Regulations Amending the Small Vessel Regulations: SOR/2025-272

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 27

Registration
SOR/2025-272 December 12, 2025

CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001

P.C. 2025-924 December 11, 2025

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Small Vessel Regulations under paragraph 35(1)(g)^{footnote a} and sections 120^{footnote b} and 207^{footnote c} of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 ^{footnote d}.

Regulations Amending the Small Vessel Regulations

Amendments

1 (1) Section 100 of the Small Vessel Regulations ^{footnote 1} is replaced by the following:

100 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Part applies in respect of a pleasure craft, other than a human-powered pleasure craft, that is principally maintained or operated in Canada and is equipped, even temporarily, with one or more primary propulsion engines whose aggregate power is at least 7.5 kW.

(2) However, only section 110 applies in respect of a pleasure craft that is registered

• (a) under the Act; or
• (b) in a foreign state as having the right to fly the flag of that state.

(2) Subsection 100(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

100 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Part applies in respect of a pleasure craft, other than a human-powered pleasure craft, that is principally maintained or operated in Canada and

• (a) is equipped, even temporarily, with one or more primary propulsion engines whose aggregate power is at least 7.5 kW; or
• (b) is wind-powered and more than 6 m in length.

2 The portion of section 102 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

102 Despite section 101, a pleasure craft may be operated without a licence until the day on which the owner of the pleasure craft receives the licence or until the 30th day after the day on which the ownership was initially transferred to an end user, whichever is earlier, if

3 Sections 103 to 107 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

103 Despite section 101, a pleasure craft that is the subject of a transfer of ownership may be operated until the day on which the new owner of the pleasure craft receives a transferred licence or until the 30th day after the day on which the ownership was initially transferred, whichever is earlier, if documents confirming the name and address of the new owner and the date of the transfer of ownership are carried on board.

Change of Name or Address of the Owner

104 Despite section 101, if there is a change of name or address of the owner of a pleasure craft, the pleasure craft may be operated without an accurate owner name or address on the licence until the day on which the owner of the pleasure craft receives an updated licence or until the 30th day after the day on which the name or address was changed, whichever is earlier, if, in addition to the licence, documents confirming the new name or address and the date of the change are carried on board.

Validity Period

105 A pleasure craft licence is valid for a period of five years beginning on the day on which it is issued, transferred or renewed.

Validity Period — Licences Issued Before April 29, 2010

106 Despite section 105, a pleasure craft licence that was issued before April 29, 2010 is valid until the date set out in column 2 of the table to this section that corresponds to the period set out in column 1 within which the licence was issued.

TABLE

Item	Column 1 Period of Issuance	Column 2 Date Validity Ends
1	December 31, 1974 or earlier	March 31, 2026
2	January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1985	December 31, 2026
3	January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1995	December 31, 2027
4	January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1999	December 31, 2028
5	January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2005	December 31, 2029
6	January 1, 2006 to April 28, 2010	December 31, 2030

Cancellation of the Licence

107 (1) An application for the cancellation of a pleasure craft licence may be made to the Minister by the owner of the pleasure craft.

(2) An application for cancellation shall be made in any of the following circumstances:

• (a) the owner of a pleasure craft has ceased operating the pleasure craft because it is no longer seaworthy; or
• (b) the licence is a demonstration licence and the licence holder no longer sells pleasure craft in the course of a commercial enterprise or is using the pleasure craft for a purpose other than demonstration.

(3) The Minister shall cancel a licence in any of the following circumstances:

• (a) the owner or demonstration licence holder applies for cancellation under subsection (1) or (2);
• (b) the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the licence was issued on the basis of false or misleading information;
• (c) the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the licensing requirements are no longer met; or
• (d) the licence was issued in error.

(4) The Minister shall notify the owner or demonstration licence holder of the date on which the cancellation takes effect.

(5) Before cancelling a licence under paragraph (3)(b) or (c), the Minister shall notify in writing the owner or demonstration licence holder

• (a) of the reason for the proposed cancellation;
• (b) of the date on which the cancellation takes effect; and
• (c) that the owner or demonstration licence holder may make written representations to the Minister concerning the proposed cancellation within 30 days after the day on which they receive the Minister’s notice.

(6) Before cancelling a licence under paragraph (3)(d), the Minister shall notify in writing the owner or demonstration licence holder

• (a) of the reason for the proposed cancellation; and
• (b) of the date on which the cancellation takes effect.

4 Section 109 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

5 Section 110 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

110 The owner of a pleasure craft shall not operate it or permit it to be operated if it is marked with a number that is not its licence number or its registration number issued under Part 2 of the Act and that number could be confused with a licence number or registration number.

6 Section 112 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Fees

112 (1) A fee of $24 is payable to the Minister at the time of an application for :

• (a) the issuance of an initial licence;
• (b) the issuance of a replacement licence referred to in section 206 of the Act;
• (c) the renewal of a licence; or
• (d) the transfer of a licence.

(2) Despite subsection (1), no fee is payable for an application submitted by an owner of a pleasure craft who declares on their application that they are a person who can exercise a right that is recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and that they will operate their pleasure craft for the purpose of exercising such a right.

Annual Adjustment

113 (1) In each fiscal year on April 1, the fee set out in subsection 112(1) is to be adjusted by the percentage change over 12 months in the April All-items Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada under the Statistics Act, for the previous fiscal year.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the fee is not adjusted in a fiscal year if the percentage change for that fiscal year is less than 1%.

(3) If the percentage change for a fiscal year is less than 1%, the percentage change is carried forward to the subsequent fiscal year. If the combined percentage change is less than 1%, the fee is not adjusted for that subsequent fiscal year and the combined percentage change is carried forward to the next subsequent fiscal year.

7 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 904:

905 A builder, manufacturer, rebuilder or importer of a vessel that has obtained a manufacturer’s identification code shall inform the Minister in writing of any change to their name, address or other contact information no later than 30 days after the day on which that change occurs.

Coming into Force

8 (1) These Regulations, except subsection 1(2), come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Subsection 1(2) comes into force on the second anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

The Regulations are needed to address the following issues:

• The PCELS, a national database that contains records of all PCLs, includes inaccurate or outdated licence holder information, which creates problems for enforcement partners that rely on this data to conduct investigations and enforce regulations. The inaccurate or outdated information can be attributed to
  • changes made in the type of information collected when issuing PCLs over the last 60 years (i.e. email addresses are now collected),
  • long licence renewal periods for PCLs issued since April 29, 2010 (10 years) and no renewal requirements for PCLs issued before April 29, 2010,
  • long periods of time (90 days) that pleasure craft can be operated with an outdated PCL, and
  • limited requirements for when a PCL must be cancelled, including when a pleasure craft is no longer seaworthy or no longer active;
• The SVR licensing provisions are narrow in scope and do not capture certain pleasure craft, such as wind-powered vessels above six metres in length. This limitation inhibits Transport Canada’s ability to identify and hold accountable the operators of these vessels should they be in non-compliance with the requirements outlined in several marine and environmental programs (e.g. the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act [WAHVA]); and
• As there is no fee for licensing, the costs of administering the pleasure craft licensing program (i.e. processing applications for new licences, licence renewals, licence transfers, or duplicate licences) are currently borne by Canadian taxpayers, rather than by PCL holders.

In addition, Transport Canada has out-of-date records in the MIC database that are associated with inactive businesses. Since Transport Canada is limited to a finite number of MICs it can assign and it cannot create new MICs, it has to ensure that MICs are assigned to active businesses. Currently, there are no regulatory requirements about MICs with respect to certain administrative responsibilities, such as keeping contact information up to date. Therefore, when a business ceases to operate and does not inform Transport Canada of this change, the MIC is not released, and Transport Canada is unable to reassign it. As a result, the integrity of the data in Transport Canada’s MIC database is adversely affected and the number of available MICs Transport Canada can assign to active businesses is reduced.

Background

Pleasure craft are vessels used for pleasure, recreation, or daily living, and do not carry passengers. “Daily living” includes a vessel that is used as part of everyday life, but not as part of one’s job or employment. This includes travelling to and from work or school as an essential means of transportation, and hunting, fishing or trapping to feed oneself or one’s family or for social or ceremonial purposes. A passenger refers to a person who has paid a fee to be transported in a commercial vessel.

Under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, has the authority to make regulations respecting pleasure craft licensing, including the issuance, cancellation, or transfer of PCLs, the setting and payment of fees for services provided in the administration of pleasure craft licensing, as well as regulations respecting hull serial numbers that identify small vessels (including pleasure craft and the manufacturers of those small vessels), and the manufacturing, importing, construction and selling of pleasure craft.

Transport Canada’s Office of Boating Safety is responsible for overseeing regulations, standards and policies, enforcement, and technical services for pleasure craft. The Office of Boating Safety encourages safe recreational boating practices and supports the enforcement of compliance with regulations. As part of the Office of Boating Safety’s mandate, the program manages the PCELS, provides oversight of PCL applications (both online and mail-in), including applications for demonstration licences that are used by businesses such as boat dealers for the purposes of selling pleasure craft, and responds to public inquiries regarding PCLs. The Office of Boating Safety also supports law enforcement, search and rescue partners (i.e. designated enforcement organizations [DEOs]),^{footnote 6} and the Canadian Coast Guard by providing access to information contained in the PCELS to aid in investigations and emergency response activities.

Transport Canada’s Navigation Protection Program and the Canadian Coast Guard also use the PCELS during investigations and to enforce WAHVA, which includes a compliance and enforcement regime for wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels.

Services for PCLs, including licence issuance and the processing of PCL applications, are contracted out by Transport Canada to a third-party service provider. In addition, Transport Canada has a separate agreement with Service Canada to provide general boating safety information, including information about pleasure craft licensing, to the public via the Boating Safety Info Line at 1‑800‑267‑6687.

Pleasure craft licensing requirements apply to all pleasure craft equipped, even temporarily, with one or more engines (gas and electric) whose aggregate power is 7.5 kilowatts (i.e. 10 horsepower) or more. Owners of these pleasure craft are required to apply to Transport Canada to obtain a PCL document containing a unique licence number assigned and used to identify their specific pleasure craft. This licence number must be displayed on both sides of the bow of the pleasure craft.

Inaccurate and incomplete data in the PCELS

Information in the PCELS tends to degrade over time as pleasure craft age and are sold, often multiple times. While the SVR has requirements to ensure licence information remains up to date, these requirements still result in significant data gaps in the PCELS. In addition, since PCLs were established in 1962, the type of information requested in the PCL application has changed significantly, resulting in data gaps in older PCL records (e.g. email addresses are now requested).

The most effective way to validate licence information is through licence renewals; however, not all licences were subject to regular renewals. Before the SVR were amended on April 29, 2010, PCLs were issued with no expiration dates or renewal requirements (i.e. lifetime licences). Once the SVR were amended on April 29, 2010, a 10-year validity period was introduced, but only for newly issued licences. Lifetime licences would only change into 10-year licences when the licence holder updated information or when a new owner transferred the licence to their name. There are still approximately 1.5 million lifetime licences in the PCELS, and Transport Canada is unable to validate their accuracy. Furthermore, requirements in the SVR regarding the timeline for transferring an existing PCL or updating licence holder information are unclear and represent timelines that were established when licence holders could only mail in applications, as opposed to applying online. For example, when a pleasure craft is sold, the SVR state that the new owner must “immediately” apply to the Minister of Transport for the transfer of the associated PCL but do not specify a time frame under which this must occur. In addition, following the sale of a pleasure craft and the application to transfer an existing PCL, the SVR allow the new owner to operate the pleasure craft with an outdated licence for up to 90 days, provided that there is documentation on board showing that an application was made to transfer the existing PCL and the date that the pleasure craft changed ownership. Similarly, the SVR allow PCL holders to operate their pleasure craft for 90 days with outdated information (name or address) on their licence, provided documents are kept on board that confirm an application was made to Transport Canada for the name or address change. The lack of clear timelines for transferring an existing PCL and the extended period for which a pleasure craft can be operated with an out-of-date licence presents challenges for DEOs and emergency response agencies who rely on data captured in the PCELS, especially as 90 days represents most of the boating season in many areas of Canada.

Finally, the SVR has limited requirements for when a PCL must be cancelled, unless the cancellation was for a reason specified in the SVR (e.g. registering the vessel as something other than a pleasure craft), or when individuals were not in compliance with licensing requirements (e.g. failing to update contact information).

The inability to cancel a PCL upon request from a PCL holder without a specified reason in the SVR or when individuals are not in compliance with licensing requirements has resulted in many out-of-date records in the PCELS for licences that were either no longer valid or were associated with pleasure craft that were no longer in service.

DEOs and search and rescue agencies

Information in the PCELS is crucial to conserve both resources and time for DEOs and for search and rescue agencies when responding to marine emergencies or conducting investigations related to marine incidents. If a vessel is found floating adrift, DEOs and search and rescue agencies need to be able to quickly identify the owner of the vessel and attempt to contact them to determine if there has been an accident where an emergency response is required, or if a vessel has simply floated away, possibly after severe weather, or because the vessel was not securely tied to a dock, shore, or anchor. If PCL holder information is inaccurate, valuable resources and time are spent by search and rescue agencies and local enforcement trying to locate the correct licence holder to determine the nature of the issue. Similarly, if a vessel is found recently wrecked or overturned, accurate information in the PCELS helps to quickly determine if the operator of the vessel is missing, has abandoned their vessel, or has found refuge following an accident.

DEOs also rely on the PCELS during marine patrol stops to ensure PCL holders are in compliance with applicable licensing requirements (e.g. carrying a valid licence on board). This is necessary, as DEOs rely on pleasure craft being properly licensed when conducting enforcement activities, such as identifying and holding responsible vessel operators who may be violating other regulatory requirements (e.g. operating a pleasure craft in a dangerous manner, not carrying required safety equipment, allowing a person under 16 years of age to operate a personal watercraft alone). If licensing information is inaccurate, DEOs may be required to contact multiple people to determine and hold responsible the correct licence holder. In one instance, it was reported that up to 15 people had to be contacted prior to determining a vessel’s correct licence holder.

Supporting enforcement of WAHVA

Enforcement of WAHVA relies on the ability to accurately identify vessel owners by using information contained in the PCELS. WAHVA, which came into force on July 30, 2019, prohibits vessel abandonment and introduces strict fines or penalties to enforce the prohibition. It also allows the Government of Canada to recover costs and expenses incurred from owners of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels when the Government of Canada takes action to address these vessels. It was noted at national engagement sessions^{footnote 7} for WAHVA and through witness testimony when WAHVA was tabled at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, that current shortcomings in the existing pleasure craft licensing system are an issue for the enforcement of WAHVA, and that a stronger licensing regime is a critical component of its successful implementation.

Scope of pleasure craft requiring PCLs

Under the SVR, licences are required for all pleasure craft that are equipped (even temporarily) with one or more primary propulsion engines whose aggregate power adds up to 7.5 kilowatts (i.e. 10 horsepower) or more, regardless of the size of the pleasure craft. These requirements are narrow in scope, as certain pleasure craft, such as wind-powered vessels above six metres in length, are not subject to licensing requirements. As a result, Transport Canada is unable to easily identify operators of these vessels in the event of an emergency, a wrecked or abandoned vessel, and/or to ensure that operators are complying with the regulatory requirements of marine and environmental programs.

