. TC assessed this option in consultation with enforcement partners. All agreed that it would be difficult to establish a reasonable and appropriate threshold for “excessive” wake that could be applied consistently, and that any such restriction would be impractical to enforce as vessels in continuous movement could move from one area to another where the wake produced could alternate from excessive to reasonable.

Lastly, three commenters indicated that they were fully against any restriction on wake surfing, but they did not provide a reason. TC believes that wake surfing restrictions can be an appropriate solution to address waterway issues.

New restrictions

TC has received applications from local authorities for 21 new restrictions on six bodies of water. Below is an overview of comments received for each body of water where new restrictions are being introduced.

Big Tub Harbour (Ontario)

TC received 35 comments in support of the proposed restrictions to address safety issues and protect the environment and public interest.

Richelieu River (Quebec)

In total, TC received 346 comments concerning proposed restrictions on the Richelieu River. It is important to note that establishing restrictions on the waterway has long been a polarizing issue on this river, forcing local authorities to retract an original proposal in 2019, reassess solutions, and hold additional consultations. In total, 267 commenters, including non-governmental organizations, expressed support for the proposed restrictions to address safety issues, and protect the environment and public interest.

Conversely, 66 commenters were not in favour of the proposed restrictions. These commenters stated that they were not consulted properly and that they did not agree with the restrictiveness of the proposal. They also noted that one municipality was not fully supportive, based on wording from their municipal resolution. In addition, they felt that the combination of various speed limit zones may have a detrimental effect in terms of congestion, wake creation with the “stop and go” of vessels, and decreasing the fluidity of traffic which may impact navigation safety. These commenters also disagreed with imposing wake surfing restrictions on weekends. They suggested that the restrictions should be removed from the proposal and local communities should re-consult with stakeholders in order to establish a sound and productive regulatory proposal for the waterway. Some commenters believed that the restrictions were either being put forward to deal with a minority of delinquents or to respond to a minority of worried stakeholders.

TC believes that the local authorities conducted extensive consultations and a comprehensive analysis in order to find the right balance between navigation safety and environmental protection, while minimizing the impact on waterway users.

One industry representative, representing local marinas, supported some proposed restrictions, but not the wake surfing restrictions on weekends as they would have an impact on local stakeholders who practise this sport, as well as neighbouring waterways, which may see an increase in traffic. When local authorities propose restrictions, they are expected to consider impacts on water users. In the case of the wake surfing restriction on the Richelieu River, the local authorities focused their attention on finding the right balance for all waterway users. It should be noted that there are other areas of the waterway where wake surfing activities can be practised safely, as well as other times during the week in which wake surfing will be permitted.

Six commenters supported the restrictions but believed more aggressive measures should be put in place, such as prohibitions on anchorage in some areas and establishing no wake zones. Regarding no wake zones, this is currently not an enforceable restriction. TC and the boating community recognize that everything that moves in the water creates a wake, which if not controlled, can create negative impacts to other waterway users and/or the shoreline. Regarding anchorage restrictions, the right to anchor a vessel is part of the common law right of navigation. There exist many reasons for anchoring, including to ensure the safety of the vessel’s occupants, and vessels are free to anchor temporarily wherever it is safe. Further analysis would be required to determine the feasibility of introducing an anchoring restriction under the VORR. On that note, TC launched a consultation on long-term anchoring (e.g. floating accommodations) from October to December 2023 that will provide TC with stakeholder views on the subject. TC would welcome views on this issue from stakeholders as part of the modernization initiative moving forward.

One commenter suggested that restrictions should be tailored to the size of vessels and the wake they produce instead of putting every boat under the same regime. As discussed above, local authorities, through consultations, conducted a full assessment of the potential measures to put in place. The restrictions chosen represent an attempt to find the right balance for all waterway users.

Two commenters suggested that enforcement of the speed limit restrictions will not be feasible as the resources for enforcement entities are limited. In terms of enforcement, local authorities are responsible for ensuring that an enforcement regime is in place to enforce compliance with the restrictions.

Lastly, three commenters pointed out an error in the section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) describing the towing and wake surfing restriction regarding the 50 km/h portion of the waterway which, instead of prohibiting wake surf during the afternoons of weekends, was written as though wake surfing was only allowed during that time period. An erratum was published on July 1, 2023, to correct the description section and TC has corrected the text in this RIAS.

St-Maurice River (Quebec)

In total, 48 comments were received regarding St-Maurice River. Of these, 46 commenters expressed support for the proposed restrictions to address safety issues and protect the environment and public interest.

One commenter suggested enlarging the area covered by the restrictions up to a local dam, as issues may also be present in that area of the waterway. Another commenter suggested more aggressive measures be put in place on the waterway, such as limiting speed to 5 km/h all along the waterway. TC believes that the local authority established its restrictions based on full analysis of the issues and comprehensive consultations and, therefore, TC supports the local authority’s decisions. However, if needed, the local authority can submit a request for additional or different restrictions in the future.

Duhamel Lake (Quebec)

In total, 70 comments were received regarding Duhamel Lake. Of these, 42 commenters expressed support for the proposed restrictions to address safety issues and protect the environment and public interest.

A total of 22 commenters supported the restrictions, but believed more aggressive measures should also be put in place, such as speed limits no higher than 10 km/h on the entirety of the lake and the introduction of no wake zones. Six commenters did not support the restrictions, or part thereof (e.g. they were not in support of towing restriction or identified speed limits), and requested more analysis and consultations be conducted. TC believes that the local authority established its restrictions based on a full analysis of the issues and comprehensive consultations.

