Listen up Canadians! Canada Proposes new tax for boaters!

[Max1]

Listen up Canadians! Canada Proposes new tax for boaters!

Transport Canada proposes to introduce a regulatory charge that would be paid by vessel owners. This charge would finance a vessel remediation fund that would help the government to deal with abandoned, wrecked or hazardous vessels.

You can read the charge proposal and submit feedback online until January 14, 2022.

It can be found here:

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-s...y-charge-fee-proposal-vessel-remediation-fund.

 

[O C Diver]

Hopefully this will be adopted. I could see a waiver for boaters with an insurance document covering wreck removal of the insured vessel for the registration period.

Ted

 

[Jeff F]

For recreational boats the proposal is to charge a licence fee of $10 every 5 years. Currently there is no charge for licencing or any kind of use tax on rec boats.

I can live with that.

 

[rsn48]

If fee is low, I'm all for it.

 

[SteveK]

$2 per year will not break the bank.

The problem that will remain is enforcement.
Did you know that licensed & registered boats owner database has no system in place to be updated. You purchase a boat and are handed the old owner docs which you are supposed to process to your name. Honest people do that and then get a tax bill for letting gov know you made a purchase.
Does anyone expect older worn out boats being sold to have ownership updated? You know the ones that will end up abandoned.

$10 every 5 years, you sell the boat the day after you pay $10 and get a bill 5 years later to pay again, now what?
I once bought a registered boat and had to jump through hoops when the seller was not the current registered owner.
How are they planning to collect $10 from every recreational boat? There is no manpower to enforce safe boating regulations.

 

[AKDoug]

They tried to do that here with old vehicle removal, the part that rubs me wrong is the responsible owners are forced to pay for the criminally irresponsible disposal by unscrupulous owners. In theory it's a fine and noble idea, in practice it penalizes already responsible people who would never dump their property on others to clean up.

On the other hand, I am all for a tax on plastic to clean it up out of our oceans!

 

[O C Diver]

I would like to see Florida adopt a wreck removal fee as part of registration cost. Florida registration fees are based on vessel size. Wreck removal fees could also be on a sliding scale. Would also like to see a required visitors registration which would include the wreck removal cost. Florida (just as most states) spends a lot of money to enhance boating infrastructure and wreck removal. It seems to me that a modest fee for a decal purchased online would be reasonable. Wrecks are a blight on the waterways. There should be a pool to deal with them immediately as opposed to scheduling them years out.

Ted

 

[SteveK]

Pursuant to section 328.72(15), Florida Statutes, the portion of vessel registration fees designated for the use of the counties, shall be used for providing recreational channel marking and other uniform waterway markers, public boat ramps, lifts, and hoists, marine railways, and other public launching facilities, derelict vessel removal, and removal of vessels and floating structures deemed a hazard to public safety and health.

So easy, add "abandoned boat disposal" and raise the fee $10?

Like the Canadian proposal, we already have a registration system, why create another bureaucracy with separate overhead costs.

 

[O C Diver]

So easy, add "abandoned boat disposal" and raise the fee $10?

Like the Canadian proposal, we already have a registration system, why create another bureaucracy with separate overhead costs.

Would still like to see the out of state boat user fee. Lots of out of state derelicts and wrecks.

Ted

 

[John R M]

Hopefully this will be adopted. I could see a waiver for boaters with an insurance document covering wreck removal of the insured vessel for the registration period.

Ted

Except when you introduce exceptions, things get unnecessarily cumbersome. KISS, especially for $2/yr.

 

[SteveK]

Would still like to see the out of state boat user fee. Lots of out of state derelicts and wrecks.

Ted

I see your point. But if out of state registered do not need to get a Florida tag because they have their own state, perhaps the states can agree to pay for that abandoned vessel out of state too.
Longshot, but again without enforcement.
I know WA has a permit fee for permanent Canadian vessel moorage in the state, i.e. Point Roberts. Was never sure what I was paying for.

 

[catalinajack]

Would still like to see the out of state boat user fee. Lots of out of state derelicts and wrecks.



Ted

Not a good idea. What happens when every coastal state decides to impose fees on out of state boaters? Utter chaos. The Sojourner's fee Florida imposes on boaters in Florida for more than 90 days is largely ignored.

 

[O C Diver]

Not a good idea. What happens when every coastal state decides to impose fees on out of state boaters? Utter chaos. The Sojourner's fee Florida imposes on boaters in Florida for more than 90 days is largely ignored.