No service fee for pleasure craft licensing services

Transport Canada does not charge any fees for pleasure craft licensing services. As a result, the costs for the program, which solely benefit PCL holders, are entirely borne by Canadian taxpayers. This situation creates a challenge for Transport Canada, as the funds required to manage the pleasure craft licensing program come from taxpayer dollars instead of from those who benefit directly from licensing services.

Inaccurate information in MIC database

The MIC is the first three digits of a vessel’s 12-digit hull identification number, used to identify vessels to ensure they comply with safety regulations. The use of 3-digit MICs and 12-digital hull identification numbers is a standard used by Canada, the United States of America (U.S.) and the European Union (EU). Since MICs are a three-figure combination, there is only a finite number of combinations that can be made. As per an agreement between the U.S. Coast Guard and Transport Canada, Canada is allowed to assign MICs to Canadian manufacturers using the same pool of available MICs that the U.S. Coast Guard uses. As per this agreement, Canada issues MICs starting with the letters Q, Y and Z, while the U.S. issues MICs starting with the remaining letters of the alphabet. Transport Canada is actively working to update the MIC database to ensure that MICs assigned to inactive businesses can be appropriately reassigned. It is essential that MICs be available to be assigned to active manufacturers and importers to ensure that vessels manufactured or imported for sale in Canada comply with the safety requirements of the SVR. While Transport Canada is not currently out of available MIC numbers, it is important to ensure that those associated with inactive businesses can be reassigned.

Reassigning MICs has posed challenges, as Transport Canada has limited abilities to cancel a MIC for reasons of regulatory non-compliance. The SVR do not require manufacturers, builders, rebuilders, and importers of vessels to keep their contact information up to date. While MIC holders do this in practice and other means are used to validate contact information (e.g. through annual production reports and declarations of conformity submitted by MIC holders), out-of-date records still exist in the database for businesses who have failed to inform Transport Canada of their business status. Several of these businesses appear to be inactive and, therefore, are no longer in need of an MIC. While Transport Canada makes every reasonable effort to confirm the status of these businesses, such as through phone, email and fax, the SVR prevent Transport Canada from being able to reassign a MIC as a result of regulatory non-compliance, such as not keeping contact information up to date.

Objective

The Regulations will

• enhance and improve the integrity of the PCL program, which, due to data gaps, is not administered or enforced effectively, efficiently or consistently;
• support the timely identification and removal of wrecked or abandoned vessels, which are a hazard to the marine environment;
• ensure that PCL holders who benefit from the PCL program pay an equitable share of the costs for the program; and
• improve the quality of data collected and stored within Transport Canada’s MIC database to ensure MICs are held exclusively by active businesses.

Description

Licence validity periods

The Regulations will establish a new five-year validity period for PCLs. This will facilitate more frequent updates to licence holder information. The renewal period for licensed pleasure craft in the PCELS will also align with the registration period for other small vessels captured in the SVR. Therefore, the updated licence validity period will ensure that small vessels operating in Canada are on a five-year renewal cycle, including pleasure craft.

The Regulations will also require lifetime licences issued before April 29, 2010, to be renewed every five years. This requirement will enable Transport Canada to update information in the PCELS for the approximately 1.5 million lifetime PCLs and will help determine if any licensed pleasure craft are no longer in service.

Lifetime licences will be phased out over a five-year period and, if renewed by the licence holder, brought into the five-year validity regime. Transport Canada will be advertising these changes through its regular communication materials. During the phase-out approach, if the licence holder does not apply to renew their licence prior to the deadline set out in the Regulations, the lifetime licence will expire. Given that the renewal rate for 10-year PCLs over the past 2 years was only 15%, not many lifetime licences are expected to transition to the 5-year renewal cycle. In addition, many of the older records of the lifetime licences do not contain contact information for those PCL holders. Therefore, it is anticipated that most of the lifetime licences will be cancelled, particularly those that were issued over 20 years ago.

In the Regulations prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, the expiry date for the first phase of lifetime licences was set to be on December 31, 2024. This date was pushed back because there were delays in publishing the final Regulations. As a result, the expiry date for each phase of lifetime licences has been delayed by one year. The first phase is now set to expire on March 31, 2026. The second phase is set to expire 9 months later on December 31, 2026. Each successive phase will then expire exactly one year following the expiration date of the last phase. The first two phases of the lifetime licence expirations are shorter than the rest, approximately 3 months and 9 months respectively, as it is not anticipated that there will be many licence renewals in these phases. Existing 10-year licences will remain valid until their natural expiration. However, they will become subject to the new 5-year validity regime once they are renewed or transferred. If the licence holder does not renew their licence following its expiration, it will be flagged as “expired” in the PCELS.

A public education and outreach campaign will be launched across Canada in both official languages to educate PCL holders on the new licensing requirements and vessel management responsibilities. This campaign will also support efforts to inform PCL holders with outdated contact information of PCL requirements. Existing Office of Boating Safety partnerships will be leveraged to increase the promotion of this messaging across Canada, including in northern and remote communities. Anyone who continues to operate their pleasure craft with an expired or cancelled PCL is committing an offence under the SVR and could be subject to fines.

Transfer of licence, new licences and updates to PCL information

As part of the Regulations, a pleasure craft will not be able to be operated until the owner has obtained a licence. Following the prepublication of the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I, it was noticed that the Regulations mistakenly did not include a time frame for how long a pleasure craft could be operated following a licence transfer, prior to obtaining a licence. The Regulations have been updated to clarify that pleasure craft may be operated for up to 30 days following the licence transfer, prior to obtaining a licence, as long as documents confirming the name and address of the new owner and the date of the transfer of ownership are carried on board (as had been outlined in the previous Let’s Talk Transportation consultation). Following the application for a licence transfer, applicants will receive a temporary licence that will be valid for a period of 30 days, or until they receive their official licence. As per Transport Canada’s service standards, individuals who apply for a new licence online should receive the official licence within five business days. Transport Canada’s service standard for mail-in applications is also five days for processing, in addition to mailing times.

The Regulations will also reduce the amount of time (from 90 days to 30 days) that a licence holder can operate their pleasure craft following changes to their name or address recorded on the licence while waiting for their updated licence. The requirement to carry the relevant documents on board for both provisions will remain in place. Overall, these changes will improve the quality of the data contained in the PCELS.

Cancelling a PCL

The SVR outline the scenarios in which the Minister of Transport “may” cancel a licence (e.g. it is a demonstration licence and the licence holder applied for a cancellation, or the licence was issued in error). The Regulations will specify that the Minister of Transport “shall” cancel a licence in the following circumstances: (i) the owner or demonstration licence holder apply for a cancellation; (ii) the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the licence was issued on the basis of false or misleading information, or that licensing requirements are no longer met; or (iii) the licence was issued in error. The Regulations will also introduce a requirement for pleasure craft operators to submit an application to cancel a pleasure craft licence to the Minister if they have ceased operating the vessel because it is no longer seaworthy.

In the event that the Minister of Transport cancels a licence due to the belief that the licence was issued on the basis of false or misleading information, or on the grounds that licensing requirements are no longer met, the Minister must notify the licence holder, in writing, of (i) the reason for the proposed cancellation, (ii) the date on which the cancellation takes effect, and (iii) that the licence holder may make written representations to the Minister concerning the proposed licence cancellation within 30 days of receiving the notice. If the Minister has cancelled a licence because it was issued in error, then the notification issued to the licence holder only needs to contain the reason and date for the cancellation.

These Regulations will help ensure pleasure craft that are no longer in service are listed as inactive in the PCELS, providing Transport Canada with a clear picture as to how many pleasure craft are currently operating in Canada.

Scope of pleasure craft requiring PCLs

The Regulations will expand pleasure craft licensing requirements to apply to all wind-powered pleasure craft that are above six metres in length, except for human-powered vessels (e.g. kayaks, canoes, dragon boats). Expanding licensing requirements to wind-powered vessels above six metres in length will provide a more comprehensive dataset of pleasure craft in the PCELS. It will also strengthen vessel owner identification of these vessels for search and rescue agencies in the event of emergency situations and for DEOs to ensure licence holders for these vessels comply with the regulatory requirements of marine and environmental programs, such as WAHVA.

The expansion of the licensing requirements for wind-powered pleasure craft that are above six metres in length will come into force two years after the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. Operators of these pleasure craft could obtain a licence at any time during this two-year period. If they do not obtain a pleasure craft licence by the end of the two-year period and continue to operate the pleasure craft, they will not be in compliance with the SVR and could be subject to an enforcement action (a warning, a contravention ticket, or a prosecution by way of summary conviction). Notice of the new requirements for these operators will be communicated as part of this project’s ongoing education and outreach campaign.

Introduce a service fee for pleasure craft licensing services

The Regulations will introduce a new $24 service fee to PCL holders for

• a new PCL;
• a PCL renewal;
• a PCL transfer; or
• a request for a duplicate PCL document.

This fee will not apply to persons that declare that they are using their pleasure craft to exercise their rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

This service fee will not apply when changing personal information (e.g. an address or phone number) or cancelling a licence, so as not to discourage licence holders from keeping their information up to date. The Regulations are expected to increase the annual number of PCL transactions^{footnote 8} processed and increase program costs. Therefore, recovered costs from the service fee will help to cover a portion of the costs associated with administering the pleasure craft licensing program, which has been funded 100% by Canadian taxpayers.

Administration costs for the pleasure craft licensing program vary from year to year, depending on the number of licence transactions processed. A costing analysis determined that it costs $27.97 for Transport Canada to process a PCL transaction. The new service fee of $24 per transaction will represent an 86% cost recovery rate for Transport Canada and will rebalance the financial burden of the program’s administration costs from Canadian taxpayers to PCL holders, as PCL holders are the primary beneficiaries of the program.

The $24 service fee was determined based on the level of effort to provide licensing services (which Transport Canada contracts out to a third party), the benefits accrued to PCL holders, and the ability of pleasure craft owners to absorb this new service fee, which is comparable to similar fees in other jurisdictions.

The service fee will adhere to the requirements of the Service Fees Act (SFA) and its related instruments, such as the Directive on Charging and Special Financial Authorities. In line with these requirements, Transport Canada developed a fee proposal and provided it to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) in August 2020, prior to starting a public consultation in November 2020 on the fee and the Regulations.

In addition, the Regulations include a clause that will adjust the fee annually for inflation. This “adjustor” clause will ensure that the service fee keeps pace with the rising costs of administering the PCL program over time, and that PCL holders, who are the primary beneficiaries of the service, continue to pay for program costs in line with the intended regulatory objective. The original fee proposal contemplated that Transport Canada may pursue such an approach.

Following prepublication of the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I, the fee adjuster clause was amended to align with changes made to the SFA and other Transport Canada regulations. This update specifies that should the percentage change in inflation, in a given year, be between -0.99% and 0.99%, then the fee will not be adjusted that year, and the amount of that percentage will be carried to the next year.

Low-materiality Fees Regulations applicability

Because the service fee is less than $51, it is considered a “low-materiality” fee under the Low-materiality Fees Regulations. As a result, pursuant to subsection 22(1) of the SFA, the fee will be exempt from several SFA requirements, including consultation, performance standards, remissions and annual adjustment.

However, Transport Canada intends to meet the spirit of the SFA with respect to most aspects of the PCL fee, despite the “low-materiality” designation. For example, Transport Canada has consulted with stakeholders extensively on the amendments noted above, including the fee. As noted above, the fee will be subject to an annual adjustment clause. Finally, while performance standards are not mandatory for low-materiality fees, Transport Canada will strive to adhere to the five-day service standard outlined in the “Service Standards” section below, which will also ensure compliance with the requirements of the Policy on Service and Digital and the Directive on Service and Digital. With respect to the low-materiality exemption for remissions, that will remain in effect. As a result, Transport Canada will not need to remit a portion of the PCL fee to a client in cases where a service standard is not met.

Linkage with the proposed Vessel Remediation Fund

As part of a separate regulatory project, Transport Canada is proposing the creation of a regulatory charge to finance a proposed Vessel Remediation Fund that would support measures to address wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels. The charge would be collected at the same time as, and be in addition to, the service fee for obtaining a new, transferred, or renewed PCL. Details of the initiative are provided in the Regulatory Charge (Fee) Proposal for the Vessel Remediation Fund.^{footnote 9} An online consultation on this proposal was held on the Transport Canada website from August 2021 to January 2022. Additional consultations have taken place since 2022, including through consultation sessions at the Canadian Marine Advisory Council, the Salish Sea Symposium and various regional Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue forums. Stakeholders will be afforded additional opportunities in the future to provide feedback on the proposed fund once the proposed regulatory project is prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Application process

As is done currently, licence holders will be able to submit applications online or by mail for new PCLs or for requests to renew, transfer, or duplicate an existing PCL. Consistent with existing requirements, licence holders will only be able to cancel their PCL by mail, provided the application is complete and includes a note explaining the reason for the cancellation, and is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation. Only accepting mail-in cancellations will continue to prevent erroneous cancellations (i.e. a pleasure craft is sold, and the previous PCL holder cancels the licence when the onus is on the new PCL holder to transfer the licence into their name).

Transport Canada will continue to email PCLs to online applicants, and mail PCLs to mail-in applicants, provided the application is complete and all supporting documentation is attached.

Manufacturer’s identification code

The Regulations will require MIC holders to inform Transport Canada of any changes to their name, address or other contact information within 30 days of the change. Up-to-date contact information is important, as it enables Transport Canada to contact MIC holders to ensure proper oversight and compliance with the SVR. While providing current information is already done in practice by all MIC holders of active businesses, who routinely confirm their contact information through the submission of documents to Transport Canada (e.g. through declarations of conformity and annual production reports), formalizing the requirement will ensure that businesses who are not active, and are not updating their contact information, could have their MIC reassigned after Transport Canada has exhausted methods of contacting the business. As the requirement to keep contact information up to date is done already in practice by all active MIC holders, the Regulations will not result in any administrative burden to active businesses.

Changes following prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The SVR state that no person shall operate or permit another person to operate a pleasure craft unless (i) it is licenced, (ii) a copy of the licence is kept on board, and (iii) the owner’s name and address on the licence are accurate. The Regulations prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, included an amendment to section 101 that would have held the owner of a pleasure craft expressly responsible if it was operated in a manner that was not in compliance with the Regulations. This would have created problems for law enforcement in situations where a person, other than the owner, was operating a pleasure craft in non-compliance with the Regulations, as enforcement action would not be able to be taken against them. The Regulations have been updated to retain the original language in the SVR so that enforcement action can be taken on any person operating a pleasure craft, even if they are not the owner. Updates have also been made to the Regulations to clarify the requirement for pleasure craft licence holders to (i) update their contact information within 30 days of their information changing, and (ii) to apply for a licence transfer within 30 days of purchasing a pleasure craft.

In summary, the changes made to the Regulations following their prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, include

• updating the expiration timelines for lifetime licences;
• updating the requirement for pleasure craft owners to apply to transfer a pleasure craft licence into their name no later than 30 days after the date they purchase a pleasure craft;
• updating the annual adjustment of the pleasure craft licensing service fee to be consistent with recent changes made to the Service Fees Act;
• requiring that operators (along with licence holders) of pleasure craft ensure that the pleasure craft they are operating is licenced, that a copy of the licence is kept onboard, and that the owner’s name and address on the licence are accurate; and
• not requiring the fee for persons that declare that they are using their pleasure craft to exercise their rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Regulatory development

Consultation prior to prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

Since 2016, regular consultations were held regarding improvements to pleasure craft licensing through annual and regional meetings of the Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) and meetings of the National Recreational Boating Advisory Council (NRBAC), which are composed of stakeholders who have an interest in recreational boating.