Regarding no wake zones, this is currently not an enforceable restriction. TC and the boating community recognize that everything that moves in the water creates a wake, which, if not controlled, can create negative impacts to other waterway users. That is why TC raises awareness with boat operators about how a boat’s wake might affect others and the environment. It is important to note that boaters can be held responsible for any damages or harm they cause with their vessel as per section 1007 of the Small Vessel Regulations and receive a related fine under the Contraventions Regulations.

Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba)

A total of 90 comments was received regarding Pinawa Channel and Lee River. Of these, 63 commenters expressed support for the proposed restrictions to address safety issues and protect the environment and public interest.

Nine commenters felt that the proposed restrictions would only move the problem to other areas of the waterways or even to other nearby bodies of water, suggesting that more analysis is required to address the issues and consider the possibility of expanding restrictions to other areas. Three commenters did not support the restrictions as they believe the process was not evidence-based and that the restrictions are being proposed to address concerns from a minority of local citizens living on the banks of the waterways. One commenter suggested limiting the engine power of vessels to 5 hp, restricting towing and wake surfing at all times, and increasing the presence of enforcement entities. One commenter supported the wake surfing restriction but not the towing restrictions. Another commenter suggested that no wake surfing should take place on Pinawa Channel at all. Finally, three commenters requested restrictions be changed from 100 m from shore to 30 m.

TC believes that the local authority undertook a thorough analysis and conducted extensive consultations with stakeholders to find the right balance between navigation safety and environmental protection, while minimizing negative impacts on waterway users.

Seven commenters felt that the proposed restrictions on wake surfing would have a negative impact on local stakeholders who practise the sport. TC understands the concerns of wake surfing stakeholders. When local authorities propose restrictions on waterways, they are expected to consider impacts on water users. In this case, there are other areas of the waterway where wake surfing activities are permitted and can be practised safely.

Two commenters suggested the possibility of introducing a restriction on the use of ballast systems on wake boats, which are used to create a large wake for the surfer to ride. In addition, the two commenters felt that, at a minimum, TC should introduce wake surfing restrictions based on the length, depth, and width of waterways, addressing similar wake surfing issues on waterways across the country by defining which areas are suitable for practising wake surfing. As discussed in the section above on wake surfing, TC assessed this possibility; however, due to the nature and unique characteristics of different waterways, TC is of the opinion that local authorities are better equipped to understand the issues and find solutions for their respective bodies of water. In consultation with enforcement entities, TC assessed the idea of restricting ballast. However, this would be a difficult restriction to enforce as defining and determining when ballast is in use would be impractical.

Designation authority

Two commenters from Port Authorities signalled the importance of enforcement designations for Port Authorities across the country to ensure compliance with vessel operation restrictions within their jurisdictional waters. TC will continue to work with Port Authorities to assess enforcement requirements on their jurisdictional waters.

General comments

Regarding the overall proposal, 68 comments were received. Of these, 62 commenters supported the Regulations on the basis that the new and amended restrictions would enhance environmental protection and navigation safety.

Five commenters did not support the Regulations as they believe the Regulations would create burden and would not yield any benefits. TC does not agree with this opinion. For many years, local authorities have been managing waterway issues to the best of their abilities, often adopting alternative measures such as awareness campaigns and developing codes of ethics. There are multiple identified issues on Canadian waterways, which may endanger waterway users and negatively impact the environment. Local authorities apply for vessel operation restrictions under the VORR as a last resort. Identification of the problem, analysis of solutions, and public consultations are undertaken to ensure a balanced approach between mitigating issues and minimizing the impact on waterway users.

Lastly, one commenter felt that the ticketing regime was insufficient to enforce compliance on Canadian waterways. The commenter proposed that a tougher enforcement regime should be established where those who contravene requirements would receive increased fines and/or have their boats seized. TC believes that the current ticketing regime under the VORR is fair and well suited for the infractions it covers. Similar to the ticketing regime used for road vehicle infractions (e.g. breaching the speed limit, driving outside permitted road surface) the related fine levels are comparable.

Regulatory analysis

Three commenters suggested that the costs borne by the local authorities associated with the implementation of the restrictions would be offset by the benefits of the regulations and future costs savings due, for example, to the mitigation of negative environmental impacts.

Two commenters provided their views on the impacts to the marine industry on Richelieu River and Duhamel Lake. They believe that the marine industry would adapt to the impacts of these restrictions by increasing their inventories with human-powered vessels, which would allow for a better integration of all vessel activities on these waterways.

One commenter raised concerns regarding the high costs of signage requirements on the Richelieu River. The commenter mentioned having developed a smartphone application in which restrictions could be integrated on an electronic map at a lower cost than physical signage. While the current requirements under the VORR oblige local authorities to post visual signage informing waterway users of restrictions on the waterway, TC has followed up with the commenter and will explore the potential benefits such an application could have in ensuring compliance with restrictions on waterways across the country in the future.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposal gives rise to modern treaty implications. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect and no modern treaty obligations were identified. The proposed restrictions were included as part of a November 2022 update on upcoming TC initiatives sent to Indigenous communities and organizations.

Instrument choice

The VORR allows any order of government to ask the federal government to restrict the use of vessels on any body of water in Canada. Local authorities are encouraged to find non-regulatory solutions prior to seeking a regulatory restriction through the VORR. Through consultations held by local authorities as part of the application process, alternative solutions are explored, but sometimes prove to be ineffective, thereby leaving regulatory restrictions as the only effective alternative. When local authorities have determined that there are no viable alternatives other than to establish restrictions in the VORR, that is when an application is filed with TC.

