Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 155, Number 24: Regulations Amending the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations
June 12, 2021
Statutory authority
Canada Shipping Act, 2001
Sponsoring department
Department of Transport
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Issues
Due to the distinct nature of the issues being addressed in this proposal, issues have been categorized in four sections throughout the document.
Permitting approach under subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1)
Subsection 10.1(1) of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (the Regulations) does not currently allow the Minister to issue permits for vessels to access restricted waters for the purpose of accessing a historical, cultural, ecological or geological site, nor for construction and/or the maintenance of infrastructure, as these activities are not referenced in the list of purposes under subsection 10.1(1) for which the Minister has the authority to issue permits. For example, infrastructure requiring maintenance, that is located on a body of water that has a restriction prohibiting navigation, could be delayed, or prevented from occurring because the Minister does not have the express authority to issue a permit for this type of activity.
Subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1) provide the Minister with the authority to issue permits for vessels to operate in a manner that is contrary to the Regulations under certain circumstances, such as for the purpose of conducting scientific research, protecting the environment or holding a sporting, recreational or public event or activity. However, the Regulations do not currently provide for ministerial discretion or specify any factors for the Minister to consider when reviewing the permit application, such as consideration of the risks to safety, the public interest or the environment; the type, size and intended use of the vessel; as well as the characteristics of the body of water where vessel operation restrictions exist. Stating the factors that may be considered as well as providing the Minister discretion in whether or not to issue a permit would ensure clearer and more effective management of permit applications. If no changes are made to the current regulatory text, issues could arise with safety, environmental and public interest impacts. By allowing for ministerial discretion at the application stage, higher-risk applications could be rejected, thereby ensuring safety.
New restriction applications
The City of Toronto is seeking a new restriction in Schedule 2 (Waters on Which Power-driven Vessels and Vessels Driven by Electrical Propulsion Are Prohibited) for a new portion of the Don River designed to protect and attract wildlife habitat, enhance flood mitigation measures and provide an educational setting for its citizens. The local authority is requesting this restriction as the use of motorized vessels has been identified as a risk to environmental components through noise pollution and vessel strikes with wildlife, including some species at risk, given the relatively narrow, winding and shallow conditions of the river. In addition to those latter features of the river, the wildlife habitat components (e.g. submerged artificial habitats) and surrounding infrastructure (e.g. low bridges; rocky shoals) pose a risk to safe navigation by motorized vessels.
In the province of Quebec, local authorities along a 20 km section of the Richelieu River are seeking a new restriction in Schedule 6 (Waters on Which Power-driven Vessels and Vessels Driven by Electrical Propulsion Are Subject to a Speed Limit) and in Schedule 7 (Waters in Which Towing a Person on Any Sporting or Recreational Equipment, or Allowing a Person to Wake Surf, Is Prohibited Except During the Permitted Hours) for a portion of the Richelieu River. The restrictions are requested to address safety issues by balancing motorized navigation activities with other recreational water activities (e.g. paddling) on the body of water. Furthermore, the restriction will enhance protection of fragile marine ecosystems and water quality, particularly important for municipalities relying on the river water for their potable water treatment plants. In addition, the Sainte-Paule municipality is also seeking a new Schedule 6 restriction for Portage Lake to address similar safety and environmental issues highlighted for Richelieu River.
The lack of restrictions on these bodies of water, whether it be on the use of all types of motorized vessels (power-driven or electric), on maximum speed limits, and/or on water sports, would increase negative impacts on the environment, public interest and jeopardize safety in some circumstances. For example, the environmental risks that can arise from the unrestricted use of motorized vessels can include erosion and the endangerment of the aquatic and riparian habitat. Safety risks include accidents and fatalities that can arise from the unrestricted use of motorized vessels on bodies of water with a broad range of other users.
Designation authority
To address concerns about boating safety and promote safe boating practices, it is common for municipalities with limited enforcement capacity to request the designation of enforcement personnel not currently authorized by the Regulations to enforce compliance. Most police forces across the country are currently designated under the Regulations. Authorities in the City of Edmonton have requested that local enforcement personnel (peace officers) be authorized to enforce the Regulations in the City of Edmonton.
Administrative corrections
In consultation with local authorities and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR), Transport Canada has discovered several minor errors and inconsistencies, such as geographical coordinates misrepresenting the body of water impacted by the restriction, in the text of the Regulations.
Background
The Regulations, made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA 2001), provide the ability to regulate boating activities and navigation in Canadian waters. The restrictions are set out in subsections 2(1) to 2(6) and 11(2) and are registered in the seven schedules to the Regulations, which identify the location of the body of water impacted as well as the type of restriction. Restrictions include
- waters on which all vessels are prohibited;
- waters on which 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 an engine limit;
- waters on which power-driven vessels and vessels driven by electrical propulsion are subject to a speed limit and/or subject to an engine power limit;
- waters on which 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 on which a sporting, recreational or public event or activity is prohibited.
The Regulations enable a person to apply to the Minister for a permit to operate a vessel in waters with navigation restrictions and in a manner contrary to a prohibition if the purpose is listed under subsection 10.1(1), or to hold a sporting, recreational or public event or activity on waters where these activities are prohibited.
Each year, Transport Canada (TC) receives several applications from local authorities to impose or amend restrictions on navigation in order to enhance the safety of navigation, to protect the environment or to protect the public interest. The guideenglishaccessible_pdf.pdf">Local Authorities' Guide (LAG) [PDF] helps guide local authorities in the preparation of a restriction submission. The LAG includes information on how to clearly describe the problem, tips on finding non-regulatory and regulatory alternatives to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, information on the consultation process, and 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.