Consultations (as part of the Oceans Protection Plan) were held from 2016 to 2018 on the National Strategy to Address Abandoned and Wrecked Vessels, including the WAHVA, and efforts to improve vessel owner identification. Overall, stakeholders including marine industry and trade associations law enforcement; boating safety organizations; recreational boaters; boating safety course providers; boating safety advocates; pleasure craft dealers; associations representing cottagers; associations representing anglers, hunters, trappers and recreational fishers; and the general public expressed support for increased vessel owner responsibility and liability for wrecked and abandoned vessels, and the need to improve vessel owner identification. Law enforcement was also consulted at a National Enforcement Roundtable in March 2019 and their feedback helped inform the Regulations.

Starting in 2019, Transport Canada shared the proposed changes to the SVR to address concerns raised regarding pleasure craft licensing with stakeholders at CMAC and NRBAC meetings. Stakeholders were generally supportive of the proposed changes. Most comments received throughout these meetings were directed toward the changes to reduce licence validity periods and the introduction of the proposed service fee. In a fall 2019 CMAC meeting, a law enforcement representative stressed the importance of a shorter licence validity period (i.e. less than five years), noting that longer licence validity periods have contributed to inaccurate vessel owner information causing delays when locating licence holders. While this suggestion was considered at the fall 2019 CMAC meeting and the March 2019 National Enforcement Roundtable, Transport Canada moved forward with a set five-year validity period to be consistent with the registration period for other vessels. It was also suggested at the fall 2019 CMAC meeting that a lack of public awareness of PCL requirements was a contributing factor to inaccurate vessel owner information. As a result, Transport Canada is launching a paid advertising awareness and education campaign on licensing requirements that will follow the coming into force of the Regulations. This advertisement campaign will begin in Spring 2026 and last for approximately one year. Following this, the updated licensing requirements will be rolled into ongoing communications materials. Updates will also be provided to the public through social media, Canadian news sources and the Office of Boating Safety web pages.

At the 2021 spring and fall CMAC and NRBAC meetings, stakeholders were updated on the changes to the SVR and given an overview of the online Let’s Talk Transportation consultation, including the Fee Proposal for Pleasure Craft Licensing Program (detailed below). No opposition was raised about the Regulations, including the service fee.

At the spring 2023 CMAC and NRBAC meetings, stakeholders were notified that the Regulations would be prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for comment in spring 2023. At the fall 2023 CMAC meeting, stakeholders were provided an overview of the comments received during the prepublication comment period and were notified that a “What We Heard” Report summarizing the comments would be published online. No concerns were raised by stakeholders on the Regulations at this time.

Let’s talk transportation

Between November 12, 2020, and January 15, 2021, Transport Canada held an online consultation on the Regulations through Transport Canada’s Let’s Talk Transportation web page, which was promoted to the public via social media. This consultation also included the Fee Proposal for Pleasure Craft Licensing Program. In addition, Transport Canada held three virtual consultation sessions with stakeholders outlining the Regulations. In total, about 900 comments on the Regulations were received through these consultations. A small number of participants opposed the proposal to reduce licence validity periods to five years because of concerns about the potential increase in costs to the pleasure craft licensing program. In addition, participants also noted alternative measures that Transport Canada could implement to improve the validity of licence holder information, such as increasing awareness of licensing requirements and issuing expiration notices to licence holders. While Transport Canada has begun efforts to increase awareness of licensing requirements and has begun and will continue to issue expiration notices for licence holders via email, the change introduced to reduce licence validity periods to five years remains. This decision is consistent with feedback received from enforcement agencies who have expressed that a shorter licence validity period would help keep licence information up to date and also takes into consideration the lack of opposition received on this topic from stakeholders during the virtual consultation sessions. The decision to reduce the licence validity period was also informed by a comparison of licence validity periods in other jurisdictions.

While limited, feedback received on expanding the application of licensing requirements was generally mixed, with some participants supporting the expansion of licensing requirements to include all motorized watercraft and pleasure craft with electric motors, while others opposed expanding requirements to include all pleasure craft above six metres in length, such as sail-alone vessels that were not subject to licensing requirements. Given the challenges faced by DEOs when responding to emergencies involving sail-alone vessels that were not licensed, Transport Canada decided to proceed with and broaden the scope of licensing requirements to include wind-powered vessels that are above six metres in length. This broader scope ensures that Transport Canada can better monitor regulatory compliance for sail-alone vessels.

While Transport Canada consulted extensively on the change to expand the application of licensing requirements, there was not explicit consultation on the two-year grace period that is implemented for operators of wind-powered pleasure craft, who are newly subject to licensing requirements. No concerns were raised about the two-year grace period during the Canada Gazette, Part I, comment period.

Stakeholders’ views were also mixed on the change in the Regulations to reduce the time frame for owners to notify Transport Canada of changes to licence information, with some noting 30 days was not enough time to transfer a licence between sellers and buyers and others noting changes should be instantaneous. Given advancements in Transport Canada’s licensing system, which permits PCL applications to be done online and processed in as little as five days, as well as input received from enforcement agencies who favoured a shorter time frame for updating licences, the decision was made to maintain the proposed 30-day timeline.

About half of the respondents disagreed in principle with the introduction of any fee, and the other half of respondents had no opinion or agreed with the principle that those who directly benefit from a service should pay a bigger share of the costs. About half of the respondents indicated that a $15 fee, as was proposed at the time, to process an application for a new pleasure craft licence seemed quite reasonable and noted that it would represent a very small cost compared with the cost to own and operate a pleasure craft. Furthermore, some hoped that the proceeds from the fee would support boating safety, boating infrastructure, or management of abandoned boats. A full breakdown of comments is available in the What We Heard Report published on Transport Canada’s website on April 13, 2021.

Consultation on MIC requirements

A targeted consultation with stakeholders impacted by the proposed requirements for MIC holders to keep their contact information up to date took place in summer 2021. No concerns were raised.

Impact of COVID-19

While the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted many facets of the Canadian economy, the recreational boating sector has grown. Between March and December 2020, Transport Canada recorded over 137 000 PCL transactions, a 20% increase as compared to the same period in 2019. Therefore, it was clear that COVID-19 had not reduced interest in buying or operating pleasure craft. Given that the service fee is low relative to the cost of purchasing, operating and maintaining a pleasure craft, it is not expected that the introduction of the service fee, even in the COVID-19 context, would have an impact on new pleasure craft purchases or on operating existing pleasure craft. This conclusion is consistent with findings from a study^{footnote 10} commissioned by Transport Canada prior to the pandemic that found the introduction of modest fees for pleasure craft would have no discernable impact on purchasing or operating decisions with respect to pleasure craft.

Consultation with other federal departments

Transport Canada confirmed the Canadian Coast Guard’s support for the Regulations. The Regulations enhance pleasure craft licensing, helping to support the Canadian Coast Guard’s mandate on its search and rescue operations, and the removal of vessels of concern located within waters in its specific areas of jurisdiction.

Feedback received during the Canada Gazette, Part I, comment period

The Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on May 13, 2023, with a 60-day comment period. A total of 837 comments were received from about 465 commenters. Feedback was received from a range of groups, including the marine industry, enforcement agencies, special interest groups (e.g. hunter and angler associations), Indigenous communities, recreational boaters, and the public. Comments received during the Canada Gazette consultation period are publicly available online.

Approximately 85% of the feedback received opposed the amendments proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I (the proposed Regulations). Approximately 5% of the feedback was either supportive or partially supportive of the proposed Regulations, with another 5% of the feedback requesting clarification or additional information, or providing suggestions for alternative measures. Approximately 5% of the remaining comments relate to items out of scope of the Regulations.

A summary of the comments received at prepublication, grouped by theme, is provided below.

Overall proposal

Approximately one quarter of the feedback received during the consultation period related to the proposed Regulations as a whole and not individual requirements.

Approximately 195 commenters were opposed to the proposed Regulations. Many of these commenters believed that the proposed Regulations would not be in the public interest and would be an inefficient use of Government of Canada resources. Some commenters questioned the Government of Canada’s ability to manage the program, noting that the costs would be disproportionate to the benefits. Some of these commenters claimed that the proposed Regulations would have limited benefits, including a limited impact on safety and search and rescue efforts. Others believed that the proposed Regulations failed to address root safety issues related to recreational boating and would not solve anything, with some sharing the belief that the licensing program should be abandoned.

The pleasure craft licensing database is essential for Transport Canada and enforcement agencies to be able to identify pleasure craft licence holders and to carry out enforcement and oversight activities on pleasure craft. This function is necessary to help maintain marine safety, environmental protection, and to hold those not in compliance with the SVR accountable.

While Transport Canada acknowledges the above concerns, the Regulations will enable Transport Canada to manage the licensing program more efficiently and effectively so that it can achieve its intended purpose by providing more accurate licence holder data to enforcement agencies and emergency response groups. The Regulations were informed by discussions with stakeholder groups, including law enforcement agencies, who highlighted the need to improve the quality of data in the pleasure craft licensing program to assist enforcement activities and emergency response. While the Regulations address the issue of licensing specifically, Transport Canada is also actively developing other regulatory projects aimed at enhancing recreational boating safety.

While some commenters believe the current licensing system is sufficient and that the Government of Canada should focus on other issues, some believe that it needs to be streamlined and made easier to administer. Other commenters raised concerns that the Regulations would create unnecessary burdens for Canadians, and worried that requirements would only become more stringent in the future.

In its current form, the pleasure craft licensing system contains out-of-date information, making it an unreliable tool for Transport Canada and enforcement agencies. The Regulations will improve the accuracy of information contained in the PCELS, which will strengthen enforcement activities and emergency response. While more frequent licence renewals increase the administrative burden for licence holders, Transport Canada expects that the additional burden will be small. The licensing application process, particularly for renewals, is already quite streamlined: licence holders only need to validate and confirm that their licence information is accurate, a process which can be done quickly online. This process is comparable to the renewal of other forms of identification, such as driver’s licences, and the renewal period is equal to or longer than those established in international jurisdictions (e.g. U.S. and Australia). Further, Transport Canada expects that the benefits of the proposal, such as enhancements to marine safety and environmental protection, will outweigh the minor increased administrative burden that results from the proposed changes. This is further outlined in the “Regulatory analysis” section below.

Full or partial support of the proposed Regulations was received from approximately five commenters, including law enforcement agencies and marine industry partners. These commenters noted that the proposed Regulations would improve safety on waterways and would benefit enforcement and emergency response activities.

No changes were made to the Regulations in response to comments received on the overall proposal.

Licence service fee

In total, approximately 240 commenters provided feedback related to the $24 service fee for pleasure craft licensing.

Approximately 220 of these commenters opposed the proposed service fee. Most of these commenters suggested that the service fee would shift the costs of the pleasure craft licensing program from the Government of Canada to Canadians. Some commenters raised concerns about the fee amount and the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. Some stakeholders felt that the proposed fee was too high but, generally, these commenters simply opposed the introduction of a fee and did not propose a different fee amount. Some commenters who opposed the fee believed that it could disproportionately impact groups living on restricted incomes, such as retirees or lower-income groups. Other commenters raised concerns about the fee adding costs to families, outdoor enthusiasts and hunters and anglers, who may be discouraged from, or unable to continue, partaking in recreational boating activities. Some commenters believed the fee to be unfair, noting that recreational boating significantly contributes to local economies. While examples were not provided, one commenter took issue with the idea of shifting the cost of the program from taxpayers to licence holders through a fee, noting that they pay for services through taxes that do not directly benefit them. Three commenters shared the belief that the fee could substantially raise costs for small businesses, including tourism operators who rely on renting out pleasure craft.

While Transport Canada acknowledges the concerns regarding the imposition of the fee, as well as potential impacts it could have on certain groups, it is not believed that the fee would be unduly burdensome or represent a barrier for individuals, or businesses, to take part in or profit from recreational boating. As the fee would be applied primarily for licence renewals, every five years, it would cost licence holders an average of $4.80 per year. This cost is relatively low and represents a very small percentage of the overall costs required to own and operate a pleasure craft (e.g. gas, boat storage, regular maintenance), or for tourism operators who rent pleasure craft. Additional costs to small businesses, e.g. submitting licence applications on behalf of owners, would likely be passed onto the customer. Further, as the cost to administer the program would increase over the years with inflation, it is necessary to also adjust the fee annually to maintain the cost-recovery rate that Transport Canada determined would be necessary to manage the program effectively. As a result, no amendments have been made to the Regulations with respect to pricing or adjustment for inflation.

The service fee for pleasure craft licence services not only rebalances the cost of administering the licensing program from Canadian taxpayers to those who directly benefit from the service, it also ensures that the licensing program remains viable. Transport Canada does not profit from the fee, but uses the funds collected from it to help recover the costs of managing the licence program. As the licence fee does not result in a 100% cost-recovery rate, Canadian taxpayers will continue to cover some of the costs of administering the program.

About 20 commenters accepted the concept of a fee, but made suggestions that it should be lowered, charged less frequently (e.g. a one-time payment or once every 10 years), or only applied to new licence holders. A few marine industry partners noted that the fee would help modernize the licensing system and suggested that it should be combined with the upcoming vessel remediation fee to present a one-time cost to users.

Transport Canada will make efforts to harmonize the pleasure craft licence process, including the payment of fees, with other recreational boating programs where possible. The introduction of the service fee is consistent with the Government of Canada’s position on cost recovery, which holds that users who benefit from a service should be the ones who bear most of its cost. The service fee was determined in relation to the cost of delivering the service, which, when factoring in new licensing requirements, is $27.98 per licence transaction. As the cost to manage the program is based on the number of licence transactions, the frequency of the cost must be aligned with the frequency of licence transactions.

Regarding the imposition of the fee on existing lifetime licence holders, this is necessary because these licences represent a large percentage of pleasure craft licences in the PCELS, which are out of date. If lifetime licence holders were exempt from the service fee, Transport Canada’s ability to recover the costs associated with the licensing program would be greatly diminished, and the program would not be sustainable.

Although no changes were made to the Regulations as the result of comments on the licence service fee, the cost-benefit analysis has been updated to consider the costs to businesses that rent out pleasure craft, as this had not been captured when the proposed Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Validity period

Approximately 128 commenters provided feedback on the proposed licence validity period.

About 80 of these commenters were opposed to the idea of licence validity periods being changed to 5 years. While some commenters acknowledged the importance of up-to-date contact information, several stakeholders suggested that a renewal period of 5 years would be too frequent, especially in comparison to other pieces of identification (e.g. passports with 10-year validity periods) and would do little to improve marine safety. These commenters also noted that more frequent renewal periods would raise administrative costs for Government and for licence holders. Some stakeholders suggested that other measures could be put in place to keep licence holder information up to date (e.g. connecting licences with insurance companies or directly contacting licence holders).