The amendments to engine power limits and wake surfing will provide local authorities with more opportunities and flexibility to establish restrictions that are specific to their unique circumstances. The restrictions that were previously available in the VORR limited some local authorities from applying a solution that would specifically address their concerns. For example, local authorities would have needed to restrict all towing activities to address the issue of wake surfing on their local water bodies. This could have resulted in situations where restrictions on local bodies of water were not aligned with the safety and/or environmental issues being faced by the local community. Regulatory amendments were deemed necessary to tailor the restriction options available to local authorities, thereby helping avoid situations where local authorities would have to impose additional and unwanted restrictions in order to restrict wake surfing on local bodies of water.

Enforcement officers employed by the Port of Windsor need to be designated as enforcement officers in the VORR; there are no non-regulatory options that would allow these officers to enforce the VORR.

To ensure that the VORR remain accurate and up to date, technical corrections are needed; there are no non-regulatory options for making such corrections.

Incorporation by Reference (IBR) is used for the technical requirements on signage. This will ensure that changes made to the technical requirements for signage, for example, for safety purposes, can be more rapidly disseminated than if they had to be made as amendments to the VORR through the regulatory process, which can be time consuming. In the absence of the incorporation, signage requirements set out in the VORR would likely continue to fall out of step with published technical guidance on signage, which could result in ambiguity and confusion for local authorities. Moreover, any such ambiguity could result in signage not being consistently and appropriately updated, which could have safety implications. IBR was chosen to reduce ambiguity about signage requirements and ensure that changes to signage requirements for local boating communities are communicated and implemented in a timely manner, which is expected, in turn, to result in safety benefits. As local authorities already rely on existing TP 15400E for updates on signage, its incorporation is not expected to result in any incremental impacts or costs for stakeholders.

Regulatory analysis

Changes to the cost-benefit analysis since the prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

Even though no changes to the cost-benefit analysis were needed as a result of stakeholder comments submitted during the prepublication (see Consultation — Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I — Regulatory analysis for detail), the analytical time frame and the base year of discounting were updated to align with the expected year of registration, which is 2023.^{footnote 2} More specifically

• the analytical time frame was revised from 2024–2033 to 2023–2033; and
• the base year of discounting was revised from 2024 to 2023.

Therefore, the total monetized cost (in present value) was revised from $3.17 million to $2.96 million due to the change of the base year of discounting.^{footnote 3}

Benefits and costs

The Regulations create a separate schedule for wake surfing and establish 21 new restrictions on six bodies of water. The Regulations also prohibit the operation of certain power-driven vessels, or vessels driven by electrical propulsion on local bodies of water where high-powered vessels could pose safety and environmental risks. In addition, the Regulations include the designation of port enforcement officers employed by the Windsor Port Authority. Lastly, the Regulations make minor administrative corrections.

Expanding restrictions will introduce costs to local authorities, who applied for the new restrictions, and the Government of Canada (the Government). The Regulations also introduce minor costs to the Windsor Port Authority and the Government for training associated with the designation authority.

In addition, the Regulations are expected to enhance protection of the environment and improve the safety of all users of the bodies of water. Overall, the benefits of the Regulations are expected to exceed the costs by increasing safety for waterway users, reducing negative impacts on the environment, and aligning with the public interest. More detailed information on the qualitative benefits of this proposal can be found in the “Benefits” section below.

The costs and benefits have been assessed in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis. Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

Benefits and costs associated with the Regulations were assessed based on comparing the baseline against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government does not implement the Regulations. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes as a result of the Regulations. Further details on these two scenarios are presented below.

Analytical framework

The analysis estimated the impact of the Regulations from 2023 to 2033. The analysis begins in 2023 as this is the expected year of registration. Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in present value in 2022 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2023 at a 7% discount rate.

Affected stakeholders

Given the additional restrictions being introduced, local authorities in any jurisdiction will have the option to restrict certain activities on their local bodies of water. Further, the local authorities in Big Tub Harbour (Ontario), Richelieu River (Quebec), Saint-Maurice River (Quebec), Duhamel Lake (Quebec) and Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba) areas are specifically impacted as the Regulations set restrictions on the bodies of water in their jurisdictions. Local authorities are also responsible for the costs associated with the restrictions on their bodies of water.

Members of the public living near the water bodies will be impacted by the restrictions, which are expected to affect leisure opportunities for some water users and improve safety for others. In addition, the restrictions are also expected to impact businesses that offer towing activity services in some areas.

The Regulations will also impact the Windsor Port Authority as three of their enforcement officers are required to complete TC training in order to obtain designation authority.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

In the baseline scenario, the VORR restrict vessel activities and navigation in specified Canadian bodies of water as set out in the Schedules. However, the VORR would not separate schedule for restrictions on wake surfing or introduce an option to prohibit the operation of certain power-driven vessels, or vessels driven by electrical propulsion on all bodies of water. Furthermore, the six bodies of water — Big Tub Harbour (Ontario), Richelieu River (Quebec), Saint-Maurice River (Quebec), Duhamel Lake (Quebec) and Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba) — would not be included in the Schedules to the VORR. The VORR would also not give designation authority to port enforcement officers employed by the Windsor Port Authority. In addition, while the rights of Indigenous peoples have always been protected under the VORR, they would not be explicitly prescribed in the VORR. Sections of the VORR related to technical requirements on signage would remain as is and, as a result, would likely continue to fall out of alignment with TP 15400E. Lastly, some geographic coordinates would remain imprecise or inaccurate, which would create ambiguity for stakeholders and enforcement officers.