In order to enforce the Regulations, an entity requires to be designated under section 16. A request to be designated as an enforcement officer originates at the local or provincial level. Upon review and approval of the request, the Regulations are amended to include that person or class of persons for enforcement purposes. To ensure compliance with the Regulations, a designated enforcement officer may stop 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.
Objective
Permitting approach under subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1)
The objective of the proposed amendments to subsection 10.1(1) is to ensure that legitimate activities (e.g. visiting historical sites and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure) can be carried out on restricted waters.
In addition, the objective of the proposed amendments to subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1) with respect to establishing ministerial discretion and a list of factors to be considered by the Minister is to ensure that activities for which permits are issued are not contrary to the public interest, the protection of the environment, the safety of persons, and/or the safe and efficient navigation of vessels. A specific list of factors is proposed to ensure that ministerial discretion is exercised in a fair and consistent manner, in addition to providing transparency for stakeholders.
New restriction applications
The objectives of the proposed restriction for the identified portion of the Don River are to mitigate shoreline erosion, and to help create aquatic and riparian habitat in the area.
The focus of the proposed restriction for Portage Lake and the proposed restrictions for Richelieu River are to increase safety for all water body users and to help protect the marine environment from the effects of motor boating activities.
Designation authority
The objective of designating peace officers in the City of Edmonton is to provide for the enforcement of the Regulations in Edmonton.
Administrative corrections
Finally, the objective of the proposed amendments for correcting geographic coordinates is to ensure that the most reliable and up-to-date information is contained within the Regulations, which would enable more effective enforcement of the listed restrictions.
Description
Permitting approach under subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1)
Firstly, proposed amendments to subsection 10.1(1) of the Regulations are being introduced to expand the scope of activities that may be permitted under this section of the Regulations, to include access to historical, cultural, geological, or ecological sites, and supporting the construction and maintenance of infrastructure where access by water is necessary.
The proposed amendments also introduce ministerial discretion and new sections 10.1(1.1) and 12(1.1) to the Regulations that set out the list of factors the Minister would consider when issuing a permit under subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1), prior to authorizing, by permit, access to waters by a vessel, where navigation is usually prohibited and authorizing sporting, recreational or public events or activities in waters where those activities are usually prohibited. The proposed factors are
- the protection of the public interest;
- the protection of the environment;
- the safe and efficient navigation of vessels;
- the type and size of vessel to which the permit relates;
- the intended use of the vessel; and
- the characteristics of the body of water.
The inclusion of the list of factors the Minister must consider before approving a permit application would provide transparency and clarity to applicants and ensure consistency and reliability in the review process. Furthermore, TC will continue to apply specific conditions within individual permits to support the protection of the public interest and the environment, help to minimize the risk to the safety of persons, and decrease interference with the safe and efficient navigation of vessels.
New restriction applications
The proposed amendments would introduce new restrictions for three bodies of water, one in Ontario and two in Quebec.
Don River, Toronto, Ontario
A proposed new restriction in Schedule 2 (Waters on Which Power-driven Vessels and Vessels Driven by Electrical Propulsion Are Prohibited) would be implemented on a future body of water that would be created through the construction of a new mouth on the Don River in Toronto, Ontario. This major undertaking has been planned for over 20 years by the City of Toronto, in collaboration with federal and provincial agencies, for the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project. The restriction of all types of motorized vessels (power-driven and electrical propulsion) would be introduced on this new portion of the Don River. An exemption is also being included that would allow a vessel that is permitted by a local authority to access a specified portion of this restricted waterway to dredge at the intersection of the Don River and the Keating Channel.
Portage Lake, Sainte-Paule, Quebec
A proposed new restriction in Schedule 6 (Waters on Which Power-driven Vessels and Vessels Driven by Electrical Propulsion Are Subject to a Speed Limit) would create a restriction on the maximum speed limit for power-driven and electric propulsion vessels on Portage Lake in Sainte-Paule, Quebec. The proposed restriction would introduce a maximum speed limit of 10 km/h within 100 metres of the shore. This proposed speed restriction would not apply to a vessel moving perpendicularly away from the shore while towing a person on water skis or on any other sporting or recreational equipment.
Richelieu River, Richelieu, Quebec
A proposed new Schedule 6 restriction would be introduced on a portion of the Richelieu River, in the Richelieu Area of Quebec. The proposed restriction would apply to a 20 km segment of the river bordering the communities of Saint-Antoine, Saint-Denis, Saint-Marc, and Saint-Charles (sur-Richelieu) to include the implementation of a 10 km/h maximum speed limit for power-driven and electric propulsion vessels.
A proposed new restriction in Schedule 7 (Waters in Which Towing a Person on Any Sporting or Recreational Equipment, or Allowing a Person to Wake Surf, Is Prohibited Except During the Permitted Hours) would also be introduced for the same portion of the Richelieu River. The proposed restriction would prohibit towing a person on any sporting or recreational towing equipment and would prohibit wake surfing on the identified portion of the River. No permitted hours for towing activities are being proposed.
Designation authority
The proposed amendments respond to a request from the City of Edmonton to enable peace officers, employed by the city, to be designated as enforcement officers under section 16 of the Regulations, which would enable them to enforce local restrictions.
Administrative corrections
Lastly, the proposed amendments would correct the geographic coordinates, and in some cases the name and/or description, for two bodies of water in British Columbia, one body of water in Manitoba, three bodies of water in Ontario, and 24 bodies of water in Quebec. These are minor changes with no impact to users of these bodies of water other than providing clearer descriptions and accurate geographic coordinates of each respective restriction.