Transport Canada’s recommendation to establish a 5-year validity period was informed by discussions with stakeholders, such as enforcement agencies, as well as a review of pleasure craft licensing regimes in other jurisdictions. When comparing requirements to other marine-related documents issued in Canada, or to international jurisdictions, as outlined below, the 5-year validity period is comparable and, in many cases, longer than those offered elsewhere. The 5-year validity period is also the same as the validity period for driver’s licences in most provinces. Similarly, as referenced above, law enforcement representatives advocated for a shorter licensing renewal period to increase the accuracy of licence data. In establishing a five-year period, Transport Canada has tried to balance the need for up-to-date information with considerations for the burden placed on licence holders. While Transport Canada recognizes that a more frequent renewal period increases administrative costs, they are necessary to ensure the reliability of the program’s data.

With respect to keeping information up to date, user-input is an effective and efficient way to accomplish this. A system that relies on Transport Canada to contact licence holders directly to validate their licence information would increase the cost of managing the pleasure craft licensing program, meaning the costs to licence holders for licensing services would also need to increase. Further, if licence holder information is not up to date, then Transport Canada would not have the means to contact the licence holder. Transport Canada would not be able to leverage contact information from insurance companies, as Transport Canada does not mandate insurance as a condition for licensing.

Approximately 45 commenters opposed the proposal to transition lifetime licences into 5-year licences. These commenters noted that removing lifetime licences would be unfair given that they were issued as having no expiry date and would disproportionately impact seniors and many licence holders who already keep their information updated.

Approximately 1.5 million licences in the pleasure craft licence database are lifetime licences, many of which are suspected of being out of date or are associated with pleasure craft that are no longer in operation. As such, it is necessary for these licences to undergo a process to remove those that are no longer active and to verify existing contact information. Exempting these licences from the process would greatly hinder efforts to strengthen the integrity of data collected in the licensing database.

Three commenters were supportive of the change to five years, noting that shorter validity periods would improve the accuracy of licence holder data. A marine industry partner suggested making the data public to allow it to be used for forecasting exercises, as well as marketing and strategic planning. As pleasure craft licence information is private, Transport Canada would not be permitted to publish licence holder data externally. While supportive, another commenter asked if an up-to-date photo of the pleasure craft would be required for a licence renewal, noting that some boats may be in storage. Transport Canada will not require a picture of the pleasure craft for licence renewal. One commenter asked whether a licence renewal would require a new licence number, noting that changing the licence number on the hull of a pleasure craft would be costly. Transport Canada confirms that licence holders will not be required to change their licence number upon renewal.

No changes were made to the Regulations in response to the comments on the licence validity period.

PCL transfer

Eight commenters provided feedback regarding proposed requirements related to licence transfers.

While supportive, some of these commenters asked for clarification on what documents should be kept on board during the ownership transition phase and asked that temporary licences be issued online. One commenter suggested that a specific timeline be given for when a licence transfer needs to happen. Another commenter noted that the onus of transferring a licence should be on both the previous owner and the new owner to help speed up the transfer process and to make it easier to identify the correct owner of a pleasure craft.

During the transfer of ownership, the new owner should have the bill of sale on board, acknowledging the receipt of the transfer, and some personal identification that matches the information on the bill of sale. All licences, including temporary licences, can be issued online. At prepublication, the proposed Regulations did not include a time frame for when a licence transfer needs to occur following a transfer of ownership. This was an oversight, and the Regulations have been updated to indicate that new owners will have 30 days to apply for a licence transfer, at which time they will be issued a temporary licence. The new owner of a pleasure craft will remain responsible for the completion of the licence transfer process. If the 30-day time frame is not met, the new owner will not be permitted to operate the pleasure craft until a new licence has been received.

Three other commenters noted that the process for transferring a licence should be simpler. One of these commenters noted that Transport Canada should not require new owners to have the bill of sale onboard. The second commenter requested that licensing become more digital (e.g. allowing electronic licences) to promote efficiency in the program. The third commenter noted that licence transfers should be able to be completed at centres (e.g. Service Ontario) as well as online.

The Regulations will only require that the current owner keep the bill of sale on board during the time that the new owner is using a temporary licence. Once an official licence has been issued to the new owner, the bill of sale will no longer be required to be kept on board. This requirement is necessary so that enforcement agencies can verify that the holder of a temporary licence is the proper owner of the pleasure craft. Licence holders will receive information on this procedure during the licence application process. The only change being made to the licence transfer process in the Regulations is the time frame that licence holders have to transfer a pleasure craft licence (from 90 days to 30 days).

As per the current regime, all pleasure craft licence transactions can be completed either online or by mail. There are no service centres where individuals can complete pleasure craft licence transactions. While the program promotes digital efficiency through the use of online services to complete transactions, licence holders must have a physical copy of their licence, whether for a permanent or temporary licence, on their pleasure craft while it is being operated.

The only change made to the Regulations in response to these comments was to establish a 30-day period that new pleasure craft owners have to apply for a licence transfer. As noted above, it was an oversight that this time frame was not included in the proposed Regulations.

Time frame to update information

Approximately 29 commenters provided feedback related to the time frame for licence holders to update their information (30 days).

Approximately 25 commenters opposed the proposed 30-day time frame and/or suggested alternatives. These commenters noted that it is the licence holder’s responsibility and choice if they want to keep their information up to date. Another commenter noted that updating a pleasure craft licence is not a priority for people when their address has changed. A few commenters suggested alternative time frames for updating information (e.g. 45 or 60 days). One commenter suggested that a 30-day time frame is unreasonable when the Government of Canada is unable to meet similar service standards. The commenter did not give an example of a service standard that the Government of Canada is unable to meet. In addition, a few commenters suggested alternative methods for Transport Canada to get up-to-date information (e.g. through existing databases or proactively contacting licence holders).

The requirement for licence information to remain up to date is not new. This requirement is already part of the SVR. The 30-day time frame to update the PCELS once a change in owner information or in pleasure craft ownership is to ensure that licence holders cannot go an entire boating season, which is 90 days in some areas, with an outdated licence. Further, Transport Canada has a 5-day service standard for all licence transactions. The pleasure craft licensing system relies on licence holder information being kept to up to date so that enforcement agencies can use the information for enforcing regulations and responding to marine emergencies.

As for collecting licence holder information, alternative methods, such as contacting licence holders directly, would require more staff to manage the program, which would likely increase the cost associated with managing and administering the program.

Four commenters expressed support for the proposed requirement that licence holder information be updated within 30 days of a change. These commenters noted that the 30-day time frame was reasonable given how short the boating season is in some areas, while others noted it should not be an issue as long as licence holders are not charged for updating their information. The Regulations will not charge licence holders for updating their information.

If a person is found operating a pleasure craft and the associated licence contains information that is more than 30 days out of date, the operator could be subject to a fine of $250 under the Contravention Regulations.

No changes were made to the Regulations as a result of comments regarding the time frame licence holders have to update information.

Indigenous rights

Feedback was received from five commenters regarding the impact the proposed Regulations could have on Indigenous communities. One respondent from a Métis Nation organization raised concerns that the proposed Regulations could impact Métis individuals who rely on pleasure craft to exercise their rights recognized under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including but not limited to fishing, navigation of waterbodies, and visitation of traditional territories. One commenter noted that the service fee could impact Indigenous peoples’ ability to afford necessities, such as food.

Following the Canada Gazette, Part I, comment period, Transport Canada met with representatives from the Otipemisiwak Métis Government (formerly the Métis Nation of Alberta) and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and the four Inuit Treaty Organizations (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc, Makivvik Corporation, and the Nunatsiavut Government) to discuss the potential impacts of the proposed Regulations. A survey about the proposed Regulations was developed with the Otipemisiwak Métis Government (OMG) and distributed to Métis peoples. Based on the feedback received from this survey, discussions with ITK and the Inuit Treaty Organizations, and the above comments regarding the impact of the service fee on Indigenous people, the Regulations were updated to not require the fee for persons that declare that they are using their pleasure craft to exercise their rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Further details on the consultations with Indigenous peoples and the policy decision to not require the fee for persons that declare that they are using their pleasure craft to exercise their rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, can be found in the “Indigenous engagement following prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I” section below.

Another commenter raised a concern that the proposed Regulations could create a digital divide for some Indigenous communities if licensing services were available exclusively online. While licensing services are available online, individuals also have the option to carry out licence activities via mail. This will remain unchanged under the Regulations.

One commenter shared the belief that the Government of Canada did not seek feedback from various cultural groups in the development of the proposed Regulations. They also noted that the lack of feedback from Indigenous communities may have been due to consultation fatigue. Prior to the prepublication, Transport Canada conducted a Let’s Talk Transportation consultation, outlined above, seeking feedback from all impacted groups. The proposed Regulations were also circulated to Modern Treaty groups and National Indigenous organizations in the fall of 2021 and 2022 and included in engagement updates sent to Indigenous communities and organizations by Transport Canada’s Indigenous Relations Unit in June and October 2022.

Transport Canada conducted follow-up consultations with Indigenous peoples who raised concerns during the prepublication. These consultations are outlined in greater detail below.

Sustenance/subsistence

Approximately 11 commenters raised concerns that Transport Canada did not consider the cost impacts that the proposed Regulations would have on persons who rely on their pleasure craft to access waterways for sustenance, such as food, health, and their well-being.

The majority of pleasure craft licence holders will only be subject to the pleasure craft licence service fee once every five years, upon renewal. With this in mind, the cost of the service fee for pleasure craft licence transactions averages out to approximately $4.80 a year, which is quite low, especially in comparison to other costs associated with operating and maintaining a pleasure craft. Therefore, no changes were made to the Regulations in response to the comments regarding the use of pleasure craft for sustenance. However, it should be noted that the Regulations have been amended to not require the fee for persons that declare that they are using their pleasure craft to exercise their rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Hunters/anglers

Approximately 21 commenters raised concerns about the impact of the proposed Regulations on hunters/anglers. Of these commenters, 14 noted that the costs associated with the proposed Regulations could discourage hunters and anglers from using pleasure craft to source sustainable food. Other commenters raised concerns that the licence program’s costs would increase without providing services that would directly benefit hunters and anglers. While Transport Canada acknowledges the desire to source sustainable food, the decision to do so through hunting/angling is discretionary in nature. Also, as previously noted, the cost of the fee over five years is quite low ($4.80 per year) and, therefore, not expected to be significant enough to dissuade hunters or anglers from partaking in their chosen activities. Therefore, no changes were made to the Regulations in response to the comments regarding the use of pleasure craft for hunting/angling.

Enforcement

Approximately 25 commenters provided feedback related to the enforcement of the proposed Regulations.

These commenters noted that enforcement resources are already low across Canada and shared the belief that the proposed Regulations would put more pressure on enforcement agencies but would not result in any appreciable improvements to marine safety. One commenter suggested that Transport Canada should focus on improving enforcement resources to manage the program. Other commenters suggested alternative measures for how enforcement could be improved, such as

• increasing accountability for vessel owners;
• expanding ministerial powers and the powers of the Canadian Coast Guard auxiliary;
• delegating the enforcement of water safety to not-for-profit organizations; and
• introducing harsher penalties and fines for non-compliant recreational boaters.

By introducing requirements aimed at enhancing licence holder information, the Regulations are expected to increase accountability for vessel owners and help enforcement agencies carry out their activities. Delegation of enforcement activities is set out under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, which is beyond the scope of the Regulations. That being said, the delegation of these activities is limited to designated enforcement officers, and could not be further delegated to not-for-profit organizations who are not trained to be enforcement officers.

Penalty limits for pleasure craft licensing contraventions are set out under the Contravention Regulations, which have a maximum of $250. While harsher penalties may help to deter certain behaviours, fine amounts are based on the relative severity of the non-compliance. While serious, operating a pleasure craft with an out-of-date licence is not as severe as other infractions, such as the operation of a vessel in an unsafe manner (e.g. under the influence of alcohol). Further, harsher penalties would not help enforcement agencies identify licence holders, nor would they assist in updating information in the pleasure craft licence database. For non-compliant licence holders in provinces that have not adopted the Contraventions Regulations (Alberta and Saskatchewan), enforcement officers may issue summary convictions in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, instead of fines under the Contraventions Regulations.

One commenter questioned why the Government of Canada is proposing oversight and compliance in the SVR that would be in excess of provincial regulations. Pleasure craft licensing requirements are national in scope and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. With respect to licensing, there are no provincial requirements that overlap with those set out in the SVR. Provincial authorities are responsible for enforcing and verifying compliance with the federal licensing requirements, as well as any provincial requirements.

No changes were made to the Regulations in response to the comments regarding enforcement.

Manufacturer identification code

Six commenters provided feedback regarding the proposed requirements related to the MIC. These respondents noted that the MIC issue (i.e. having only a finite number of codes) is a departmental problem for Transport Canada and could be fixed by creating more MICs. One commenter suggested that Transport Canada could leverage the Canada Revenue Agency database to identify if companies holding MICs continue to exist.

As per an agreement between Canada and the U.S., Canada can only assign 3-digit MICs, resulting in a limited number of combinations. As such, Transport Canada is unable to create more MICs. The 3-digit code is the first three digits of a vessel’s Hull Identification Number. While leveraging information in the Canada Revenue Agency database could assist in determining whether a business is active, the contact information in the MIC database should still be kept up to date, regardless of a business’ status. This will allow Transport Canada to contact an MIC holder when necessary, such as to verify that they still require the use of an MIC in cases where there has not been recent interaction with the department.

Two commenters misunderstood the proposed MIC requirements to be related to pleasure craft licensing, and therefore opposed them. MIC requirements are not related to pleasure craft licences, but instead refer to a 3-digit code given to manufacturers, builders, rebuilders and importers of vessels subject to the SVR. These codes are used to identify manufacturers and importers. Altering the naming convention for MICs would misalign Canada with the U.S. and EU. This would create challenges for multiple groups involved in the manufacturing and importation of vessels. As such, no changes were made to the Regulations in response to these comments.

Consultation

Approximately 92 commenters provided feedback related to Transport Canada’s consultation approach in relation to the proposed Regulations. All these commenters shared the belief that Transport Canada did not broadly advertise the project or consult with all impacted stakeholders. Two commenters noted that, while consultations were undertaken, stakeholder feedback was not reflected in the proposed Regulations. Some commenters suggested that the consultation period should be extended, and that a more rigorous and comprehensive study on the impacts of the proposed Regulations should be conducted.

Prior to prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Transport Canada conducted various consultations on the proposal. In November 2020, Transport Canada launched an online Let’s Talk Transportation consultation for stakeholders to submit their feedback on proposed amendments to the SVR. The consultation was open for 60 days and was regularly advertised through Transport Canada’s social media channels. This is a standard consultation approach for Transport Canada and has been used for other regulatory projects, such as the Regulations Amending the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations.

In fall 2021, Transport Canada distributed a letter to industry groups, National Indigenous Organizations, and Modern Treaty governments, inviting them to provide feedback on proposed amendments to the SVR. Transport Canada also described the proposal in bulletins to Indigenous communities and organizations distributed by Transport Canada’s Indigenous Relations Unit in June and October 2022. No concerns were raised by any of the organizations contacted in 2021 and 2022; however, the Otipemisiwak Métis Government (formerly the Métis Nation of Alberta) requested a follow-up meeting for more information about the proposal. These consultations are described further below.

Notice of the prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, in May 2022 was sent to stakeholders through Transport Canada’s Canadian Marine Advisory Council’s distribution list. A follow-up email was sent to stakeholders on June 6, 2023, as a reminder of the prepublication and the ongoing consultation period. The prepublication was also advertised via social media on the day of publication, with reminders being published on July 2 and July 11, 2023.