In the regulatory scenario, the Regulations create a separate schedule for wake surfing and introduce 21 restrictions on the above-mentioned six bodies of water. The Regulations also allow for the prohibition (on the request of local authorities) of certain power-driven vessels, or vessels driven by electrical propulsion on any body of water covered under the VORR (i.e. not just controlled access bodies of water or bodies of water within a public park). Furthermore, the Regulations designate port enforcement officers employed by the Windsor Port Authority as enforcement officers and make minor administrative updates for clarity and accuracy. In addition, the Regulations include an exemption to specific restrictions (e.g. operating a vessel in restricted waters) to ensure clarity and certainty about the rights of Indigenous peoples as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Lastly, sections 8 and 9, which contained the technical requirements on signage, are removed from the VORR, and the signage requirements are included in a Transport Publication that is incorporated by reference in the VORR.

The amendments related to the technical requirements on signage, Indigenous rights, and administrative corrections are not expected to result in any costs. These amendments are described below.

Technical requirements on signage

A Transport Publication (TP 15400E) already exists, which provides technical guidance and updates about requirements in sections 8 and 9 in the VORR. As all affected stakeholders already rely on this TP, and make all updates accordingly, no incremental costs associated with incorporating this TP by reference in the VORR are anticipated.

Updating exemptions

Indigenous peoples are currently exempted from specific restrictions (e.g. operating a vessel in restricted waters) to affirm their existing rights as recognized under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As such, no incremental costs associated with making these exemptions explicit in the VORR are anticipated.

Similarly, as a best practice, TC already provides exemptions from vessel operation restrictions to persons who hold a federal fishing licence. As a result, no incremental costs associated with this amendment are anticipated.

Administrative corrections

Updating the geographic coordinates, the name and/or description for three bodies of water do not result in any costs as these changes are made to provide clearer descriptions and accurate geographic coordinates of each respective restriction.

Costs ^{footnote 4}

The total costs for the Regulations are estimated to be $2.96 million (M), where $2.81M would be incurred by impacted stakeholders and $0.15M (opportunity cost) would be incurred by TC (representing the Government). TC will manage these costs through existing resources.

Engine power limits

The Regulations expand subsection 2(4) of the VORR to include all types of bodies of water. This will result in an increase in the number of applications received by TC for engine power restrictions by local authorities. According to subject matter experts at TC, this expansion of subsection 2(4) is expected to result in three new applications per year being submitted by local authorities to TC between 2025 and 2027. After that, it is assumed that one new application per year would be submitted for the remaining years (2028 to 2033).

It is estimated that local authorities would need 2 380 hours to complete one application,^{footnote 5} at an hourly wage of $37.54.^{footnote 6} TC estimates that it would take, on average, 80 hours for a boating safety officer (GT-04 classification) at an hourly wage of $50.33, and 45 hours for a program officer (PM-05 classification) at an hourly wage of $61.42,^{footnote 7} to review and process one application.

As a result, local authorities are expected to incur a total cost of $0.98M for the preparation and submission of additional applications and TC is expected to incur a total cost of $74.66 thousand (K) to review and process these applications, for a total cost of $1.06M between 2024 and 2033.

In the baseline scenario, local authorities that want to specify an engine power limit on their local body of water would need to apply for another form of restriction in order to address issues from engine power on their bodies of water that are not in public parks or controlled access bodies of water. As a result, this amendment could lead to a reduction in applications being received for other schedules; however, TC is not able to determine the exact impact this amendment will have on other schedules.^{footnote 8}

Wake surfing restrictions^{footnote 9}

The Regulations introduce a separate schedule targeting wake surfing, which will allow a local authority to apply for a prohibition to operate a power-driven vessel or a vessel driven by electrical propulsion for the purpose of allowing a person to wake surf, except during permitted periods. Three restrictions have come into force over the past 10 years (2012 to 2022) to address towing and wake surfing under Schedule 7. This amendment is expected to result in an increase in applications: according to subject matter experts at TC, it is assumed that three new applications per year would be submitted by local authorities above current levels to TC between 2025 and 2027. After that, it is assumed that one new application per year would be submitted for the remaining years (2028 to 2033).

Using the same time and wage estimates previously defined under Engine Power Limits, local authorities would incur a total cost of $0.98M for the preparation and submission of additional applications and TC would incur a total cost of $74.66K to review and approve the increased number of applications, for a total cost of $1.06M between 2024 and 2033.

Further, the signage used for Schedule 7 will not suffice for the new wake surfing restriction in Schedule 7.1. As a result, approximately 93 local authorities who currently have a Schedule 7 restriction will be required to purchase signage to identify the wake surfing restriction on their bodies of water under the new Schedule 7.1. According to subject matter experts at TC, it is estimated that new signage would cost approximately $1,000 (undiscounted value) for each local authority in 2024, for a total cost of $86.92K. Local authorities are also expected to incur a cost for ongoing maintenance of the new signage. According to subject matter experts at TC, this is estimated to be $50 per year (undiscounted value per local authority), for a total maintenance cost of $32.66K.