Regulatory development
Consultation
A general presentation on the proposed amendments was given to stakeholders at the fall 2019 National Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) meeting of the Standing Committee on Recreational Boating and at the National Recreational Boating Advisory Council meeting, which took place on November 7, 2019. No comments were received at either time. Stakeholders who participate in these meetings include boating safety associations, law enforcement marine units, boating safety course providers, Canadian and U.S. coast guards, industry, academics and others with an interest in recreational boating. A more comprehensive consultation took place at the November 2020 CMAC meeting; however, no comments or questions were received following the presentation.
In addition, stakeholders were consulted online. Invitations to discuss the proposed amendments were sent directly to marine stakeholders and specific Indigenous groups identified through the modern treaty assessment. No comments have been received from stakeholders following the 30-day consultation period that ended December 21, 2020.
Furthermore, as required by the LAG, applications for new restrictions under the Regulations 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. The local authorities held multiple consultations with residents, businesses and other potentially concerned stakeholders. The feedback received by the majority of participants supported applying for restrictions on boating operations for their respective body of water since the Regulations are seen as the most viable options for the local authorities moving forward.
Since the proposed amendments to update and correct geographical coordinates and address comments received by the SJSCR are administrative in nature, public consultations on these proposed amendments were not undertaken.
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 amendments are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect.
No modern treaty obligations were identified in the context of (a) imposing new restrictions on three bodies of water; (b) allowing an additional role for peace officers employed by the City of Edmonton; and (c) addressing outstanding items related to incorrect geographic coordinates. However, for the regulatory amendments related to subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1), engagement with treaty governments was undertaken since the proposed amendments could have links to treaty clauses that require consideration of their advice on matters related to marine areas and permission for determining travel routes in certain circumstances. Impacted Indigenous governments were engaged on November 21, 2020, by electronic correspondence, which outlined the proposed regulatory amendments. Transport Canada invited impacted Indigenous governments to engage, if interested, on the proposed Regulations and to pose any questions they might have. No comments were received from treaty governments consulted as part of the 30-day consultation period that ended December 21, 2020.
Instrument choice
Regulatory amendments are needed to ensure clarity about the activities for which permits may be granted to access restricted bodies of water, and to ensure consistency and transparency about the permit application process. The new activities proposed under subsection 10.1(1) with respect to accessing a historical, cultural, ecological or geological site and supporting the construction and maintenance of infrastructure would provide a more comprehensive list of activities for which a permit may be issued. Furthermore, the new factors being proposed under subsections 10.1(1.1) and 12(1.1) would ensure that the new discretionary power of the Minister is supported by criteria that can be used fairly and consistently when assessing permit applications. Without the proposed amendments, activities such as construction and maintenance, which should be permitted, would not be formally recognized as permitted activities in the Regulations. In addition, the process for reviewing and issuing permits, i.e. the factors that are considered when assessing a permit application, would remain unclear for applicants.
The Regulations allow any level 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 Regulations. 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. For example, in the case of the restrictions being proposed for the Richelieu River and Portage Lake, alternative models (e.g. educational material, voluntary guidelines) have been assessed and put in practice but have proven to be ineffective in achieving desired goals (e.g. reduced speed, safer navigation around others). Local authorities have determined that there are no viable alternatives to establishing restrictions in the Regulations.
In order for peace officers in Edmonton to enforce the Regulations, they must be designated as enforcement officers in the Regulations.
Regulatory analysis
The proposed amendments are intended to clarify and expand the permitting process the Minister must follow, including introducing ministerial discretion and an accompanying framework; to increase the scope of activities that may be permitted under subsection 10.1(1) of the Regulations; to introduce four new vessel restrictions to the Regulations; and to respond to requests by the SJCSR. Expanding the list of activities that may be permitted under subsection 10.1(1) would introduce administrative costs to businesses and individuals who must apply for permits and government costs for review and approval of the applications. The incremental costs of the proposed new restrictions in the Regulations would be borne by the local authorities that applied for the four new restrictions, and the body of water users. In addition, the proposed amendments are expected to protect the environment and to improve the safety of all users of the bodies of water. A detailed qualitative analysis on these benefits is provided below.
The costs and benefits for the proposed amendments have been assessed in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide and can be found on the Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis page through the Cabinet Directive on Regulations. Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the cost-benefit analysis.
The benefits and costs associated with the proposed amendments are assessed based on comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory one. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the proposed amendments. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes as a result of the proposed amendments. Further details on these two scenarios are presented below.
Analytical framework
The analysis estimated the impact of the proposed amendments over a 10-year period from 2021 to 2030. Unless otherwise stated, all costs are expressed in present value 2019 Canadian dollars, discounted to 2020 at a 7% discount rate.
Baseline and regulatory scenarios
The Regulations restrict vessel activities and navigation in specified Canadian waters as set out in the schedules to the Regulations. Under the baseline scenario, the Regulations allow for permits to be issued to provide access to areas with restrictions, in order to operate a vessel for specific activities (e.g. aquaculture, research, educational purposes, protecting the environment) or in order to hold a sporting, recreational or public event, or activity (e.g. regattas and dragon boat races). In the baseline scenario, the three bodies of water of the Don River in Toronto, Ontario, Portage Lake in Sainte-Paul, Quebec, and the Richelieu River in the Richelieu Area, Quebec, were not included in the regulated schedules.
Under the regulatory scenario, the proposed amendments would expand the list of activities that may be carried out in waters where a restriction exists, by permit to include access to historical, cultural, ecological or geological sites, and also to undertake activities needed to support the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. A list of factors the Minister would consider before approving a permit is included in the proposed amendments to enhance clarity and transparency. The proposed amendments would introduce new restrictions to the above-mentioned bodies of water in the schedules. The proposed restriction on the future body of water on the Don River would restrict access by all motorized vessels (power-driven or electrical propulsion). Restrictions to limit speed would be applied on Portage Lake and the Richelieu River. A restriction on towing activities for the Richelieu River is also being proposed. Proposed amendments are also included to address minor administrative updates.