I'm perfectly happy to pay the fees for each state or give boaters a 14 exemption to pass through a state.

Want to cruise the Erie or Champlain canals, most years there's a required permit / pass. Looking to do the Rideau, and Trent Severn next summer. Lock and mooring fees are near $1,000.

The state would need to determine what's reasonable versus what discourages tourism. Just think it's unfair that someone from another state wrecks a boat and the state (tax payer) should pay for it. If a boater chooses to do so without insurance, why shouldn't they have to buy into a cleanup program?

Ted

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
As a Canadian, I don't mind an additional fee in principle. For the reasons mentioned (lack of enforcement, govt. red tape etc) it's just another "feel good" measure that makes the government appear to be doing something IMHO. Similar to making Puget Sound (I think that was it???) a no dumping zone.


Example: Back in the 50's and earlier there was no fishing licence required in the province of Ontario. Then some bean counter got the idea of licencing. Problem was, NO funds from those licencing fees were allocated to the Ministry of Lands and Forests who were stewards of the lakes and rivers, at that time. The $$ for the licence fee went into the general revenue pot. After intense lobbying by various sporting clubs, the fees eventually went to look after the resource.


I suspect the same scenario here.


Also mentioned is the law abiding citizen is paying for the sins of the irresponsible who won't ever care about fouling the waterways.


About the ONLY thing these slobs (dumpers) understand would be fines and incarceration. Make it incumbent on the last registered owner to notify the authorities of a change of ownership and identify who the vessel is sold/given to. Then IF the vessel is dumped, it's the last owner who pays if the dumper can't be found.

 

[firehoser75]

RTF,
When I sold my sailboat a few years ago, I notified the Licensing office (numbers not Name on stern, I always get the terminology confused) about the sale and new owner, they told me that my submission didn't matter, the onus was on the new owner!
To me, that seems strange, because if he did not do it, the record would still show me as owner!
Hopefully, if these proposed new "fees" are implemented, that the money actually will be used for the purpose described. Remember the GST! We were told it was going to be used to "pay down the debt". Once passed, first thing the Government did was have a taxpayer paid "retreat" to determine how the money would be spent!!!
That's Government for you.

 

[SteveK]

The license paper we get when we actually let them know we are the new owner clearly says upon sale give this copy to the buyer. This copy is the only copy so unless you make a photo copy, you do not even have any details left.
On private sales no sales tax is payable until you tell you bought the boat.
That right there makes one rush out and change ownership.

 

[backinblue]

Want to cruise the Erie or Champlain canals, most years there's a required permit / pass. Looking to do the Rideau, and Trent Severn next summer. Lock and mooring fees are near $1,000.

Ted

The State of NY suspended canal fees years ago. Erie and Champlain canals are currently free to recreational boaters.

 

[OldDan1943]

If fee is low, I'm all for it.

Once the camel's nose is under the edge of the tent, it is difficult to keep the camel out of the tent.

$10 will increase

 

[Bacchus]

Want to cruise the Erie or Champlain canals, most years there's a required permit / pass. Looking to do the Rideau, and Trent Severn next summer. Lock and mooring fees are near $1,000.



Ted

Ted
Look into buying early... March cut off but Canadian canal lock & mooring passes are ~20% off. And the bonus is... good for TSW, Rideau and Richeliu not separate. I consider it a bargain if you calculate your actual $/ day or lock and include the exchange rate.
Don

 

[O C Diver]

The State of NY suspended canal fees years ago. Erie and Champlain canals are currently free to recreational boaters.

It's been on and off (depending on the year). They didn't permanently remove them.

Ted

 

[O C Diver]

Ted
Look into buying early... March cut off but Canadian canal lock & mooring passes are ~20% off. And the bonus is... good for TSW, Rideau and Richeliu not separate. I consider it a bargain if you calculate your actual $/ day or lock and include the exchange rate.
Don

Thanks, yes I was aware of the reduced price for buying early and getting the season pass for both.

Ted

 

[backinblue]

It's been on and off (depending on the year). They didn't permanently remove them.

Ted

Agreed, but to my knowledge they have been suspended since 2017 and seems like that trend will continue.

 

[John R M]

Then IF the vessel is dumped, it's the last owner who pays if the dumper can't be found.

How can this possibly be fair?

 

[catalinajack]

Greetings,
As a Canadian, I don't mind an additional fee in principle. For the reasons mentioned (lack of enforcement, govt. red tape etc) it's just another "feel good" measure that makes the government appear to be doing something IMHO. Similar to making Puget Sound (I think that was it???) a no dumping zone.