New restrictions

The local authorities of the 21 new restrictions on the Big Tug Harbour (Ontario), Richelieu River (Quebec), Saint-Maurice River (Quebec), Duhamel Lake (Quebec) and Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba) will incur costs, as the local authorities will be responsible for signage and raising awareness and communicating to the public about the existence of new restrictions. It is expected that each body of water will incur a one-time signage installation cost in 2024 with the implementation of the restrictions, and ongoing maintenance costs of signage, buoys, or other similar types of infrastructure in the following years. While local authorities will see a slight increase in their enforcement responsibilities due to the new restrictions, this increase is not necessarily expected to translate into a significant increase in the level of effort to perform enforcement responsibilities. It is expected that additional enforcement efforts will be managed within existing resources for five out of the six local authorities. Only the local authority for the Saint-Maurice River which is expected to incur costs for additional police presence.

The total cost to the six local authorities for the 21 new restrictions is estimated to be $724.99K. The costs presented below were received directly from the local authorities. Costs per local authority vary.

Big Tug Harbour (Ontario)

The restrictions for Big Tug Harbour will result in the purchase and installation of additional buoys by the local authority. According to the local authority, they expect to purchase and install two new buoys to mark the Schedule 6 area at a cost of $2,400 (undiscounted value) in 2024. The buoys marking the current Schedule 1 area are in good condition and can be relocated to mark the new Schedule 1 boundary outlined in the restriction. As a result, no new buoys are expected to be purchased by the local authority for the new Schedule 1 boundary.

The local authority will also incur maintenance costs associated with the two new buoys in the Schedule 6 area. According to the local authority, total maintenance costs incurred would be $5,092^{footnote 10} between 2024 and 2033. There are no incremental maintenance costs for Schedule 1 as these buoys already exist and are being maintained by the local authority.

As a result, the local authority for Big Tug Harbour would incur a total cost of $7,335 between 2024 and 2033.

Richelieu River (Quebec)

The restrictions on the Richelieu River will result in costs being incurred by the local authorities for the purchase and installation of buoys and land traffic signs, and their associated maintenance costs. According to the local authorities, they are expected to purchase 40 new buoys at a total cost of $29.91K and an installation cost of $200K (undiscounted value), both to be incurred in 2024. The local authorities are also expected to purchase 150 land traffic signs at a total cost of $15K (undiscounted value) and an installation cost of $15K (undiscounted value), both to be incurred in 2024.

The local authorities will also incur maintenance costs associated with the new buoys and land traffic signs. According to the local authorities, total maintenance costs incurred would be $140.47K^{footnote 11} between 2024 and 2033.

As a result, the local authorities for the Richelieu River are expected to incur a total cost of $385.33K between 2024 and 2033.

Saint-Maurice River (Quebec)

The restrictions on the Saint-Maurice River will result in costs being incurred by the local authority for the purchase and maintenance of buoys, increased police presence and a communications plan. According to the local authority, they are expected to purchase new buoys at a cost of a $20K (undiscounted value) to be incurred in 2024, as well as associated maintenance costs of $35.12K^{footnote 12} between 2024 and 2033.

In addition, the local authority would incur a cost of $20K (undiscounted value) in 2024 for the development and implementation of a communications plan, as well as a cost of $65.61K^{footnote 13} between 2024 and 2026 for police presence.

As a result, the local authority for the Saint-Maurice River is expected to incur a total cost of $138.1K between 2024 and 2033.

Duhamel Lake (Quebec)

The restrictions on the Duhamel Lake will result in costs being incurred for the purchase and installation of buoys, as well as costs associated with explanatory leaflets. According to the local authority, they are expected to purchase 10 new buoys at a cost of $12,250 (undiscounted value) and an installation cost of $1,500 (undiscounted value), both to be incurred in 2024. The local authority is also expected to incur costs for signs and printing of explanatory leaflets at a cost of $2,000 (undiscounted value) in 2024. In addition to these costs, the local authority has also included 5% contingency ($787, undiscounted value).

The local authority will also incur maintenance costs associated with the new buoys and land traffic signs. According to the local authority, maintenance costs are estimated to be $17.56K^{footnote 14} between 2024 and 2033.

As a result, the local authority for the Duhamel Lake is expected to incur a total cost of $33.01K between 2024 and 2033.

Pinawa Channel and Lee River (Manitoba)

According to the local authority, the restrictions on the Pinawa Channel and Lee River will result in costs being incurred by the local authority for signage and their associated maintenance costs, promotional material and raising public awareness about the existence of new restrictions through an education campaign. According to the local authority, signage is estimated to cost $71.1K (undiscounted value) and would be incurred in 2024. Further, maintenance costs for signage are expected to total $17.32K^{footnote 15} and would be incurred in 2027 and 2030.

In addition, the local authority is expected to incur costs for water safety advertising and promotional materials. According to the local authority, advertising and promotional materials would incur a cost of $69.53K^{footnote 16} between 2024 and 2033.

The local authority will also incur costs associated with the education campaign to raise public awareness about the existence of new restrictions. According to the local authority, it would take three staff members, at an hourly wage of $37.50, 10 hours each per year to implement, execute and maintain the education campaign that will work in conjunction with the Regulations. The total cost would be $7,902 from 2024 to 2033.

As a result, the local authority for Pinawa Channel and Lee River is expected to incur a total cost of $161.2K between 2024 and 2033.

Designation authority

The Regulations provide designation authority to port enforcement officers employed by the Windsor Port Authority. This will require port enforcement officers to take TC training and TC to update their current training materials. According to subject matter experts at TC, it will take five hours for a boating safety officer (GT-04 classification), at an hourly rate of $50.33, to update TC training materials. This is expected to result in a cost of $235.2 to TC in 2024.