Benefits and costs
Expanding the list of activities that are included to be eligible for permits would result in administrative costs to applicants who need to access areas where a permit is required. These administrative costs could affect businesses and/or individuals. It is estimated that the proposed amendments would result in an administrative cost of $17,598 to businesses and individuals, over the 10-year analytical time frame. Similarly, the Government of Canada would incur costs for reviewing and approving these applications. It is estimated that the Government of Canada would incur a cost of $30,516 over the 10-year analytical time frame.
The local authorities seeking the four new restrictions, proposed for the Don River, Richelieu River and Portage Lake, would incur some costs, as the local authorities are responsible for erecting and maintaining signage (as specified in the Regulations) in the areas where the proposed restrictions would be implemented. They are also responsible for ensuring proper enforcement for the new restrictions. There would be a cost to recreational boaters on the restricted areas of Richelieu River and Portage Lake for loss of leisure opportunities. The proposed amendments would result in a total compliance cost of $185,770 over the 10-year analytical time frame.
In total, the proposed amendments would result in a cost of $233,884 from 2021 to 2030 where, $203,368 would be borne by the impacted stakeholders and $30,516 would be incurred by the Government of Canada.
The proposed amendments to the permitting approach would expand the number of activities allowed in those areas that are currently restricted. Establishing ministerial discretion in the consideration for granting a permit would ensure that decisions about permitting are completed in a transparent, fair and consistent manner. The proposed amendments to correct geographic coordinates would ensure that the most reliable and up-to-date information is contained within the Regulations. In addition, the proposed amendments concerning new restriction applications would be beneficial to the environment, would protect the public interest and would help to ensure safety for those waterway users.
Benefits
The proposed amendments are expected to improve the overall safety for waterway users and align with the public interest. The total benefits associated with the proposed amendments are not able to be monetized or quantified; however, a detailed qualitative benefit analysis is provided below.
Permitting approach under subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1)
The proposed amendments to subsection 10.1(1) to include the authority to apply for a permit to access to historical, cultural, geological, or ecological sites, and to support the construction and maintenance of infrastructure would expand the number of activities allowed in those areas that are currently restricted. Furthermore, supporting the construction and maintenance of infrastructure would in turn help in ensuring overall water safety and preserving the quality of surrounding ecosystems. Introducing a list of factors to be considered by the Minister in subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1) is intended to provide clarity and transparency for stakeholders.
New restriction applications
Limiting navigation to non-motorized vessels at all times on the Don River (with the exception of emergency services and environmental management/monitoring vessels) in the new naturalized river valley is important to protect the environment and the safety of users.
The Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project – Environmental Assessment, developed by municipal officials leading this project, qualitatively demonstrates that the environmental components at risk from motorized boat traffic are vast. The assessment indicated that the proposed amendments would protect and attract wildlife habitat. For example, habitat features, including bird boxes and turtle nesting areas, are adjacent to the river valley where noise from motorized crafts can deter wildlife from using these features. Further, the river through the naturalized channel has a low-level base flow, and it does not have the ability to flush petroleum and oil leakage from gas-powered engines. This could cause harm to the aquatic environment that the project is working hard to promote. In addition, water quality would be impacted by motors stirring up sediments, given the relative shallowness of the channel. Lastly, the Don River area is home to several turtle species at risk, including Blanding's Turtle, Map Turtles, Snapping Turtles and Painted Turtles. Without the proposed amendments, these species at risk, according to the Government of Canada's Species at Risk Public Registry, would be particularly susceptible to powered vessel strike given the relatively narrow, winding and shallow conditions found within the channel. By including the new portion of the Don River within the Regulations, the river, wetlands, banks and habitat structure would attract these turtle species.
In terms of user safety, the Don River mouth is designed to enhance habitat and would include wetlands, coves, rocky shoals, submerged vegetation and other aquatic features. Some of these features would not be visible from the surface and could pose risks to users of motorized vessels should they be allowed to enter the river valley. By including the water body in the proposed amendments, it could help mitigate safety concerns, given the confined channel width and low-lying pedestrian bridges and windy river channel conditions.
With respect to the proposed restrictions on Portage Lake and the Richelieu River, the benefits would not only focus on water safety for all users, but also contribute to the protection of the environment. Implementing a maximum speed limit and a restriction on towing activities on the Richelieu River would balance the right to navigate and the public interest in recreational water activities in specified areas. The local authorities of both water bodies expect that the proposed amendments would allow for the harmonization of various water activities by leaving room for motorized vessel activities, while indirectly encouraging human-powered activities (e.g. paddling, swimming), creating a safer water body for all users.
In addition, it is expected that reduced speeds and restrictions on towing activities in areas of navigation would bring environmental benefits, such as less disruption of sediment, which would improve water quality. This would be a benefit for the currently fragile marine ecosystems, such as in the case of Portage Lake, but also for municipalities on the Richelieu River who rely on river water for their potable water treatment plants. This would not only provide environmental benefits in terms of reduced shore degradation and erosion, but also protect properties and infrastructure along the shoreline. As identified by the proponents of the Richelieu River, the proposed restrictions would help avoid property devaluation by reducing physical damage and advanced aging of the bodies of water and their shoreline.