Notice of the prepublication was also sent to boating organizations and included in the Canadian Safe Boating Council’s newsletter in May 2023. Throughout the prepublication comment period, and carrying into fall 2023, Transport Canada shared updates about the proposed Regulations with Indigenous communities.

Feedback received from stakeholders prior to, and during, the prepublication comment period was considered in the development of the Regulations. Following the prepublication, Transport Canada conducted additional consultations with Indigenous communities.

Scope

Approximately 10 commenters provided feedback regarding the scope of the proposed Regulations. Four commenters suggested amendments to the proposal that would exempt certain types of vessels based on size, type, and horsepower (e.g. watercraft under 18 feet and under 60 horsepower, fishing tugs, fishing vessels less than 50 metres in length and under 20 horsepower) from the new licence validity periods and the service fee.

One commenter asked for clarification about the pleasure craft that are subject to the Regulations and questioned why the amendments only apply to pleasure craft and not all vessels. Another commenter asked why Transport Canada was expanding the application of the proposed Regulations to sailing vessels over six metres, considering their low environmental impact. Another commenter asked whether the proposed Regulations would apply to wind-powered vessels that are not equipped with an engine. One commenter suggested that the updates to licensing requirements should only apply to business owners, and not regular licence holders. Another commenter noted that they do not support the application of the licensing requirements to existing pleasure craft licence holders because the program does not provide boating safety supports to licence holders, such as buoys or water markers. On the contrary, this commenter noted that licensing should apply to a special class of persons, such as those who use their pleasure craft for non-commercial fishing and harvesting.

To maintain marine safety and effectively respond to marine emergencies, enforcement agencies require a comprehensive dataset on pleasure craft operating in Canadian waters and the ability to quickly identify who may be operating these vessels. Increasing the scope of pleasure craft that are required to have a licence will increase the number of pleasure craft that enforcement agencies can identify. Further, pleasure craft refers to a vessel used for pleasure, including for recreation, non-commercial fishing, and daily living. A subcategory that further divides pleasure craft based on their use would be redundant, as it would essentially create an additional database for capturing the same type of information. This would lead to unnecessary complexity for the groups responsible for enforcement and safety oversight, as it could require them to search records in multiple databases. As a result, there are no current plans to create a special class of licensing for pleasure craft that are used for the activities mentioned by commenters. Fishing vessels that are used for commercial purposes are not subject to pleasure craft licensing requirements but are required to comply with requirements under the Fishing Vessel Safety Regulations and are required to be registered with Transport Canada via the Vessel Registry.

Another commenter requested that boats whose ownership cannot be identified be excluded from the Regulations. This would defeat one of the objectives of the Regulations, which is to ensure that Transport Canada and local enforcement authorities have accurate and up-to-date information about pleasure craft that operate in Canadian waters and their owners/operators. This information is vital to the ongoing administration and enforcement of boating safety requirements as well as search and rescue and recovery efforts. It should be noted that, if a pleasure craft is operated without a valid licence onboard, the operator of the vessel will be held accountable, regardless of the ownership of the vessel.

No changes were made to the Regulations in response to the comments received about the scope of application.

Costs and benefits

Approximately 11 commenters provided feedback on the cost-benefit analysis. Some of these commenters raised concerns about the costs, and questioned if the costs were reasonable/justifiable, considering the simplicity of the issues at hand. Others noted that it was not clear who would ultimately benefit from the proposed Regulations and/or what the benefits would actually be.

Five commenters expressed skepticism about the accuracy of Transport Canada’s cost estimates and suggested that the program costs were underestimated. The cost-benefit analysis focused on the rebalancing of costs for licensing between service users and Canadian taxpayers (represented by Transport Canada), not evaluating the Government’s program costs. The service delivery cost was determined in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)’s Guide to Establishing the Level of a Cost-Based User Fee or Regulatory Charge.

Four commenters questioned the benefits outlined in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and, in particular, questioned whether the projected benefits would justify the costs. As previously explained, the cost-benefit analysis focused on the rebalancing of costs between service users and Canadian taxpayers (represented by Transport Canada). The Regulations are expected to benefit Canadian taxpayers, as they will no longer bear 100% of the costs of maintaining the PCL program. In addition, the increase in accurate data in Transport Canada’s pleasure craft licensing database is expected to help law enforcement agencies identify licence holders when compliance issues are identified, or when pleasure craft are adrift, abandoned, wrecked or hazardous. Having accurate data on these licence holders will assist law enforcement agencies with enforcing boating safety requirements and will reduce emergency response time for search and rescue agencies, which is expected to lead to more effective and targeted rescues.

One commenter suggested that the proposed Regulations would impose a $35 million tax (which refers to the previously estimated total cost to domestic PCL holders presented in Table 3 in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement) on the boating industry, and its “associated economic impact (job losses, fewer boats)” was not considered in the analysis.

With respect to the $35 million cost to domestic PCL holders, $29.34 million was estimated in relation to the service fee, and the other $5.65 million was estimated in relation to time and postage costs associated with PCL applications.

The service fee is not a tax. As explained by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario,^{footnote 11} a user fee is generally charged to recover all or a part of the government costs of providing a specific good or service to the individuals and businesses that request it (e.g. a driver’s license), while a tax is used to produce revenues for general government purposes and for “public goods” (e.g. health care, education). Therefore, the service fee prescribed in the Regulations is not a tax on PCL holders.

Finally, it should be noted that the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals outlines that direct costs and benefits are to be the main focus of the cost-benefit analysis; indirect impacts,^{footnote 12} such as job loss, may be considered if there is strong empirical evidence linking such impacts with the proposed regulatory requirements. While the Regulations will impose a service fee on PCL holders, and require more frequent licence renewals, the unit cost associated with a PCL application (i.e. the $24 service fee, and an opportunity cost of $9 for an individual holder — or $11 for a business — for spending 15 minutes to complete an application every five years to maintain a licence’s validity) is not expected to be significant enough to change an individual’s decision to own and operate a pleasure craft; therefore, it is not anticipated that the Regulations will reduce either the demand for pleasure crafts or the employment in the boating industry.

One commenter stated that stakeholders’ additional time to comply with the proposed Regulations was not considered. Transport Canada can confirm that the time cost (i.e. the opportunity cost) of additional PCL applications due to the five-year validity period was considered as part of the cost-benefit analysis.

No changes were made to the Regulations in response to comments received about the cost-benefit analysis.

Administrative considerations

Approximately seven commenters provided feedback about the administrative side of the licensing program. One commenter asked if photocopies of pleasure craft licences would be permissible to have onboard. Licence holders who apply for their pleasure craft licence online will receive a printable version of their licence. Licence holders who receive their licence via mail can make a copy of the licence to keep onboard.

Three commenters questioned why pleasure craft licences could not be tied to driver’s licences. Driver’s licences fall under provincial jurisdiction, whereas pleasure craft licences fall under federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, not everyone who has a pleasure craft licence will have a driver’s licence.

Another commenter suggested that data processing should be done by Transport Canada and not by a third party. Given the costs that would be associated with implementing and monitoring the licensing database, as well as staffing positions to handle pleasure craft licence inquiries, it is more cost-effective for Transport Canada to contract out the administration of the licensing program to a third party.

Transport Canada does not currently have the resources or the infrastructure needed to manage the pleasure craft licensing database. The management and processing of licence transactions are, therefore, done by a third party and not Transport Canada.

Two commenters requested that Transport Canada amend the term “pleasure craft licence” to avoid confusion with licences that are used to prove competency. The term “licence” is an accurate descriptor for the requirement that a vessel must meet in order to be operated. This is distinct from the requirements that an operator must meet, referred to as a “proof of competency,” which proves that they have knowledge pertaining to the safe operation of a pleasure craft. The terms “licence” and “proof of competency” are well defined in the CSA 2001, and the Competency of Operators of Pleasure Craft Regulations, respectively.

No changes were made to the Regulations in response to the comments received about administrative issues and terminology.

Other

Approximately 45 commenters mistakenly understood that the proposed Regulations would apply to pleasure craft operator competency and not pleasure craft licensing. While these comments have been excluded from this analysis, they have been shared with the appropriate groups within Transport Canada for awareness.

Eight commenters requested that Transport Canada focus on addressing other issues related to recreational boating and marine safety. These comments raised concerns with existing requirements related to large floating accommodations, impaired boating, and pleasure craft competency. As these issues did not relate to the proposed Regulations, they were considered out of scope. However, the feedback has been shared with the appropriate groups at Transport Canada for consideration.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

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. While no treaty obligations were identified, for the purposes of good governance, treaty groups were notified about the proposal, as this could be of interest to their members engaged in fishing, harvesting and other daily living activities using small vessels, including pleasure craft.

Letters were sent to modern treaty groups and National Indigenous Organizations notifying them of the proposal in late fall 2021. The proposal was also included in engagement updates to Indigenous communities and organizations distributed by Transport Canada’s Indigenous Relations Unit in June and October 2022. No comments were received; however, the Otipemisiwak Métis Government (OMG) requested further information via a follow-up meeting, which was held on July 7, 2022, and asked to be notified when the proposal was prepublished in the Canada Gazette. An email notifying them of the Canada Gazette prepublication was sent.

In spring 2023, a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Assessment (UNDA Assessment) was completed as part of this project. The UNDA Assessment did not find any inconsistencies between the proposed Regulations, as published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the UNDA.

The UNDA Assessment has been updated to reflect comments received from Indigenous groups during and after the Canada Gazette, Part I, consultation period.

Indigenous engagement following prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

Transport Canada’s Indigenous Relations Unit distributed bulletins, over email, to Indigenous communities in May 2023, April 2024 and July 2024, which provided updates on the development of marine-related regulatory projects. These bulletins included a description of the proposed Regulations and targeted timelines for upcoming consultation opportunities and Canada Gazette publication dates. Transport Canada also shared updates about meetings with the OMG and ITK and the four Inuit Treaty Organizations. No comments or questions were received from Indigenous communities in response to these bulletins.

Meetings with the Otipemisiwak Métis Government

In September 2023, Transport Canada met with representatives of the OMG to gain further understanding of their concerns raised at prepublication. During this meeting, Transport Canada provided an overview of the engagements that had been done on the proposed Regulations with Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities, and how these practices compared to those done for other regulations. The OMG shared their belief that the proposed service fee would infringe on Métis section 35 rights by creating a barrier to the use of their pleasure craft to exercise these rights (e.g. hunting and fishing). The OMG noted that offering an exemption to Métis citizens for pleasure craft licensing services could alleviate these concerns.

Transport Canada met with representatives of the OMG again on May 3, 2024, to further discuss their concerns about the proposed Regulations. Following this meeting, Transport Canada developed a survey with the OMG, for their distribution, to gather additional information on how the proposed Regulations could impact Métis people. The OMG distributed the survey to interested parties and advertised the survey on social media and in the OMGs digital newsletter. Transport Canada met several more times with the OMG in July and August 2024 to discuss feedback they received from the survey.

Otipemisiwak Métis government survey feedback

The survey was open from July 9 to July 30, 2024. In total, the survey received 159 responses. The following information was gathered from respondents:

• 73% of respondents indicated that they operate a pleasure craft that would be subject to the new licensing requirements (with only 3% of these being operators of affected wind-powered pleasure craft).
• Of respondents that would be subject to new licensing requirements, 60% indicated that they currently hold a lifetime licence, while 30% indicated they hold a 10-year licence.^{footnote 13}
• Of respondents that would be subject to new licensing requirements, 60% indicated that they use their pleasure craft for the purpose of harvesting or for social or ceremonial purposes.
• Of respondents that would be subject to new licensing requirements, 75% agreed, or strongly agreed, that the proposed service fee would impose a financial barrier for Métis citizens to use their pleasure craft to exercise their section 35 rights, while 72% of respondents agreed that the proposed fee would limit their ability to exercise their section 35 rights.
• 85% of respondents felt that consultations had not been adequate, with 64% of respondents noting that they were unaware of the proposed changes to the SVR.
• Of respondents that would be subject to new licensing requirements, 86% agreed, or strongly agreed, that they should be exempt from proposed changes to the SVR.

The survey included a section for Métis citizens to share additional concerns with the proposal. Half of the survey respondents submitted feedback to this section. These respondents shared the following observations:

• that the proposed Regulations would add unnecessary bureaucracy and complexity to the licensing process;
• that the proposed fee would negatively impact those who use their pleasure craft for harvesting;
• that the proposed fee would make it more difficult for elders, and those with a limited income, to afford boating and fishing;
• that the proposed Regulations would complicate the lives of Métis citizens, and did not consider the traditional use of pleasure craft for harvesting and cultural activities;
• that the updated licence validity period was unnecessary and counter to the original terms of lifetime licences, and that it would create an additional burden and costs;
• that more robust consultations were needed to ensure the inclusion of Métis people in decisions that would impact their communities. Many noted frustrations with the lack of communication from the Government of Canada on the policy changes, with many Métis people being unaware of them until this survey; and
• that the proposed amendments to the licensing program did not consider the realities or needs of inland boating in Métis regions. These respondents suggested that the proposed amendments would be more appropriate for ocean-going vessels than inland vessels.

As a follow-up to the survey, the OMG noted that the proposed licence service fee would disproportionately impact Métis and other Indigenous peoples, as it would present a barrier to taking part in activities associated with culture, community, spirituality, ceremony, and constitutionally protected section 35 rights. Specific concern was raised about the potential impact of the fee on Métis elders and those with limited income.

While the pleasure craft licence service fee is considered small, consultations with OMG and other Indigenous organizations have highlighted the potential interference of the fee with an Indigenous person’s ability to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. The OMG, therefore, recommended that the Regulations be updated to not require the fee for persons that declare that they are using their pleasure craft to exercise their rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

As previously explained, while Transport Canada recognizes the concerns raised about a shorter licence period, it is necessary to ensure that information in the pleasure craft licence database remains up to date. Regarding the depth of consultations undertaken, Transport Canada is working with Indigenous communities to identify ways to engage Indigenous communities earlier in the regulatory process. With respect to the suggestion that the licensing program is more appropriate for ocean-going vessels, most pleasure craft in Canada are used on inland waters, and as such, it is essential that these vessels be captured in the licensing database. As there is no difference in the type of information that enforcement agencies or emergency response organizations would need to respond to vessels operating on inland waters or open waters, there would be no benefit to establishing different requirements or a different licensing database for the two classes of vessels.

Meetings with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the four Inuit Treaty Organizations (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc, Makivvik Corporation, and the Nunatsiavut Government)

In December 2023, Transport Canada met with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and the Inuit Treaty Organizations (ITOs) to discuss several regulatory initiatives that Inuit had raised as a point of interest following the distribution of Transport Canada’s Fall 2023 Bulletin to Indigenous Communities and Organizations. ITK and the ITOs requested further information on the proposed Regulations, noting the potential impacts on section 35 rights, as pleasure craft can be used to carry out traditional practices. ITK and the ITOs also raised concerns related to how communities could access licensing services, noting that it could be a challenge for some Inuit if internet access is required.