The TC training is expected to take three port enforcement officers one business day each (7.5 hours) to complete in 2024, at an hourly rate of $93.05.^{footnote 17} At the same time, it will take a boating safety officer (GT-04 classification) one business day (7.5 hours), at an hourly wage of $50.33, to administer the training in the first year (2024). This is expected to result in a cost of $1,957 for port enforcement officers to complete the training and $352.8 for TC to administer the training in 2024.

As a result, TC is expected to incur a cost of $588 to update and administer training and the Windsor Port Authority is expected to incur a cost of $1,957 for officers to complete training, for a total cost of $2,545 in 2024. In addition, providing designation authority will result in a slight increase to the enforcement responsibilities of the port enforcement officers; however, the increase in responsibilities is not considered significant and will be managed with existing staff.

Qualitative costs

Costs to local businesses

For the Richelieu River, Duhamel Lake, and Pinawa Channel and Lee River, restrictions on towing activities could impact local businesses that provide this service. However, only three bodies of water are prohibiting towing activities at all times — a portion of the Richelieu River and Lee River, and on the entirety of Duhamel Lake. Impacted local businesses near Duhamel Lake are expected to experience minimal impacts as Lake Tremblant is in close proximity and more appropriate for towing activities, even though towing activities are expected to continue at bodies of water in close proximity for those affected by the restrictions at the Pinawa Channel and Lee River. Further, for the restrictions on the Richelieu River, it is expected that losses incurred from a decrease in opportunities for water sport enthusiasts (towing sports) will be largely offset by an increase in sales of human-powered boats or small motorized boats (e.g. canoes, kayaks, fishing boats).

Costs to users of the bodies of water

Some users of the six bodies of water are expected to be negatively affected by the Regulations. Big Tug Harbour boaters, for example, will forego the opportunity to operate power-driven and electric propulsion vessels over 10 km/hour.

Richelieu River boaters will forego the opportunities to operate power-driven and electric propulsion vessels on specific segments of the river, as they will not be able to operate the same type of vessels over 10 km/h within four specified segments of the Richelieu River and 50 km/h for the remainder of a 20 km segment of the Richelieu River, nor will they be able to take part in towing and wake surfing activities at all times on the 10 km/h specified segments of the Richelieu River and during specified weekend hours on one specified segment.

Saint-Maurice River boaters will have to follow speed limits of 5 km/h and 10 km/h within three specified segments when operating power-driven and electric propulsion vessels.

Duhamel Lake boaters will also have to follow speed limits of 10 km/h within 60 m from shore and 30 km/h for the remainder of Duhamel Lake when operating power-driven and electric propulsion vessels. Duhamel Lake boaters will also forego the opportunities to partake in towing and wake surfing activities on this body of water.

Pinawa Channel and Lee River boaters will no longer be able to participate in towing and wake surfing activities within 100 m from shore on a specified segment of Lee River and within a specified time on Saturdays and Sundays within a specified segment of Pinawa Channel. Boaters will also be subject to a wake surfing prohibition at all times within one specified segment of Lee River and one specified segment of Pinawa Channel.

Further, a separate schedule that targets wake surfing will allow local authorities to apply for a prohibition to operate a power-driven vessel or a vessel driven by electrical propulsion for the purpose of allowing a person to wake surf, except during permitted periods. It is expected that the introduction of the new schedule will increase the number of local authorities applying for this type of restriction. If more local authorities apply for this type of restriction, more boaters would no longer be able to participate in wake surfing activities.

Therefore, some recreational boaters are expected to incur loss of leisure because they will no longer be allowed to operate their boats beyond the new restrictions; however, this was not monetized due to lack of data.

Benefits

The Regulations are expected to improve the overall safety for waterway users, avoid negative environmental impacts, and align with the public interest. The total benefits associated with the Regulations are not able to be monetized or quantified; however, a detailed qualitative benefit analysis is provided below.

The new Schedule 7.1 will result in restrictions being targeted to wake surfing only, but not on other types of towing activities (that have not been identified as an issue). This could result in an increase of leisure for some boaters. For example, TC has heard from stakeholders that, under certain circumstances, the wake produced for the wake surfing activity can prove to be unsafe for other recreational activities (e.g. waterskiing) or the use of smaller vessels or human-powered vessels (e.g. kayak, canoe). The targeted wake surfing restriction is expected to provide for a safer environment for multi-purpose usage of bodies of water.

New restriction applications

One of the main objectives of imposing restrictions on the Duhamel Lake in the province of Quebec and the Pinawa Channel and Lee River project in Manitoba is to create a safer waterway by removing negative environmental impacts occurring from wake surfing activities, towing activities during peak times, and vessel operations occurring too close to shorelines. More specifically, Duhamel Lake has encountered safety issues due to the speed of boats as well as the waves they generate (risky swimming and compromised safety for pontoons and small boats), environmental problems (erosion of banks, disappearance of beaches, spread of Eurasian watermilfoil and resuspension of sediments related to navigation and wave production) and problems of public interest (breaking of quays or infrastructure, such as water intakes or moored boats).

The Regulations will also provide a benefit by protecting the shorelines from erosion caused by strong wake, specifically along the narrow Pinawa Channel and the narrow section of the Lee River. The continued use of wake boats, specifically on the Pinawa Channel and the narrow sections of the Lee River, has contributed to accelerated shoreline erosion, caused damage to private property, swamped boats of other recreational users, and created a growing safety concern along the waterways.

With regard to the restrictions on Big Tug Harbour in the province of Ontario, the benefits will focus on ensuring that fewer conflicts occur between users, that commercial vessels have safe access at designated times and that limits can be set to balance the interests of adjacent residents and VORR area users.