Designation authority
Designating peace officers employed by the City of Edmonton as enforcement officers under the Regulations would result in enhanced oversight of the city's bodies of water to help ensure safe navigation during boating seasons, by allowing the municipality to count on additional resources with the ability to enforce the Regulations.
Administrative corrections
The proposed amendments to correct geographic coordinates and address comments by the SJCSR would ensure that the most reliable and up-to-date information is contained within the Regulations. These proposed amendments are administrative in nature. There may be marginal safety benefits realized by correcting geographic coordinates listed in the schedules to the Regulations. These corrections would allow body of water users to know the correct locations of the restrictions and to act accordingly in those areas, ensuring the safety and protection of all users, the public interest and the environment.
Costs
The proposed amendments would result in a total cost of $233,884 from 2021 to 2030. This cost is broken as follows:
- $17,598 in administrative costs to businesses and individuals, for the time it might take an applicant to fill out a permit application;footnote 1
- $185,770 in compliance costs to local authorities who are requesting new restrictions on the three bodies of water identified above; and
- $30,516 in costs to the Government of Canada for review and approval of permit applications.
Permitting approach under subsections 10.1(1) and 12(1)
Expanding the scope of activities in subsection 10.1(1), to include access to historical, cultural, geological, or ecological sites and also to undertake activities needed to support the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, allows the Minister to consider issuing a permit when a request for access to a restricted site is made for that purpose. The total cost of this proposed amendment is $48,114 from 2021 to 2030 which accounts for the administrative cost to business/individual to apply for a permit and the Government of Canada's administrative costs to review and approve permit requests for these reasons.
Permits can be issued to either commercial operators or individuals. The analysis assumes that, each year beginning in 2021, approximately 11 new permits would be issued to businesses and 181 new permits would be issued to individuals.footnote 2 It is expected that it would take businesses approximately 2 hours and individuals 20 minutes to complete and submit a permit application.footnote 1 The effort for businesses is assumed to be divided between a manager (only available in French)footnote 3 and office support (only available in French).footnote 4 As a result, the administrative cost to businesses is estimated to be $5,479 over the 10-year analytical time frame. To estimate the administrative cost to individuals for completing a permit application, an average Canadian salary is used. As a result, the administrative cost to individuals is estimated to be $12,119 over the 10-year analytical time frame. Together, the total administrative cost to business and individuals is an estimated $17,598 from 2021 to 2030.
Transport Canada would be required to review and approve each of the submitted applications. It is expected that the time required to review and approve a permit request would be approximately 2 hoursfootnote 5 for business applications and 20 minutesfootnote 6 for individual applications. This would result in an incremental cost of $8,670 for the approval of applications from businesses and $21,846 for the approval of applications from individuals, resulting in a total cost of $30,516 to the Government of Canada from 2021 to 2030.
New restriction applications
The proposed amendments aim to ensure that the safety of users of the bodies of water and their ecosystems are maintained and protected. Compliance with the proposed amendments would result in an incremental cost to the local authorities of the Don River, the Richelieu River and Portage Lake of $185,770 over the 10-year analytical time frame.
It is expected that all three local authorities of the water bodies previously mentioned would incur an implementation cost in year one (2021) for installation of signage, enforcement, raising awareness and educating the public about the existence of the new restrictions. From consultations with subject matter experts at TC and affected stakeholders, the initial implementation costs per water body are estimated to be $3,738 for the Don River, $14,486 for Portage Lake and $57,944 for the Richelieu River for the first year. Together, these costs total $76,168 for the three local authorities in 2021. The initial implementation cost for the Don River is lower due to the investment already contributed by the project lead versus higher costs for the Richelieu River due to the 20 km stretch that would be impacted.
In addition to the initial implementation cost, it is expected that starting in 2022, the local authorities of the Don River and Richelieu River would incur annual maintenance costs, comprising of signage and buoy upkeep and enforcement, totalling $109,602. Based on consultation with affected stakeholders, the maintenance cost to the local authorities would total $12,178 for the Don River and $97,424 for the Richelieu River. The proponents of Portage Lake conferred that any annual maintenance costs would be negligible since maintenance would be done by local volunteers, that is at no cost to the local authorities.
Affected vessel operators, averaging 284 crossings daily during busy weekends, on the Richelieu River and Portage Lake could be negatively affected by the proposed amendments. Richelieu River boaters would forgo the opportunity to operate vessels over 10 km/h and any towing activity in the specified area. Portage Lake boaters would forgo the opportunity to operate motorized vessels over 10 km/h 100 metres from shore, excluding taking off for watersports purposes. Therefore, some of these recreational boaters would incur loss of leisure because they would no longer be allowed to operate their boats beyond the restrictions. However, this loss of leisure was not monetized due to lack of data. In addition, it is expected that the benefits of the proposed amendments to affected stakeholders would exceed this cost.
Based on the assessments provided by the local authorities, in Portage Lake, the daily average is 100 vessels on the water (47% motor propulsion / 53% human propulsion). Population estimates during boating season are 125 locals and 175 seasonal residents.
For Richelieu River, the estimate of boats on weekdays is 92; however, this can be 3 to 5 times higher on weekends (from 276 to 460 vessels). Motor propulsion of vessels represents 98% of the total observed during the assessment. Less than 8 000 individuals live in the four communities along the 20 km segment targeted by the restriction of which under 2 500 live along the shore with 77 owners of vessels.
Small business lens
The small business lens applies as there are impacts on small businesses associated with the regulatory proposal. Based on consultations with stakeholders, it is likely that all 11 businesses impacted by the permitting approach are small businesses, where a small business is defined by 1 to 99 employees. Although it is expected that an additional 181 applications would be submitted by individuals, they are not considered in the small business lens analysis as they do not meet the definition of a small business. That being said, TC has not considered more flexible approaches to minimize the cost impact on small businesses, as the number of affected stakeholders is already limited. Over the 10-year analytical time frame, the proposed amendments estimate a total cost of $498 per business, annualized to be $71 per business. Despite the costs, these businesses would now benefit from being able to seek permitted access on these restricted waters.