In July 2024, Transport Canada attended the National Inuit Marine Committee to further discuss concerns about the proposed Regulations. During this meeting, ITK and the ITOs raised concerns that the proposed Regulations did not consider, or make a distinction for, pleasure craft that are used for the exercise of section 35 rights. ITK and the ITOs further requested that an exemption from all licensing requirements be considered for such pleasure craft. Specifically, ITK and the ITOs noted that the application of general licencing requirements would not be appropriate for Inuit persons, as, due to the remoteness of their communities, many Inuit are not privy to the benefits non-Indigenous licence holders enjoy, such as enhanced search and rescue response. It was therefore suggested to Transport Canada that licensing be done on a voluntary basis for Inuit.

In August 2024, Transport Canada met again with ITK and the ITOs to discuss the proposed Regulations. Many of the concerns from the previous meeting were reiterated. ITK and the ITOs once again requested that an exemption be granted on all proposed licensing requirements, noting that certain requirements, such as updating licensing information within 30 days, would be a challenge for Inuit, given their lack of internet access and inability to send or receive letter-mail within 30 days.

ITK and the ITOs also noted that licence holder information is not useful to Inuit police services and local first responders, as they do not have access to the licence database. Transport Canada noted that access could be granted to Inuit police services or any other designated enforcement officers. Transport Canada also stressed the importance of general licensing requirements, as they (i) help to ensure pleasure craft operators are responsible for their vessels; (ii) support search and rescue services; and (iii) support identification of lost and stolen vessels. While Transport Canada recognizes that Inuit regions may not have a dedicated search and rescue team, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police performs search and rescue functions across northern regions, and may rely on information in the licensing database.

ITK and the ITOs stressed the importance of hosting early policy discussions with Indigenous communities to ensure feedback is adequately considered in regulatory proposals. Transport Canada is working with Indigenous communities and Transport Canada’s Indigenous Relations Unit to identify ways to engage Indigenous people earlier in the regulatory development process.

In January 2025, Transport Canada received a letter from Makivvik that reiterated the concerns noted above that were raised in Transport Canada’s discussions with ITK, and similarly requested that Inuit only be subject to pleasure craft licensing requirements on a voluntary basis.

As mentioned above, based on the feedback provided by the OMG and ITK and the ITOs, the Regulations have been updated to not require a fee for Indigenous persons who declare that they hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and operate their pleasure craft for the purpose of exercising said rights. Section 35 rights holders who do not declare that they are using a pleasure craft to exercise these rights will pay the service fee. While some concerns were raised that general licensing requirements similarly posed a barrier to Indigenous people, these requirements are necessary to support marine safety and emergency response for both Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous recreational boaters.

The decision to not require section 35 rights holders to pay the licencing fee is consistent with the Government of Canada’s ongoing efforts towards advancing reconciliation. Other government programs have similarly made efforts to reduce the cost burden for section 35 rights holders for programs that relate to exercising these rights (e.g. firearm licensing).

Finally, Transport Canada is working with Indigenous communities to identify ways to help accommodate Indigenous Peoples during the licence application process.

Instrument choice

The SVR set out the requirements for pleasure craft licences. These requirements have proven to be insufficient in ensuring that licence holder information, collected in the PCELS, is accurate and remains up to date. For example, existing requirements allow for the existence of lifetime licences, which are more likely to contain out-of-date information given that there are no regular points of contact between Transport Canada and lifetime licence holders. In addition to this, the SVR currently permit PCL holders to operate their pleasure craft with out-of-date information for 90 days, which in some areas is an entire boating season. Out-of-date information can impede and delay search and rescue efforts and enforcement activities. Based on the information in the existing database, it is clear that, in the absence of regulatory intervention, there would be no way to ensure that licence holder information is kept up to date.

In addition, because certain pleasure craft, such as sail-alone vessels, are not subject to licensing requirements, it was difficult for DEOs and search and rescue agencies to respond effectively to emergencies involving these vessels or to ensure they remain in compliance with the SVR. Therefore, regulatory intervention is required to ensure a consistent approach to regulating all pleasure craft.

Finally, regulatory intervention is needed to introduce a $24 service fee for PCL transactions. Fees can only be set using the regulatory authorities provided under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. Therefore, in order to establish the fee, a regulatory change is necessary.

Regulatory analysis

A service fee of $24 will be introduced for processing the issuance, renewal, transfer or request for a duplicate pleasure craft licence. The fee will rebalance the costs to administer the PCL program from Canadian taxpayers to PCL licence holders (who are the primary beneficiaries). In addition, licences with lifetime validity will be phased out and replaced by those with a 5-year validity licence, while 10-year licences will be renewed as 5-year licences upon expiration, which will require licence holders to renew their licences more frequently. Transport Canada will be affected by the increased PCL transactions processed by a third-party service provider, and inquiries processed by the third-party service provider and Service Canada.

Benefits and costs

Note: numbers presented below may not add up due to rounding.

The total cost of the Regulations is estimated to be $36.98 million (present value in 2026 Canadian dollars, discounted to the first period of 2025–2026 at a 7% discount rate) for a 10-year period between 2025–2026 and 2034–2035, where each period includes 12 months, with the first period being from December 2025 to November 2026. Of this cost, domestic PCL holders are expected to bear $30.40 million, comprised of the service fee ($27.48 million) and the PCL applications ($2.93 million), while the Government of Canada (represented by Transport Canada) is expected to bear $6.58 million associated with processing PCL transactions, responding to PCL inquiries and updating training materials.

The Regulations will also benefit Canadian taxpayers, as the estimated total recovered costs of $27.80 million, of which $27.48 million is from the service fee charged to domestic PCL holders, and $0.32 million from foreign PCL holders, will rebalance their financial burden to recover the cost of Transport Canada providing services.

Therefore, the Regulations are expected to result in a net cost of $9.19 million over the 10-year period. Despite the net monetized cost, Transport Canada considers the Regulations to be in the public interest of Canadians because of the qualitative benefits anticipated, which include strengthening the integrity and efficacy of the licensing program, supporting more efficient clean up and recovery efforts, assisting in emergency response efforts, reducing and deterring non-compliance and helping to minimize the negative environmental impacts of wrecked and abandoned vessels.

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

Following the prepublication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I, the cost-benefit analysis was modified as follows:

• the analytical time frame was adjusted from calendar years to periods to align with the registration of the Regulations in December 2025. Compared to the previous analytical time frame (calendar years 2024–2033), the adjusted analytical time frame consists of ten 12-month periods, and each period starts in December and ends in the following November. The first period is between December 2025 and November 2026, which is also the base period for discounting;
• the price year used to evaluate impacts was updated from the 2022 Canadian dollars to 2026 Canadian dollars;
  • the service fee was updated from $22.96 (adjusted $24 service fee in 2022 Canadian dollars) to $24;
  • the wage rate used to calculate the opportunity cost was updated from $32.49 to $35.82 using Statistics Canada’s wage rate.^{footnote 14}
  • the postage cost was updated from $1.07 to $1.47;
• the forecasted PCL transactions were updated to 1) reflect changes in the assumptions and analysis on the forecasted number of PCL transactions that will occur over the time frame associated with the latest information recorded at Transport Canada, 2) correct errors in the calculation of incremental PCL transactions associated with the application costs, and 3) consider that no fee will be required for Indigenous persons who declare that they hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and use their pleasure craft to exercise said rights: the total number of PCL transactions subject to the service fee was revised from approximately two million to 1.5 million, and the average annual PCL transactions subject to the opportunity cost was revised from 80 710 to 42 330;
• the methodology of estimating individual PCL holders’ opportunity costs of completing PCL applications was adjusted: the overhead rate of 25% applicable to the hourly wage rate was removed, as individual PCL holders most likely would complete applications outside their working hours. However, business PCL holders continue to be subject to the overhead rate in the analysis.
• the third-party service provider updated the costs of processing licence applications: the cost of processing a mail-in application increased from $26.33 to $36.05 (undiscounted), and that of an online application increased from $11.96 to $16.02 (undiscounted);
• During the application process, Indigenous persons who declare that they hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and use their pleasure craft to exercise these rights will not be required to pay the service fee. This declaration is part of each application, and the estimated time to complete the application process accounts for the time required to respond to all questions. Therefore, this will not result in any additional costs for those making a declaration;
• the cost to Transport Canada with respect to Service Canada managing the Info-line and responding to PCL-related inquiries was removed, as there is no incremental change to the service agreement between Transport Canada and Service Canada associated with Regulations. However, additional costs to Service Canada due to resource allocation to respond to additional inquiries were added.
• the cost of $0.61 million to Transport Canada associated with additional hiring and stakeholder outreach was removed based on the latest planning; and
• the number of affected businesses was revised from 485 to 822 and the number of affected small businesses was revised 437 to 769, based on the latest information recorded at Transport Canada and the inclusion of businesses renting pleasure crafts as per a stakeholder’s comment. More specifically;
  • the number of businesses holding PCLs for demonstration purposes was revised from 485 to 539 and the number of small businesses holding PCLs for the same purpose was revised from 437 to 486; and
  • an additional 289 businesses renting pleasure crafts were added, all of which are small businesses.
• Changes in the number of affected businesses and their revised compliance costs also resulted in changes to results presented in the small business lens and one-for-one rule subsections;
  • The total cost for small businesses was revised from $31,880 to $194,009 and the cost per small business was revised from $72.95 to $252.29;
  • The annualized cost for small businesses was revised from $4,539 to $25,815 and the annualized cost per small businesses was revised from $10.39 to $33.57; and
  • The annualized administrative burden cost was revised from $310 to $1,407.

As a result, the total cost was adjusted from $39.28 million to $36.98 million, the total benefit was adjusted from $29.69 million to $27.80 million, and the net cost was updated from $9.59 million to $9.19 million.

Analytical framework

The costs and benefits for the Regulations have been assessed in accordance with the 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 are assessed based on comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the Regulations. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes because of the Regulations. Details are further discussed below.

The Regulations will result in a greater portion of the costs for administering the PCL program being carried by service users. Both domestic and foreign licence holders, whose pleasure crafts are principally maintained and operated in Canada, will be affected, with the domestic licence holders bearing most of these costs. Following the TBS Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, the scope of this analysis is at the societal level, analyzing costs and benefits attributed to Canadians. Due to the cost-recovery nature of the Regulations, service fees paid by domestic licence holders represent a shift of the cost burden from Canadians (represented by Transport Canada) to the Canadian licence holders. Service fees paid by foreign stakeholders represent a net increase in the cost recovered by Canadians, represented by Transport Canada (since these costs will not be borne by Canadians). Therefore, costs to domestic licence holders will have a neutral impact on Canadian society, while costs to foreign licence holders are considered a benefit to Canadians.

The analysis estimates the impact of the Regulations over a 10-year period from 2025–2026 to 2034–2035, with each period including 12 months between December and the following November and the first period being between December 2025 and November 2026. Unless otherwise stated, all costs and benefits are in present values expressed in 2026 Canadian dollars, discounted to the first period at a 7% discount rate for the 10-year period. Note that 1) numbers presented in the analysis may not add up to totals due to rounding; and 2) the formula used to calculate annualized values under the cost-benefit statement and the small business lens follows the methodology prescribed in TBS’s Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals where impacts occurred in the first period are undiscounted.

Data and assumptions used to project PCL transaction volume

The PCL transactions projected during the analytical time frame were based on data provided by the PCELS and the Canadian third-party service provider that delivers PCL services on behalf of Transport Canada. In particular,

• future PCL transactions related to new, transfer, duplicate and amendment/update requests were projected based on the average of annual requests between 2009–2010 and 2023–2024, which were observed relatively stable over this period.
• future PCL transactions related to existing PCL renewals were projected as follows:
  • PCLs issued with a 10-year validity would be renewed at a rate of 15%, based on renewal data of such PCLs issued in 2010–2011 and 2011–2012;
  • PCLs issued with a lifetime validity would be renewed at a rate ranging between 5% and 15%, depending on when they were issued. For example, a renewal rate of 15% was applied to those issued between 2006 and April 29, 2010, and 13% applied to those issued between 2000 and 2005;^{footnote 15} and
  • Once these PCLs are replaced by new licences with a 5-year validity period, the assumed renewal rate for new PCLs would be 30%, which was chosen to reflect the expected increase in renewals due to the change in validity.

There is some inherent uncertainty in the projections of future PCL transactions, given that it is unknown exactly how many of the 1.5 million existing PCLs with a lifetime validity relate to vessels that are still in service, or to licence holders who can be informed of the Regulations to renew their licences. However, the Canadian third-party service provider is aware of the possibility of fluctuations to the projections that it would process each year and has accounted for this possibility in its operational plan.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Under the baseline scenario, there were approximately 2.5 million registered PCLs in Canada as of July 2021. Approximately 1.5 million of these are licences issued prior to April 29, 2010, with a lifetime validity, and 0.9 million were issued on or after April 29, 2010, with a validity period of 10 years. PCL holders are not required to pay service fees when applying for new PCLs, or renewing, transferring, or requesting a duplicate of their PCLs. In addition, operators of certain types of pleasure crafts, such as wind-powered vessels, are not subject to the PCL requirements prescribed in the SVR. Even though the SVR did not require Transport Canada to provide notifications to licence holders should Transport Canada cancel their PCLs, Transport Canada would do so, as it is an existing operating practice. Furthermore, a Canadian third-party service provider processes PCL transactions, and Service Canada responds to inquiries from the public about the PCL program, on behalf of Transport Canada and they both charge Transport Canada for providing these services. Transport Canada would continue to address PCL inquiries made to the department and provide training to inspectors and law enforcement in other jurisdictions on PCL requirementx on a regular basis.

Under the regulatory scenario, licences with lifetime validity will be phased out over five periods and be replaced by those with a 5-year validity. Likewise, licences with a 10-year validity period will be replaced by licences with a 5-year validity period upon their expiry dates or upon transfer of the licence. When PCL holders apply for new licences, or renew, transfer, or request a duplicate of an existing licence, a service fee of $24 will be charged. However, the service fee will not apply to Indigenous persons who declare that they hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and operate a pleasure craft for the purpose of exercising said rights. Furthermore, the Regulations will require operators of wind-powered vessels that are above six metres in length (excluding all human-powered vessels such as dragon boats and kayaks) to hold PCLs (valid for five years). The inclusion of other types of pleasure crafts will increase the number of newly issued licences by an estimated 25 000 in total between 2025–2026 and 2026–2027. The Regulations will also require licence holders to cancel their PCLs should their pleasure craft no longer be seaworthy, and formalize Transport Canada’s practice to provide written notices to licence holders should Transport Canada cancel their PCLs. Transport Canada will continue to pay the Canadian third-party service provider and Service Canada to process PCL requests and respond to PCL inquiries, and Service Canada may receive additional inquiries associated with the Regulations. It is also expected that Transport Canada will need to address increased PCL inquiries made to the department and update training materials associated with the Regulations for training that will continue to be provided to law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.

It is worth noting that Transport Canada’s program cost of administering PCLs is comprised of Operation & Maintenance (i.e. the number of full-time equivalent employees and their salaries) and costs invoiced by the third-party provider and Service Canada. However, only the cost invoiced by the third-party provider will be affected by the Regulations, as it depends on the number of PCL transactions processed. All other Transport Canada’s program costs and its service agreement with Service Canada will remain the same between the baseline and regulatory scenarios. Please note that the CBA methodology presented below differs from the approach used to evaluate Transport Canada’s program costs.