In addition, the benefit of the restrictions on the Richelieu River in the province of Quebec will focus on water safety for all users. Implementing a maximum speed limit will balance the right to navigate and enjoy recreational water activities through the use of motorized vessel activities in specified areas. The Richelieu River accommodates high traffic levels and is very narrow and shallow in places, and the volume of boat traffic, speed, noise and wake introduces boating safety problems, poses a risk to safety on private docks (danger of people falling off the dock and into the water) and leads to a loss of enjoyment for residents. These restrictions provide an enhanced management that are expected to allow for the harmonization of various water activities on these bodies of water in a safe and respectful manner. Further, the restrictions are expected to improve water quality and bank erosion. Similar benefits will be realized for the restrictions on the Saint-Maurice River and Duhamel Lake in Quebec.

Lastly, it is expected that reduced speeds and limitations in areas of navigation will bring environmental benefits, such as less disruption of sediment, which will improve water quality. Furthermore, reduced speed equals smaller and slower wakes from vessel activity. This will not only provide environmental benefits in terms of reduced shore degradation and erosion, it is also expected to protect properties and infrastructure along the shoreline. It will help avoid property devaluation by reducing physical damage and advanced aging of the bodies of water^{footnote 18} and their shoreline. Further, information received from the local authorities has indicated that the 21 new restrictions will result in safer water conditions. Canada’s lakes and rivers differ in size, depth, and demographics. The restrictions target bodies of water or parts of them where issues have been raised such as high-traffic areas where speed can be a safety issue, narrow parts where risks of collision are higher and wake disturbance created by wake surfing activities can impact the safe usage of smaller vessels.

Technical requirements on signage

Removing sections 8 and 9 from the VORR and incorporating by reference the signage guidelines into an existing TC publication will improve navigation safety by ensuring that changes to technical requirements for signage can be disseminated faster to authorities responsible for posting such signage on their bodies of water and ensure that new or amended restrictions are clearly communicated to the local boating community.

Designation authority

Designating the port enforcement officers employed by the Port of Windsor as enforcement agents under the VORR will be beneficial to the city’s law enforcement operations and is expected to result in enhanced oversight of the restricted areas within the limits of the Windsor Port Authority, ensuring safe navigation during boating season.

Administrative corrections

The objective of the corrections to geographic coordinates is to ensure that the most reliable and up-to-date information is contained within the VORR. There may be marginal safety benefits realized by correcting geographic coordinates listed in the Schedules of the VORR. These corrections will allow water body users to know the correct locations of the restrictions and to act accordingly in those areas to ensure the safety and protection of all users, the environment, and the public interest. There will be minimal savings for concerned authorities/enforcement agencies through reduced compliance calls regarding confusion in geographic location identifiers.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of full calendar years: 10 (2024 to 2033)
• Base year for costing: 2022
• Present value base year: 2023
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 2: Monetized costs^{footnote 19}

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	2023	2024	Annual average (2025–2032)	2033	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Local authorities	Preparing and submitting applications for subsection 2(4)	$0	$0	$117,100	$45,416	$982,219	$139,846
	Preparing and submitting applications for wake surfing	$0	$0	$117,100	$45,416	$982,219	$139,846
	New signage for Schedule 7.1	$0	$91,262	$3,244	$2,364	$119,576	$17,025
	Restrictions on Big Tug Harbour	$0	$2,921	$506	$369	$7,335	$1,044
	Restrictions on Richelieu River	$0	$263,551	$13,952	$10,167	$385,331	$54,863
	Restrictions on Saint-Maurice River	$0	$65,421	$8,768	$2,542	$138,109	$19,664
	Restrictions on Duhamel Lake	$0	$17,792	$1,744	$1,271	$33,014	$4,700
	Restrictions on Pinawa Channel and Lee River	$0	$76,752	$9,856	$5,605	$161,204	$22,952
	Sub-total (local authorities)	$0	$517,698	$272,270	$113,148	$2,809,008	$399,940
Port Authority	Completing TC training	$0	$1,957	$0	$0	$1,957	$279
Transport Canada	Updating TC training	$0	$235	$0	$0	$235	$33
	Administering TC training	$0	$353	$0	$0	$353	$50
	Reviewing and approving applications for subsection 2(4)	$0	$0	$8,901	$3,452	$74,657	$10,630
	Reviewing and approving applications wake surfing	$0	$0	$8,901	$3,452	$74,657	$10,630
	Sub-total (Transport Canada)	$0	$588	$17,801	$6,904	$149,902	$21,343
All stakeholders	Total costs	$0	$520,243	$290,072	$120,052	$2,960,868	$421,561

Qualitative impacts

Positive impacts

• Wake surfing restrictions are expected to increase leisure for some users as the wake produced by wake surfing can prove to be unsafe for other recreational activities.
• The new restrictions on the six bodies of water are expected to create a safer and more enjoyable experience for water users and reduce impacts on the environment.
• Designating the port enforcement officers employed by the Windsor Port Authority as enforcement agents is expected to result in enhanced oversight of the restricted areas within the limits of the Windsor Port Authority, ensuring safe navigation during boating season.
• The administrative corrections of the geographical coordinates may result in marginal safety benefits realized by correcting geographic coordinates listed in the Schedules of the VORR.

Negative impacts

• Local businesses that provide services related to towing activities are expected to be impacted due to the new wake surfing restrictions.
• Boat users on the impacted bodies of water are expected to be impacted as they will now experience limitations on some of their activities.