One-for-one rule
The one-for-one rule applies since there is an incremental increase in administrative burden on businesses, and the proposal is considered an "IN" under the rule. The implementation of the proposed amendments would result in an annualized cost of $424, or $38.57 annualized administrative cost per business to the affected stakeholders (present value using a 7% discount rate, expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars as required by the Red Tape Reduction Regulations). These administrative costs are a result of the expanded list of activities that allow businesses to apply for permits to access otherwise restricted waters.
Regulatory cooperation and alignment
The proposed amendments are not in relation to work or commitments under a formal regulatory forum.
Strategic environmental assessment
In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a detailed strategic environmental assessment is not required.
Gender-based analysis plus
The proposed amendments would not result in any negative or disproportionate impacts on any specific groups considered under the gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) lens. Similar to how rules of the road apply to all individuals driving a vehicle or using a roadway, these restrictions could impact every person in charge of a vessel while navigating in an area covered under the Regulations, including all passengers and any users of a body of water with navigational restrictions. Due to a lack of data on users of bodies of water 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 users of bodies of water can differ significantly. It is similarly difficult to identify specific beneficiaries of the restrictions; however, the enhanced safety on the waterways, reduced negative environmental impacts and protection of the public interests will inevitably provide positive impacts to local users of the bodies of water, adjacent municipalities, including Indigenous communities, and the surrounding environment.
The consultations that have been held with stakeholders, including Indigenous communities, by local authorities as part of their application process and consultations held by TC did not identify any concerns about differential impacts on the basis of identity factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, age, disability, resulting from these proposed amendments.
Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards
The Regulations would come into force upon registration, which TC anticipates will happen in winter 2022.
Once the proposed Regulations come into force, stakeholders would be able to make applications to access restricted waters based on the new criteria. TC's service standard for permit applications is 30 days.
In addition, local authorities in Ontario and Quebec who have applied for restrictions will be informed of the coming into force of the proposed Regulations and of their responsibilities as a local authority now administering restrictions on bodies of water under their jurisdiction such as
- informing the public and waterway users about the restrictions;
- creating, installing and maintaining signage, including incurring all costs; and
- ensuring enforcement.
Matters pertaining to navigation and shipping fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the philosophy behind the Regulations is one of partnership between federal, provincial and local governments. Through an existing program, regional TC staff provide regulatory briefings and other support to assist local enforcement agencies in their functions.
In anticipation of the proposed amendments, TC, through the applicable regional office of boating safety (OBS) staff, has already provided training to the newly proposed designated enforcement officers. Regional OBS 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 Regulations sets out the persons or classes of persons that are appointed or specified as enforcement officers under these Regulations and section 17 further details the powers delegated to them.
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.
Contact
Heidi Craswell
Manager
Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs
Marine Safety and Security
Department of Transport
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: MSSRegulations-ReglementsSSM@tc.gc.ca
Telephone: 343‑549‑5614
PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT
Notice is given that the Administrator in Council, pursuant to subsection 136(1)footnote a and section 207footnote b of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001footnote c, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations.
Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Heidi Craswell, Manager, Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs, Marine Safety and Security, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, 11th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (tel.: 343‑549‑5614; email: MSSRegulations-ReglementsSSM@tc.gc.ca).
Ottawa, June 3, 2021
Julie Adair
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
Regulations Amending the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations
Amendments
1 Subsections 10.1(1) and (2) of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulationsfootnote 7 are replaced by the following:
10.1 (1) The Minister may, after considering the factors listed in subsection (1.1), issue a permit, for a period specified in the permit, that authorizes the person in whose name the permit is issued to operate a vessel in the waters referred to in any of subsections 2(1) to (5) and (7) in a manner that is contrary to those subsections for any of the following purposes:
- (a) developing aquaculture;
- (b) conducting scientific research;
- (c) accessing a historical, cultural, ecological or geological site;
- (d) educating the public on the marine environment;
- (e) protecting the environment;
- (f) supporting the construction and maintenance of infrastructure; and
- (g) ensuring safety during activities and events other than those referred to in subsections 11(2) and (3).
(1.1) The factors referred to in subsection (1) are the following:
- (a) the protection of the public interest;
- (b) the protection of the environment;
- (c) the safe and efficient navigation of vessels;
- (d) the type and size of the vessel to which the permit relates;
- (e) the intended use of the vessel; and
- (f) the characteristics of the body of water.
(2) The Minister shall set out in the permit any conditions that are necessary to protect the public interest and the environment and to minimize risk to the safety of persons and interference with the safe and efficient navigation of vessels.
2 Subsections 12(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:
12 (1) The Minister may, after considering the factors listed in subsection (1.1), issue a permit that authorizes a person to hold, in the waters referred to in any of subsections 2(1) to (7) and 11(2), a sporting, recreational or public event or activity during which vessels will be operated in a manner that is contrary to those subsections.
(1.1) The factors referred to in subsection (1) are the following:
- (a) the protection of the public interest;
- (b) the protection of the environment;
- (c) the safe and efficient navigation of vessels;
- (d) the type and size of the vessels to which the permit relates;
- (e) the intended use of the vessels; and
- (f) the characteristics of the body of water.