Example: Back in the 50's and earlier there was no fishing licence required in the province of Ontario. Then some bean counter got the idea of licencing. Problem was, NO funds from those licencing fees were allocated to the Ministry of Lands and Forests who were stewards of the lakes and rivers, at that time. The $$ for the licence fee went into the general revenue pot. After intense lobbying by various sporting clubs, the fees eventually went to look after the resource.


I suspect the same scenario here.


Also mentioned is the law abiding citizen is paying for the sins of the irresponsible who won't ever care about fouling the waterways.


About the ONLY thing these slobs (dumpers) understand would be fines and incarceration. Make it incumbent on the last registered owner to notify the authorities of a change of ownership and identify who the vessel is sold/given to. Then IF the vessel is dumped, it's the last owner who pays if the dumper can't be found.

I understand your consternation about those fees going into the general fund but the fact is it just doesn't matter. Money is fungible. What matters is the amount of money budgeted for specific purposes/agencies. If X agency is funded at Y money, if there is a dedicated funding source, the legislature will simply fund constituencies. From the general fund. The total amount spent will remain the same. The only difference will be that a specific group will have a disproportionate burden. The reason to oppose the tax is to spread the burden across the general population. Sure, it's mostly boaters who benefit from the removal of unsightly hulks but there are plenty of expenditures in any country that have narrow consituencies.

 

[OldDan1943]

It will never go away but, it will increase.

 

[ancora]

I guess "Free" anchorages ain't free after all. Somebody has to pick up the tab for removal, and in this case it's the responsible boaters.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. JRM. Re: Post #23. "How can this possibly be fair?" It is as fair as making responsible boaters being made liable for the "dumpers".


Scenario: I sell my vessel. There is NO mechanism or incentive for me to inform anyone of the sale. The new owner does NOT transfer the ownership for whatever reason (perhaps he/she is going to refurbish to his/her liking). The vessel sits on the hard for a period of time and the new owner loses interest. Storage becomes a burden and he/she gives the vessel to a third party. Third party launches but can't afford ANY boat and leaves it rot. Boat sinks and the government is on the hook for salvage and removal and decides to "tax" all boat owners for expenses. So, who is ultimately responsible?


IF it were known that I would be charged for subsequent salvage, you can be damn sure I would make sure the vessel was changed over to the new owner's name. Until such time a title transfer is made, it's legally still MY vessel, isn't it?

 

[John R M]

Greetings,
Mr. JRM. Re: Post #23. "How can this possibly be fair?" It is as fair as making responsible boaters being made liable for the "dumpers".


Scenario: I sell my vessel. There is NO mechanism or incentive for me to inform anyone of the sale. The new owner does NOT transfer the ownership for whatever reason (perhaps he/she is going to refurbish to his/her liking). The vessel sits on the hard for a period of time and the new owner loses interest. Storage becomes a burden and he/she gives the vessel to a third party. Third party launches but can't afford ANY boat and leaves it rot. Boat sinks and the government is on the hook for salvage and removal and decides to "tax" all boat owners for expenses. So, who is ultimately responsible?


IF it were known that I would be charged for subsequent salvage, you can be damn sure I would make sure the vessel was changed over to the new owner's name. Until such time a title transfer is made, it's legally still MY vessel, isn't it?

Perhaps the misunderstanding is the meaning of "last" owner. If you meant the last in a string of ownership, you are correct. I took it as previous to current owner, which wouldn't be fair.

 

[OldDan1943]

IF there is a hull number, a bit of research and the owner can be identified and sent a bill. If the owner of record is not the current owner, I suspect he will gladly assist in determining the current owner to avoid assessment

 

[SteveK]

When I was with SAR we were tasked to assist a sailboat grounded. With falling tide nothing we could do until morning. We took the sole person off the boat to shore . Next day we towed the vessel back to the docks where it sat for a week with no one interested.

Police were called, we gave description and details of supposed owner. The boat was licensed and the current owner tracked down.
Get ready, this becomes interesting.
The current owner said his boat was stolen and found burning just outside his marina, his insurance has already bought him a new boat.
Turns out we rescued the thief who took advantage of the weak system. He renamed the the boat but not the license number. No one keeps record of names unless registered. So thief had become the owner of this stolen boat and if not for running aground we would never have known that it was stolen.
Oh, the boat that burned outside the marina was identical brand stolen from another marina to hide the current theft. They were still looking for that boat.