Table 1 outlines different types of PCLs under the baseline and regulatory scenarios. The number of affected PCL holders represents the estimated number of existing PCL holders (for lifetime and 10-year validity PCLs) or prospective PCL holders (for wind-powered vessels that are above six metres in length) who will obtain a new or renewed PCL under the Regulations. There are currently more lifetime and 10-year validity PCLs in existence than the figures shown in the table, but the difference represents PCLs that are not expected to be renewed.

Table 1: Types of pleasure craft licence under the baseline and regulatory scenarios, and the number of affected licence transactions

Type of pleasure craft licence	Baseline scenario	Regulatory scenario	Number of affected PCL transactions
Licence with lifetime validity	Valid for lifetime, no renewal required (except when owner information changes).	Licences to be phased out over five periods (five calendar years) starting from March 31, 2026, and be replaced by those with a 5-year validity subject to $24 service fee. Renewal required to maintain validity.	169 442
Licence with a 10-year validity	Valid for 10-years. Renewal required to maintain validity. No service fee charge.	Renewed licences have a 5-year validity subject to $24 service fee.	1 190 797
Licence for wind-powered vessels above six metres in length	No licence required.	Licence required with a 5-year validity subject to $24 service fee. Renewal required to maintain validity subject to the same fee.	25 000

Source: Transport Canada’s Pleasure Craft Electronic Licensing System, accessed in 2022 with assumptions applied.

Stakeholder profile

The stakeholders immediately affected by the Regulations are domestic and foreign PCL holders, including businesses as well as Indigenous persons, whose pleasure crafts are principally maintained and operated in Canada, as they will be subject to the service fee and more frequent licence renewals. Indigenous persons, who declare that they hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and operate their pleasure crafts for the purpose of exercising said rights, will not be required to pay the service fee. Transport Canada will also be affected, as they will need to pay the Canadian third-party service provider and Service Canada to process licence requests and respond to inquiries. In addition, manufacturers, builders, rebuilders, and importers of pleasure craft who hold MICs will be subject to a new requirement to update contact information within 30 days of a change.

Based on data recorded at Transport Canada, there are 539 businesses (e.g. watercraft dealers) holding PCLs for demonstration purposes and 289 businesses (e.g. marina and rental agencies) holding PCLs for rental purposes. Among these businesses, six hold licences for both purposes.

Table 2 outlines the number of registered PCLs by domestic and foreign licence holders as of 2020. In total, there were 2.7 million PCLs, of which 31,799 (1.18%) were held by foreign licence holders. Among PCLs issued to domestic licence holders, 45.56% were in Ontario, followed by 17.27% in Quebec and 13.55% in British Columbia.

Table 2 also shows the percentage of PCLs issued to Indigenous persons in a province/territory, which is a weighted percentage derived by multiplying the percentage of its Indigenous population^{footnote 16} in terms of its total population^{footnote 17} and the percentage of registered PCLs by domestic holders in that province. For example, in Alberta, the Indigenous population was estimated to be 284 465, 5.87% of the total provincial population (4 849 906). Therefore, by multiplying 5.87% and 7.7% (the percentage of registered PCLs held by Canadians living in Alberta in Table 2), it is estimated that 0.45% of registered PCLs would be held by Indigenous persons. Overall, it is estimated that 4.6% of registered PCLs were attributed to Indigenous persons. These percentages were then used to estimate the number of section 35 rights holders that would not have to pay the service fee. It is acknowledged that this methodology could overestimate the number of Indigenous persons, as not all of them would hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or necessarily operate a pleasure craft for the purpose of exercising these rights.

Table 2: Number of registered PCLs by province and territory

Province / Territory	Number of registered PCLs (2020)	% of registered PCLs by domestic holders	% of PCLs held by Indigenous persons in respective province / territory
British Columbia	361 532	13.55%	0.70%
Alberta	205 462	7.70%	0.45%
Saskatchewan	109 752	4.11%	0.63%
Manitoba	122 064	4.58%	0.73%
Ontario	1 215 139	45.56%	1.16%
Quebec	460 487	17.27%	0.39%
New Brunswick	53 201	1.99%	0.08%
Nova Scotia	58 001	2.17%	0.11%
Newfoundland and Labrador	57 612	2.16%	0.19%
Prince Edward Island	11 414	0.43%	0.01%
Yukon	5 285	0.20%	0.04%
Northwest Territories	6 864	0.26%	0.11%
Nunavut	344	0.01%	0.01%
Canada	2 667 157	100%	4.6%
Non-Canadian residents	31 799
Total registered PCLs	2 698 956

Source: Canadian Third-party Service Provider Annual Report, 2020.

Costs

The total costs of the Regulations are estimated to be $36.98 million. Domestic licence holders are expected to assume costs of $30.40 million, of which $27.48 million is associated with the service fee and $2.93 million with PCL applications. The Government of Canada is expected to incur a total cost of $6.58 million, of which $6.40 million is associated with the Canadian third-party service provider and Service Canada and $0.11 million associated with responding to PCL inquiries and updating training materials.

Costs to PCL holders

In total, domestic PCL holders are expected to incur a cost of $30.40 million, of which $27.48 million is associated with the service fee, and $2.93 million with the PCL applications.

Service fee

The Regulations introduce a $24 service fee for issuing a new licence, or renewing, transferring, or requesting a duplicate of an existing licence, except for licences held by Indigenous persons who declare that they hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and who use their pleasure craft for the purpose of exercising these rights. The service fee is expected to affect an estimated total of 1.5 million PCL transactions (including those due to more frequent renewals discussed below) during the analytical time frame, with the annual transactions varying between approximately 128 400 and 176 800. As a result, the total cost associated with the service fee is estimated to be $27.48 million.

It is worth noting that the 1.5 million PCL transactions excluded an estimated 74 170 PCL transactions, as they are expected to be associated with Indigenous persons who hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and who operate pleasure craft for the purpose of exercising these rights, and therefore are not required to pay the service fee upon declaration. However, these applicants will still need to complete PCL applications and therefore incur application costs due to more frequent renewals (see below for more detail).

Costs of PCL applications

Since the Regulations impose a 5-year validity on PCLs, PCL holders will need to renew their licences more frequently (from no renewal or renewal every 10 years to renewal every 5 years). It is estimated that a total of approximately 42 330 additional PCL transactions per year are due to more frequent renewals. The detailed breakdown is as follows:

• approximately 22 080 additional transactions associated with lifetime licences;
• approximately 2 415 additional transactions associated with licences with a 10-year validity;
• approximately 3 250 additional transactions associated with newly introduced other types of pleasure crafts; and
• Approximately 14 585 additional transactions associated with PCLs that are new, transfers or duplicates.

It is estimated that a PCL holder will spend 15 minutes to complete a PCL application, which can be submitted either online or by mail. Based on information provided by the Canadian third-party provider, about 20% of PCL applicants are mailed in. Assuming that the average hourly wage rate for individuals who hold PCLs is $35.82 and the average hourly rate for businesses who hold PCLs is $44.77^{footnote 18} overhead rate of 25% is applied to business holders), and the postage cost is $1.47^{footnote 19} per mail-in PCL application. It is estimated that PCL holders will incur a total cost of $2.93 million, of which $2.83 million is the opportunity cost^{footnote 20} (i.e. time cost to complete PCL applications), and $0.09 million is the postage cost. Alternatively, $2.89 million will be attributed to individual PCL holders and $0.03 million to businesses.

Costs to Government of Canada

Service agreement with the third-party service provider

As previously discussed, the Canadian third-party service provider provides services to PCL holders on behalf of Transport Canada, who pay them service fees. The Canadian third-party service is expected to incur a unit cost of $16.02 (undiscounted) processing a PCL application submitted online (80% of total PCL applications), and $36.05 (undiscounted) processing a PCL application submitted by mail (20% of total PCL applications).

Therefore, Transport Canada is expected to pay a total service fee of $6.40 million associated with the Canadian third-party service provider.

Service agreement with Service Canada

While the service agreement between Transport Canada and Service Canada (currently set at $325,000 per year) will not be affected by the Regulations, Service Canada may receive more PCL inquiries associated with applications for new licences or licence renewal due to the Regulations. For the purpose of the analysis, it is estimated that Service Canada will incur a total opportunity cost of $0.07 million associated with responding to additional inquiries related to the Regulations due to resource reallocation. However, it is difficult to confidently estimate additional annual inquiries associated with the Regulations because there is no relevant data available. The estimated opportunity cost is based on the following data and assumptions: 1) the historical annual average inquiries related to PCL applications on new licences and licence renewals were approximately 10 130; and 2) the annual percentage increase in inquiries associated with the Regulations is assumed to be the same as the annual percentage increase in PCL transactions, which ranges between 1.2% and 4.8% depending on individual years. This estimate also implies that Service Canada will respond to approximately 1 450 to 5 800 additional inquiries per year, and the opportunity cost for Service Canada will account for approximately 1% to 5% of the annual service agreement with Transport Canada.

It is also important to note that the service agreement is expected to be sufficient to cover the service cost associated with additional inquiries. This is because of efforts in recent years during which Transport Canada raised public awareness on PCL, including information required to apply for or to renew a licence. As a result, Transport Canada observed a drop of approximately 4% in inquiries made to Service Canada in fiscal year 2024–2025 compared to annual average inquiries made between fiscal years 2017–2018 and 2023–2024 (approximately 121 000),^{footnote 21} and this trend is expected to continue in the future. Transport Canada also expects that the drop in inquiries will offset additional inquiries associated with the Regulations, and therefore, Service Canada will not require additional employees.

Inquiries and training

It is estimated that, every year, an employee at the AS-05 level will need to spend an additional 10% of working hours on responding to increased PCL inquiries. In addition, in the first period of the analytical time frame, an employee at the AS-04 level would need to spend 30 minutes on updating the training materials, and an employee at the PM-05 level will need 20 minutes to review and approve the updates. Using the hourly wage rates (including a 30% overhead rate) for these employees derived from TBS’s rates of pay for public service employees, it is estimated that the cost to Transport Canada associated with PCL inquiries and training materials will be $0.11 million in total. Note that there is no additional training cost for training participants: the updated training materials will replace existing content on PCL requirements and be delivered to participants within the same training hours.

Other Costs

Transport Canada will notify stakeholders when the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, via regular communication tools, such as updates on the Transport Canada website, and email notifications sent via the CMAC membership list. In addition, Transport Canada will promote the transition of lifetime licences into the 5-year licence validity regime through regular advertising. It is expected that the notification and communication cost is minimal. For example, updating Transport Canada’s website requires adding the web page link of the publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, and the content of the email for CMAC members is largely based on that developed for the prepublication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

The following costs to Transport Canada, which were incurred prior to the registration of the Regulations, are considered “sunk” and, therefore, not considered in the analysis:

• $0.06 million on six summer students in 2023: these students travelled across Canada to help promote the Regulations. The cost included five overnight stays, 15 travel days, meals, and incidentals.
• $0.02 million on one employee at the GT-04 level from January 2023 to March 2025: the employee spent 10% of their working hours doing stakeholder outreach in support of the Regulations.

Costs to MIC Holders

The Regulations will formalize the current practice for MIC holders to update the Minister of Transport if there is a change to information, such as the business name or address, within 30 days of the change as a requirement in the SVR. Based on Transport Canada’s MIC database, it is expected that all active MIC holders already voluntarily update information to Transport Canada, as per normal business practice and therefore the Regulations will not impose incremental costs on businesses. For illustration purposes only, it is estimated that each occurrence, per business, would amount to approximately $7.46.^{footnote 22}

Benefits

The Regulations will rebalance the cost of maintaining the PCL program from Canadian taxpayers (represented by Transport Canada) to PCL holders by introducing the $24 service fee. As a result, the estimated total cost recovered is expected to be $27.80 million, of which $27.48 million will be attributed to Canadian PCL holders (neutral impact on Canadian society), and $0.32 million from foreign PCL holders (a net benefit to Canadian taxpayers).

Break-even analysis

More accurate information on vessel owners within the PCELS is not expected to prevent the abandonment of vessels. However, Transport Canada expects that the Regulations will gather and maintain more accurate information about pleasure craft owners through more frequent licence renewals, and therefore promote compliance that will result in fewer occurrences, improving boating safety, and minimizing the environmental impacts of wrecked and abandoned vessels.

Due to a lack of data, such benefits could not be quantified or monetized. However, a break-even analysis was conducted, as an alternative approach, to determine how many wrecked and abandoned vessels within Canadian waters would need to be reduced to offset the total net cost, which is estimated to be $9.19 million.

The number of wrecked and abandoned vessels within Canadian waters was evaluated using a break-even analysis, which aims to determine the percentage reduction of wrecked vessels required to equal or surpass the net cost of the proposal. More accurate information on vessel owners stationed within the PCELS is not expected to prevent the abandonment of vessels. Transport Canada believes that the Regulations, specifically the anticipation of more accurate information stemming from increased PCL renewals, could deter non-compliance and result in fewer occurrences, improving boating safety and minimizing environmental impacts of wrecked and abandoned vessels.

The cost for remediating, removing, or disposing of a wrecked or abandoned vessel (i.e. problem vessel) depends on many factors specific to the vessel itself, such as the length, the material, the degree of deterioration and the location. The average cost ranges between $15,000 to $75,000 (mid-point cost of $45,000) depending on the type of pleasure craft, the action required (removal, disposal, dismantle, etc.), the complexity of the task and the state of the industry in the region. The Canadian Coast Guard national inventory has identified that 83% of total problem vessels (including pleasure craft and commercial vessels) have no known owners. Although the Regulations are not expected to provide benefits in situations where licence holders do not actively renew their licences (Transport Canada will not have accurate data to identify vessel owners and hold them responsible for removal costs), it is anticipated that with a higher degree of owner accountability, vessel owners will be incentivized to responsibly manage their vessels moving forward, which will further benefit the environment and mitigate damage to Canadian ecosystems where wrecked vessels would be found.

Given a lack of available research and literature on the correlation between stored vessel owner data and non-compliance, Transport Canada cannot predict or assume the magnitude of this impact before analyzing the change of compliance after the Regulations come into force.