(2) The Minister shall set out in the permit any conditions that are necessary to protect the public interest and the environment and to minimize risk to the safety of persons and interference with the safe and efficient navigation of vessels.
| Item | Column 1 Persons or classes of persons |
Column 2 Geographic location |
|---|---|---|
| 27 | A community peace officer appointed under section 7 of the Alberta Peace Officer Act, S.A. 2006, c. P-3.5 and employed by the City of Edmonton | Alberta |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description |
Column 4 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 100 | 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 the Trans-Canada Highway bridge at Donald) but excluding the waters of Windermere Lake and the main channel of the Columbia River and its tributaries (see Note 3) | 50°55′04.3″ 116°22′47.9″ |
| 100.1 | The waters of the main channel 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 51°28′48′′ 117°09′33′′, on the northernmost tip of a small island (approximately 1.8 km south of the Trans-Canada Highway bridge at Donald) but excluding the waters of Windermere Lake (see Note 4) | 50°55′04.3″ 116°22′47.9″ |
| 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | That part of the Don River from Keating Channel to Polson Slip, delineated by a line beginning at a point at 43°39′3.06″ 79°20′50.4″, thence to 43°39′0.1″ 79°20′48″, thence to 43°38′50.87″ 79°20′41.87″, thence to 43°38′43.93″ 79°20′34.33″, thence to 43°38′41.11″ 79°20′39.27″, thence to 43°38′46.43″ 79°20′44.99″, thence to 43°38′38.58″ 79°21′4.14″, thence to 43°38′37.27″ 79°21′7.88″, thence to 43°38′38.17″ 79°21′10.36″, thence to 43°38′39.73″ 79°21′9.11″, thence to 43°38′48.84″ 79°20′47.15″, thence to 43°38′52.93″ 79°20′49.78″, thence to 43°38′59.07″ 79°20′50.42″, thence to 43°39′0″ 79°20′51.96″ and thence to 43°39′2.41″ 79°20′51.9″ (see Note 3) |
Located at the coordinates set out in column 1 |
43°38′48.05″ 79°20′45.56″ |
6 Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after Note 2:
Note 3: The prohibition does not apply to a vessel that is permitted by a local authority to dredge at the intersection of the Don River and Keating Channel within an area delineated by a line beginning at a point at 43°39′3.06″ 79°20′50.4″, thence to 43°39′0.1″ 79°20′48″, thence to 43°38′59.07″ 79°20′50.42″, thence to 43°39′0″ 79°20′51.96″ and thence to 43°39′2.41″ 79°20′51.9″.
| 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | Streams in the marsh of the Lake Mégantic, including a zone of the Lake Mégantic bounded by a line beginning at a point at 45°27′29.827″ 70°53′28.110″, thence to 45°27′39.340″ 70°53′20.482″, thence to 45°27′41.231″ 70°53′10.456″, thence to 45°28′01.705″ 70°52′27.148″ and thence to 45°28′05.321″ 70°52′10.611″ (see Note) | Marais du lac Mégantic | 45°27′35″ 70°52′49″ |
| 18 | Streams in the marsh of the Victoria River, including a zone of the Lake Mégantic bounded by a line beginning at a point at 45°32′32.110″ 70°55′33.760″, thence to 45°32′36.569″ 70°55′35.536″, thence to 45°32′42.459″ 70°55′45.161″, thence to 45°32′43.756″ 70°55′48.884″, thence to 45°32′42.375″ 70°56′00.876″ and thence to 45°32′40.415″ 70°56′02.211″ (see Note) | Marais de la rivière Victoria | 45°32′35″ 70°55′48″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique |
Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | Aux Araignées Lake, within a radius of 200 m from its outlet (point C at 45°27′37.988″ 70°50′58.071″) at the southwest extremity of the lake | 45°28′29″ 70°48′46″ |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 82 | 46°04′07″ 74°26′51″ |
| 83 | 46°05′38″ 74°24′45″ |
| 84 | 46°07′27″ 74°24′23″ |
| 85 | 46°03′03″ 74°31′20″ |
| 86 | 46°02′57″ 74°26′48″ |
| 87 | 46°05′41″ 74°29′26″ |
| 88 | 46°04′49″ 74°25′28″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique |
Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 89 | Larin Lake | 46°04′26″ 74°27′27″ |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 90 | 46°07′57″ 74°26′37″ |
| 91 | 46°03′23″ 74°29′09″ |
| 92 | 46°03′04″ 74°28′44″ |
| 93 | 46°02′10″ 74°29′26″ |
| 94 | 46°02′16″ 74°28′51″ |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 132 | 46°05′11″ 74°27′16″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description |
Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 165 | De la Raquette Lake | 46°04′08″ 74°28′25″ |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 251 | 46°01′58″ 74°27′20″ |
| 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | That part of Buckhorn Lake at Gannon Narrows | 44°28′17″ 78°26′54″ to 44°28′30″ 78°27′39″ |
44°28′28″ 78°27′13″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description |
|---|---|
| 18 | Graham Lake in Front of Yonge Township, Leeds County (see Note 2) |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 18 | 44°34′00″ 75°53′00″ |
| Item | Column 2 Specific Location |
|---|---|
| 30 | 45°33′35.15″ 79°13′26.37″ to 45°32′34.49″ 79°13′39.77″ |
| Article | Colonne 2 Endroit précis |
|---|---|
| 3 | 46°21′57,8″ 79°56′02,3″ à 46°20′04,6″ 79°58′25,8″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description |
|---|---|
| 124 | Lake Mégantic outside the zones described in items 126 to 132 |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
Column 4 Maximum Speed in km/h Over the Ground |
|---|---|---|
| 124 | 45°30′50″ 70°52′40″ | 55 from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 70 from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. |