Small business lens

Analysis conducted under the small business lens concluded that the Regulations will impact small businesses. As previously discussed (see Costs — Costs to local businesses for detail), restrictions on towing activities in three bodies of waters could impact local small businesses, such as boat dealerships and businesses which offer rental services for wake surfing. However, impacts on these small businesses are expected to be minimal as the impacts would be mitigated either by displacing towing activities on another waterway in close proximity or by increase in sales of human-powered boats or small motorized boats.

No flexibilities were developed to mitigate the impacts of the Regulations on small businesses. The Regulations, which apply equally to all impacted businesses, will improve safety, and mitigate environmental impacts by addressing issues identified by local authorities.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply as the Regulations will not result in an incremental change in administrative burden for business.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The Regulations are not related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum. Local authorities are responsible for regulatory enforcement. When filing an application for new restrictions under the VORR, local authorities must agree to apply and be responsible for new restrictions within their jurisdiction.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process was followed for these amendments and a Sustainable Transportation Assessment was completed. In general, no important environmental effects are anticipated as a result of these changes. It should be noted that marginal benefits may be expected from the new restrictions on wake surfing in terms of alleviating shoreline erosion. The assessment took into account potential effects to the environmental goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS).

Gender-based analysis plus

Due to a lack of data on body of water users across the country, a qualitative assessment of gender, demographic and regional characteristics was the only feasible option for analysis. At any given time, the demographic characteristics of the users of a body of water can differ significantly.

Based on unofficial data and general assumption, the restriction on wake surfing is expected to impact water body users differentially and disproportionately on the basis of age, specifically on youth who are recognized as the segment of the population who participate in greater numbers in wake surfing activities. The restriction will specifically result in a loss of leisure opportunity for wake surfers on sections of bodies of water or bodies of water entirely, and in some circumstances on times of the day where wake surfing is allowed.

The amendments are expected to provide greater clarity and certainty about Indigenous rights in areas with restrictions prohibiting all or certain types of vessels, which is expected to have a positive impact for Indigenous peoples.

The remaining amendments in terms of prohibiting access to certain bodies of water, limiting speeds or prohibiting types of vessels are not expected to have any other differential impacts on the basis of identity factors, such as sex, gender, sexuality, race, religion, etc. Similar to how rules of the road apply to all individuals driving a vehicle or using a roadway, these restrictions, and their enforcement, apply to any vessel users of a body of water with navigational restrictions.

Prior to submitting applications for restrictions, local authorities attempt other types of mitigation measures. Local authorities also determine how to balance permissible activities on local bodies of water against the consideration of numerous factors, including safety and environmental risks and overall user enjoyment.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Local authorities in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec who have applied for restrictions will be informed by Regional Office of Boating Safety officials via a direct call to the sponsor of the application of the coming into force of the proposed Regulations once they are published and of their responsibilities as a local authority now administering restrictions on bodies of water under their jurisdiction. These responsibilities include

• informing the public and waterway users about the restrictions;
• creating, installing, and maintaining signage, including incurring all costs; and
• enforcing compliance.

Matters pertaining to navigation and shipping fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the philosophy behind the VORR is one of partnership between federal, provincial, and local governments. Through an existing program, regional TC officials provide regulatory briefings and other support to assist local enforcement agencies in their functions.

In anticipation of the Regulations, TC, through the applicable regional Office of Boating Safety officials, will provide training to the future designated enforcement officers who will be authorized to enforce the VORR. Regional Office of Boating Safety officials are available to provide additional training or support, as required. Enforcement officers have a range of tools available to them and the latitude to apply an appropriate tool to a particular violation. These tools include, but are not limited to, providing educational information, fostering awareness of what constitutes safe boating, the ability to issue a warning or multiple warnings and, if required, issuing tickets with fines. The decision on how to proceed is left solely to the judgment of the enforcement officer. The table in section 16 of the VORR sets out the persons or classes of persons that are appointed or specified as enforcement officers under the VORR and section 17 further details the powers delegated to them.

In the future, any amendments to the signage requirements will involve updating the Signage Guide [TP 15400E (PDF)], which is incorporated by reference into the VORR. Updates will be communicated to stakeholders via email notification from TC’s Canadian Marine Advisory Council distribution list and the regional Office of Boating Safety distribution lists. The email will include a detailed list of all relevant changes and a link to the Transport Publication which is available at no cost on TC’s website. Additionally, the TC website will include a NEW heading with the date and details of each amendment in both English and French so that users are aware of any changes since the last time they may have visited the website. All changes to the Signage Guide will be appropriately reviewed and validated to ensure that they remain consistent with the CSA 2001 and regulations. The Guide will remain available to stakeholders free of charge on the TC website in both English and French. TP 15400E is currently available in an accessible format.

The Contravention Regulations, made pursuant to the Contraventions Act, set out prescribed fine amounts for contraventions of regulations, including regulations made under the CSA 2001. A schedule to the Contraventions Regulations sets out specific contravention amounts to a maximum of $500 for violations. Enforcement is by way of summary conviction or ticketing under the Contraventions Act. While the Regulations remove restrictions on wake surfing from Schedule 7 and set them out in a new schedule, tickets for contravening to these restrictions will not be issued until consequential amendments to the Contravention Regulations come into force. Proposed amendments to the Contraventions Regulations are anticipated for 2024.

Contact

Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations
Manager
Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs
Marine Safety and Security
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: MSSRegulations-ReglementsSSM@tc.gc.ca