Using the mid-point average cost of $45,000, it is estimated that an annual reduction of occurrence of 9% or an average yearly reduction of 27 fewer occurrences would break even the estimated total net cost of $9.19 million. Transport Canada believes that this expected reduction is achievable.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of periods: 10 (2025–2026 and 2034–2035)
• Base year for costing: 2026
• Present value base period: first period (December 2025 to November 2026)
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 3: Monetized costs (present value in millions) ^{table b3 note *}

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	First period: 2025–2026 table b3 note **	Annual average (2026–2027 to 2033–2034)	Final period: 2034–2035	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Domestic PCL holders	Service fees	$4.194	$3.653	$3.599	$27.475	$3.656
	Licence applications – time cost	$0.598	$0.375	$0.393	$2.835	$0.377
	Licence applications – postage cost	$0.020	$0.012	$0.013	$0.093	$0.012
Government of Canada (represented by Transport Canada and Service Canada)	Service agreements	$1.368	$0.857	$0.898	$6.475	$0.862
	FTE cost	$0.014	$0.014	$0.014	$0.106	$0.014
All stakeholders	Total costs	$6.194	$4.912	$4.917	$36.984	$4.921
Table b3 note(s) Table b3 note * Totals may not add up due to rounding. Return to table b3 note * referrer Table b3 note ** For the first period, all the costs and benefits will occur in 2026. Return to table b3 note ** referrer

Table 4: Monetized benefits (present value in millions) ^{table b4 note *}

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	First period: 2025–2026 table b4 note **	Annual average (2026–2027 to 2033–2034)	Final period: 2034–2035	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Canadians (represented by Transport Canada)	Service fees from domestic PCL holders	$4.194	$3.653	$3.599	$27.475	$3.656
	Service fees from foreign PCL holders	$0.044	$0.043	$0.043	$0.323	$0.043
All stakeholders	Total benefits	$4.237	$3.696	$3.642	$27.798	$3.699
Table b4 note(s) Table b4 note * Totals may not add up due to rounding. Return to table b4 note * referrer Table b4 note ** For the first period, all the costs and benefits will occur in 2026. Return to table b4 note ** referrer

Table 5: Summary of monetized costs and benefits (present value in millions) ^{table b5 note *}

Impacts	First period: 2025–2026 table b5 note **	Annual average (2026–2027 to 2033–2034)	Final period: 2034–2035	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$6.194	$4.912	$4.917	$36.984	$4.921
Total benefits	$4.237	$3.696	$3.642	$27.798	$3.699
Net cost	$1.957	$1.216	$1.275	$9.186	$1.222
Table b5 note(s) Table b5 note * Totals may not add up due to rounding. Return to table b5 note * referrer Table b5 note ** For the first period, all the costs and benefits will occur in 2026. Return to table b5 note ** referrer

Qualitative benefits

The pleasure craft licensing regime supports emergency response and enforcement activities, including WAHVA, by using data within the PCELS to identify licence holders and their associated vessels. The increased ability to accurately identify licence holders of pleasure craft found adrift or pleasure craft that are wrecked, abandoned or hazardous, using new information reported to Transport Canada, could assist in reducing emergency response time and lead to more effective and targeted rescues in the case that PCL holders update their information in compliance with the SVR (reduction in widespread search and rescue missions). It is often difficult for Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard to identify owners of pleasure crafts, as some data in the PCELS is outdated due to the lengthy or non-existent licence renewal frequencies. Licence holders may also feel more inclined to take advantage of this information gap when deciding to abandon their vessel, especially when remediation is an impossibility. It is anticipated that, with more accurate information housed by Transport Canada, licence holders would be deterred from abandoning their vessel and encouraged to remain responsible for it throughout its lifespan (ensuring they meet regulatory requirements) and until the end of its life (ensuring an owner properly disposes of their pleasure craft). There is an increased likelihood that with more updated information in the PCELS, PCL holders that comply with the Regulations (i.e. actively renew their licences and therefore their information stored in the PCELS) and abandon their vessel would be identified and held responsible for costs associated with removing and disposing of the vessel. In the absence of these Regulations, if the owners of problem pleasure crafts cannot be identified, these costs are be assumed by the Government of Canada through sponsored programs funding removal. A potential reduction and definite transfer of costs and associated responsibility for the abandoned vessels will result in cost savings to the Government of Canada.

Qualitative costs

The Regulations will require that licence holders cancel their PCLs by mail should their vessels no longer be seaworthy. Given this is a new requirement, it is unknown how many such cancellation requests will be submitted every year. However, since the process of submitting a licence cancellation request is similar to that of the licence application, it is assumed that a licence holder will need approximately 15 minutes to submit a cancellation request. Using the same assumption presented above that the average hourly wage rate is $35.82 for an individual licence holder and $44.77 for a business holder, and the postage cost of $1.47 per mail, it is estimated that the unit cost of cancelling a licence is $10.42 (undiscounted) for an individual licence holder and $12.66 (undiscounted) for business holders should their vessels no longer be seaworthy, and the third-party service provider will incur a unit cost of $36.05 (undiscounted) to process a cancellation request. Transport Canada historical data shows that an average of 2 700 licence cancellations occurred each year; however, the specific reasons for these cancellations are not tracked. As a result, the number of cancellations related to vessel unseaworthiness remains uncertain, though it would represent a subset of this annual figure.

Sensitivity analysis

As previously described, several assumptions have been made to estimate the costs of the Regulations. To address the effect of uncertainty and variability on these assumptions, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, where variables are assigned different values and outcomes are re-evaluated. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the following variables: analytical time frame and discount rates.

Analytical time frame

A 10-year analytical time frame was used for the central analysis, whereas the sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 15-year time frame have been used.

Discount rate

The central analysis used a 7% discount rate as recommended by TBS. The sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 3% discount rate have been used, as well as if there was no discounting.

Table 6: Sensitivity analysis results for the net cost (in millions)

Time frame/ Discount rate	10-year time frame	15-year time frame
Undiscounted	$12.160	$16.270
3%	$10.702	$13.595
7%	$9.186 table b6 note *	$11.030
Table b6 note(s) Table b6 note * Value presented in the main analysis Return to table b6 note * referrer

Distributional analysis

As mentioned previously, PCL holders in Canada will be impacted by the Regulations. It is estimated that the largest share of costs will be attributed to residents of Ontario, followed by residents of Quebec and British Columbia. Table 7 provides a breakdown of the costs to PCL holders in Canada.

Table 7: Costs to PCL holders, by province (in millions)

Province	Share of costs	Total cost
Ontario	45.56%	$13.851
Quebec	17.27%	$5.249
British Columbia	13.55%	$4.121
Alberta	7.70%	$2.342
Manitoba	4.58%	$1.391
Saskatchewan	4.11%	$1.251
Nova Scotia	2.17%	$0.661
Newfoundland and Labrador	2.16%	$0.657
New Brunswick	1.99%	$0.606
Prince Edward Island	0.43%	$0.130
Northwest Territories	0.26%	$0.078
Yukon	0.20%	$0.060
Nunavut	0.01%	$0.004
Total	100%	$30.403
Table b7 note(s) Table b7 note * Totals may not add up due to rounding. Return to table b7 note * referrer

In addition, costs to PCL holders will be distributed unevenly, which is presented in detail in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Costs to PCL holders, by type of transaction (in millions)

Type of transaction	Share of cost	Total cost
Elimination of lifetime licences	14%	$4.159
Elimination of 10-year licences	12%	$3.661
Inclusion of wind-powered pleasure craft above six metres in length	2%	$0.612
Others (transfers, duplicates and new PCLs)	72%	$21.971
Total	100%	$30.403
Table b8 note(s) Table b8 note * Totals may not add up due to rounding. Return to table b8 note * referrer

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Regulations will impact the following small businesses:

• 486 businesses holding PCLs for demonstration purposes; and
• 289 businesses holding PCLs for rental purposes.

It should be noted that six businesses hold PCLs for both purposes (demonstration and rental purposes).

Using the methodology previously presented, it is estimated that affected small businesses will incur a total cost of $194,009, of which $159,593 being service fees associated with 9 127 transactions and $34,416 being the cost of PCL applications associated with 4 563 transactions (including postage costs from 913 transactions). More specifically

• The 486 small businesses holding PCLs for demonstration purposes will incur a total cost of $29,655, of which $23,417 being the service fees associated with 1 344 transactions and $6,238 being the cost of PCL applications associated with 750 transactions (including postage costs from 150 transactions).
• The 289 small businesses holding PCLs for rental purposes will incur a total cost of $164,354, of which $136,176 being service fees associated with 7 783 transactions and $28,178 being the cost of PCL applications associated with 3 814 transactions (including postage costs from 763 transactions).
• Among these costs, the six small businesses holding PCLs for both purposes are expected to incur costs of $5,768.

It is worth noting that small businesses will not incur additional costs associated with the cancellation of the licences should a vessel no longer be seaworthy (see one-for-one rule section for additional details).

Given the relatively low impact anticipated on small businesses, no regulatory flexibilities were considered. It should be noted that a single demonstration licence can be used for all pleasure craft owned within a business’s inventory. It is worth noting that, although some pleasure craft dealers apply for PCLs on behalf of individuals, costs associated with these transactions would be transferred to, and borne solely by, the individual PCL holder.

Small business lens summary^{footnote 23}

• Number of small businesses impacted: 769
• Number of years: 10 (2025–2026 to 2034–2035)
• Price year: 2026
• Present value base year: 2026
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 9: Compliance costs

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Service fees — demonstration purpose	$3,116	$23,417
Service fees — other purposes	$18,120	$136,176
Total compliance cost	$21,236	$159,593

Table 10: Administrative costs

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Licence applications (time & postage costs) — demonstration purpose	$830	$6,238
Licence applications (time & postage costs) — other purposes	$3,749	$28,178
Total administrative cost	$4,580	$34,416

Table 11: Total compliance and administrative costs

Totals	Annualized value	Present value
Total cost (all impacted small businesses)	$25,815	$194,009
Cost per impacted small business table b11 note *	$33.57	$252.29
Table b11 note(s) Table b11 note * This represents the average cost per affected small business, the actual cost for each business might vary significantly. Return to table b11 note * referrer

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, since there will be an incremental increase in administrative burden on business. The proposal is considered a burden IN under the rule, and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

The Regulations will require more frequent licence renewals, which are expected to result in 832 additional transactions associated with licences for demonstration purposes and 3 814 additional transactions associated with licences for rental purposes. Therefore, businesses will incur additional opportunity costs, as well as postage costs should they be submitted by mail. Using the methodology developed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, and assumptions and data used previously, it is estimated that the annualized administrative burden cost is $1,407 (present value in 2012 dollars, discounted to the base year of 2012 at a discount rate of 7%).

The requirement for MIC holders to update their contact information within 30 days of a change is considered an administrative burden; however, given that all impacted stakeholders already comply with this requirement in the baseline scenario, the Regulations will not result in an incremental change in the administrative burden for MIC holders.

Although the Regulations will introduce a new administrative requirement for licence holders to cancel their PCLs if their vessel is no longer seaworthy, it is not expected that there will be an increase in administrative burden costs to businesses.

For businesses holding PCLs for demonstration purposes, these licences are not assigned to individual pleasure crafts but rather to businesses that sell pleasure crafts to consumers. Demonstration licences can be easily transferred between pleasure crafts to facilitate client demonstrations, functioning similarly to dealer plates used in car dealerships. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a business will not need to cancel a demonstration licence even if a pleasure craft is no longer seaworthy.

For businesses holding PCLs for rental purposes, it is expected that their business model aligns closely with that of car rental agencies; to remain competitive, pleasure craft rental agencies will purchase newer pleasure crafts to replace older ones before they reach the end of their useful life. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that these businesses will not cancel their PCLs due to vessel unseaworthiness.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The Regulations are not linked to international agreements or obligations, nor are they part of any existing formal regulatory cooperation initiative.

Although there were no formal requirements or commitments to align with other international jurisdictions, licensing and registration fees for certain states in the U.S. and states in Australia were considered when developing the Fee proposal for Pleasure Craft Licensing (fee proposal).^{footnote 24} A direct comparison of programs between jurisdictions is difficult, as other jurisdictions require licensing or registration for different types and lengths of vessels, have varied validity periods, and sometimes include vessel titling in the fee. However, even before considering validity periods, Transport Canada’s $24 PCL fee is comparable to, or lower than, similar vessel licensing fees in the many jurisdictions analyzed in the original fee proposal. In addition, the renewal period of five years is longer than those offered in most other international jurisdictions outlined in the fee proposal, meaning Canadians will pay renewal fees less frequently than pleasure craft owners located in those jurisdictions examined. Overall, the PCL service fee is less expensive than many other countries when the renewal frequency is considered.

Alignment with other Transport Canada regulations

The Regulations will align the pleasure craft licensing regime more closely with other Transport Canada marine programs. Reducing the renewal period of PCLs from 10 years to 5 years supports efforts by Transport Canada to align with the registration period for other small vessels captured in the Small Vessel Register, which is 5 years. This change will support ongoing efforts to align the renewal periods for small vessels operating in Canada, including pleasure craft.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, and the Transport Canada Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process was followed for this proposal and a Sustainable Transportation Assessment was completed. No important environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this proposal. The assessment took into account potential effects to the environmental goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS).

Gender-based analysis plus

The Regulations will impact current and future PCL holders, search and rescue agencies, DEOs, and MIC holders.

Research conducted by the National Marine Manufacturer’s Association in 2016 shows that participation in recreational boating is broadly gender balanced between men and women, with 52% of participants being male and 48% being female.

The PCL application form does not collect information regarding identity factors, including sex, gender, race, ethnicity, income level or religion, nor is such information contained in the PCELS. The MIC database similarly does not collect any information regarding identity factors, such as sex, gender, race, income level or religion.

The consultation undertaken suggests that the Regulations could have a disproportionate impact on Indigenous peoples who hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and who use a pleasure craft for the purpose of exercising these rights. As a result of this, the Regulations include a provision that allows section 35 rights holders to not pay the fee if they declare that they are a person that exercises section 35 rights and uses their pleasure craft to exercise said rights.

Similarly, the service fee, as well as the change in the licence validity period to five years, may impact low-income PCL applicants more than middle class or wealthy PCL applicants, as well as hunters and anglers, and persons who use a pleasure craft for sustenance. While comments received during the prepublication indicated concerns about the fee amount, Transport Canada concluded that the fee represents a very small percentage of the costs of operating and maintaining a pleasure craft. The fee will cost PCL holders an average of $4.80 per year. Therefore, it is not expected that the service fee will unduly burden current PCL holders or new pleasure craft owners who will be subject to the new licensing and fee requirements.

Other than the impacts and mitigation discussed above, the Regulations are not expected to result in differential impacts on the basis of identity factors such as gender, sex, sexuality, race, religion, or ethnicity.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The majority of the provisions in the Regulations come into force upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The expansion of the licensing requirements for wind-powered pleasure craft that are above six metres in length will come into force two years after publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Stakeholders will be informed of the Regulations through regular communication tools, such as updates on the Transport Canada website, and email notifications sent via the CMAC membership list.

Ten-year licence holders will receive a notice that their licence will expire with steps on how to retain and keep their licence valid. Transport Canada consulted with stakeholders on these changes through the Canada Gazette, Part I. As noted, an extended 60-day consultation period was held, and given the new changes, Transport Canada further supplemented its usual Canada Gazette, Part I, consultation efforts with targeted outreach as well (e.g. social media posts and emails to the recreational boating community) to provide all stakeholders with a meaningful opportunity to provide feedback on Transport Canada’s plans.

With respect to payment of the fee, all commonly used payment methods will be accepted for online PCL service fee transactions (e.g. a credit card, Interac), while money orders will also be accepted for PCL applications sent via traditional mail.

Compliance and enforcement

Enforcement of the SVR remains the same. Enforcement actions are carried out by any enforcement officer specified under section 194 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. Under the Contraventions Regulations, people found in non-compliance with the licensing requirements could be subject to warning, a $250 fine, or a prosecution by summary conviction. For provinces that do not have the Contraventions Regulations in place, enforcement partners can issue a warning or initiate a prosecution.

Service standards

Pleasure craft licensing

Transport Canada has a 5-day service standard to process a completed PCL application request. The yearly service standard report in 2019 indicated that the five-day service standard was met 99% of the time for both mail-in and online PCL applications.

Contact

Honey Walsh
Chief
Office of Boating Safety
Marine Safety and Security
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613‑790‑6230
Email: MSSRegulations-ReglementsSSM@tc.gc.ca