20 Item 125 of Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations is repealed.
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 126 | 45°30′50″ 70°52′40″ |
| 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 127 | Streams in the marsh of the Lake Mégantic, including a zone of the Lake Mégantic bounded by a line beginning at a point at 45°27′29.827″ 70°53′28.110″, thence to 45°27′39.340″ 70°53′20.482″, thence to 45°27′41.231″ 70°53′10.456″, thence to 45°28′01.705″ 70°52′27.148″ and thence to 45°28′05.321″ 70°52′10.611″ (see Note 3) | Marais du lac Mégantic | 45°27′35″ 70°52′49″ |
| 128 | Streams in the marsh of the Victoria River, including a zone of the Lake Mégantic bounded by a line beginning at a point at 45°32′32.110″ 70°55′33.760″, thence to 45°32′36.569″ 70°55′35.536″, thence to 45°32′42.459″ 70°55′45.161″, thence to 45°32′43.756″ 70°55′48.884″, thence to 45°32′42.375″ 70°56′00.876″ and thence to 45°32′40.415″ 70°56′02.211″ (see Note 3) | Marais de la rivière Victoria | 45°32′35″ 70°55′48″ |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 129 | 45°30′50″ 70°52′40″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description |
Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 130 | Lake Mégantic, at the marina within the town of Lac Mégantic, north of a line beginning at a point at 45°34′21.764″ 70°53′02.721″, thence to 45°34′22.592″ 70°52′57.100″ | 45°34′26″ 70°53′6″ |
| 131 | Des Joncs Lake, east of a line beginning at a point at 45°27′13.954″ 70°51′36.690″, thence to 45°27′11.627″ 70°51′29.672″, thence to 45°26′57.104″ 70°51′00.798″ and thence to 45°26′53.798″ 70°50′46.303″ | 45°27′1″ 70°51′0″ |
| 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 132 | Des Joncs Lake outlet, from the outlet of the Des Joncs Lake to a point at 45°28′01.705″ 70°52′27.148″ | Décharge du lac des Joncs | 45°27′50″ 70°52′18″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description |
Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 133 | Arnold River between its mouth and point P at 45°25′15.137″ 70°51′54.655″ | 45°26′23″ 70°52′4″ |
| 134 | Victoria River between point T at 45°32′37.395″ 70°55′36.889″ and point U at 45°32′17.638″ 70°56′17.447″ | 45°32′32″ 70°55′45″ |
| Item | Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|
| 155 | 45°28′29″ 70°48′46″ |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Répertoire toponymique du Québec or Description |
Column 3 Location Reference (Répertoire toponymique du Québec Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 156 | Aux Araignées Lake, within 100 m of its shore and east of a line beginning at a point at 45°28′50.633″ 70°47′33.702″, thence to a point at 45°27′59.326″ 70°47′42.774″ | 45°28′29″ 70°47′18″ |
| 157 | The streams within the marsh of the Aux Araignées River | 45°28′12″ 70°46′58″ |
| 158 | The streams within the marsh of the Des Indiens River | 45°29′15.69″ 70°48′2.67″ |
| 159 | Aux Araignées River, from its outlet to a line beginning at a point at 45°28′01.239″ 70°47′17.840″ thence to a point at 45°28′03.377″ 70°47′18.127″ | 45°28′01″ 70°47′16″ |
| 160 | Des Indiens River, from its outlet to a point at 45°29′27.97″ 70°48′2.96″ | 45°29′13.07″ 70°48′4.93″ |
| Article | Colonne 3 Coordonnées géographiques (système de référence du Répertoire toponymique du Québec) |
|---|---|
| 259 | Point A : 45°22′15,23′′ 73°45′13,20′′ Point B : 45°22′47,44′′ 73°45′07,28′′ |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 339 | Within 100 m of the shore of Portage Lake (see Note 4) | Lac du Portage | 48°39′13″ 67°35′37″ | 10 |
| 340 | Within a zone of the Richelieu River between a point at 45°49′12″ 73°08′46″ and a point at 45°37′17.6″ 73°11′05.2″ | Richelieu River | 45°42′43″ 73°11′28″ | 10 |
| Item | Column 4 Maximum Speed in km/h Over the Ground |
|---|---|
| 5 | sunrise to sunset, 37 (see Note) sunset to sunrise, 10 (see Note) |
| Item | Column 1 Name Given by the Gazetteer of Canada or Description |
Column 3 Location Reference (Gazetteer of Canada Reference System) |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 50°55′04.3″ 116°22′47.9″ |
| 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 | Within a zone of the Richelieu River between a point at 45°49′12″ 73°08′46″ and a point at 45°37′17.6″ 73°11′05.2″ | 45°42′43″ 73°11′28″ |
Coming into Force
34 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
Privacy notice statement
Provision of the information is on a voluntary basis. We will use the information for the purpose of responding to your questions/comments, and to improve our Internet presence. The information will be held in Public Services and Procurement Canada's Personal Information Bank number PPU 115 Internet and PPE 830 intranet Services, and it will be retained according to the retention and disposal schedule established for this bank.
Your personal information is protected under the provisions of the Privacy Act. Under the Act, you have the right to request access to and correction of your personal information, if erroneous or incomplete. If you wish to avail yourself of this right or require clarification about this statement, contact our Privacy Coordinator at aiprp.atip@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca. For more information on privacy issues and the Privacy Act consult the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
For more information about your rights, visit Info Source. This is a Government of Canada publication available in major libraries, at government information offices and from constituency offices of federal Members of Parliament.
The Internet is a public forum and electronic information can be intercepted. This is not a secure website. Please do not disclose unnecessary confidential information about yourself or your accounts with Public Services and Procurement Canada.