Morgane Oger

Some boaters who anchor in False Creek have been complaining about unjustified actions by the City and excessively muscular enforcement that has put people at risk.

I did a deep dive on the question and what I learned is that the City of Vancouver has not enacted the bylaw needed to enforce its preferences on boaters at anchored in the inlet of False Creek. Right now Vancouver Police only have an enforcement mandate to remove vessels from Vancouver if they are attached to a wharf.Z

If my interpretation is correct, the City may be jeopardizing the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding that delegates jurisdiction over the Inlet from Transport Canada because the City has allowed Vancouver Police to regularly break the terms of the agreement.

False Creek is a short inlet in the heart of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, which separates downtown from the rest of the city. The inlet has offered a safe harbour since the first days of Vancouver’s birth through colonization. Before that, the Squamish village of Sen̓áḵw had been established on the southwest shore of False Creek and lasted for many decades until the land was stolen bit by bit during the 19th and 20th century by colonizing government bodies

False Creek is now known for its scenic seawall, which provides residents and visitors with stunning views of the city skyline. The area is a vibrant residential and recreational hub featuring numerous parks, marinas, and public spaces. Granville Island is a popular shopping and cultural district known for its public market, artisan shops, theatres, and galleries. 

False Creek is also Vancouver’s only year-round, all-weather safe anchorage that still allows anchoring.

The inlet played a significant role during the 2010 Winter Olympics, with the Olympic Village housing athletes and officials. As part of the preparation for this global event, the Government of Canada added Vessel Operation Restrictions for False Creek to the Vessel Operation Restrictions Regulations (V O R R) that govern particular operational areas in Canada.

In the V O R R, Transport Canada describes Enforcement Officers authorized to enforce the VORs, but because in the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver this is delegated to the City of Vancouver, the City must frame enforcement within its own legal and jurisdictional constraints.

The interface between municipal authority and federal jurisdiction in managing navigable waters within urban settings presents a complex legal landscape, as demonstrated by the M o U, which scopes responsibilities, allows actions that are not required, and mandates actions to be undertaken by the City of Vancouver, Transport Canada, and the Vancouver Park Board, which (currently) answers to an independently elected Board of Directors.

In the M o U, The City of Vancouver is tasked with enforcing the V O R R. The Vancouver Park Board is tasked with operational record keeping and permit issuance, and Transport Canada sets out compliance requirements on signage with which the City and Park Board must comply.

The City of Vancouver is required under the Vancouver Charter to explicitly prohibit actions it wishes to control through bylaws enacted at a vote by the Municipal Council. Only once such a bylaw is enacted can it call on an Enforcement Officer to act.

Unfortunately, several complaints of overreach have surfaced, where the City of Vancouver has gone beyond the scope of delegation within the V O R R to enforce measures it may not have the authority to impose. These include a failure to provide signage in French, a failure to maintain the services to boaters set out in the M o U, including a specified Boaters Welcome Center as well as a working online permit request process, ordering the removal of Vessels on a basis not supported by the M o U, and towing of vessels out of the jurisdiction of the City of Vancouver, and excessive fees charged for towing. Some of the complaints have resulted in the loss of Vessels which were wrecked or sunk as a result of Vessel owners being compelled by Vancouver Police to relocate to a more exposed anchorage during periods of poor weather. A number of Mariners have allegedly they were instructed by Enforcement Officers that if their Vessel returned to False Creek without a valid permit their vessel would be impounded. 

Such an allegation, if true, is an explicit violation of the M o U which stipulates that “The City recognizes that it has no authority to deny a Permit to a vessel entering False Creek as a Port of Refuge.”

Legal Framework

Navigable waters in Canada fall under federal jurisdiction, and municipal jurisdiction of the shoreline is limited to land above the lowest low tide line. Navigable waters are primarily managed by Transport Canada under the authority of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. 

These statutes govern activities on navigable waters across Canada, emphasizing safety, environmental protection, and navigation. The V O R R, enacted under the Canada Shipping Act, enables the imposition of restrictions on vessel operations in specified areas for safety and environmental reasons (V O R R SOR/2008-120).

Municipalities, like the City of Vancouver, exercise their jurisdiction through bylaws enacted by municipal councils under processes set out by provincial legislation. For Vancouver, the very old and cumbersome Vancouver Charter legislates how Vancouver Council enacts new regulations. These municipal bylaws can regulate local activities, including waterway use within municipal boundaries, provided they do not conflict with federal legislation (Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1950, c. 55).

The bylaw addressing the powers given to the City of Vancouver under the V O R R and M o U implementing it is incomplete and entirely ignores boats at anchor in False Creek.

City Wharf Bylaw

The City Wharf Bylaw (13323) is the only Vancouver bylaw that mentions False Creek. It does not address boats at anchor but does address towing Vessels and impounding of Vessels by the City of Vancouver:

“The City Engineer may impound or cause to be impounded any vessel or other chattel that is unlawfully moored, placed, left, or kept at or on a City wharf, or any vessel unlawfully moored,placed, left, or kept on any other City-owned land or structure, and may enforce the provisions of this by-law with regard to the impounding of vessels and other chattels.“ – Section 4.1

Interestingly, the City of Vancouver’s own description of the City Wharf Bylaw is inconsistent with the bylaw itself. The City appears to overstate the scope of the bylaw on its website. The City refers to a draft bylaw, but the City Wharf Bylaw was enacted in the summer of 2022. The bylaw is silent on boats at anchor, focusing instead on boats fastened to a structure or land the city owns. Regardless, the City’s explanation sets out distance and location exclusions for boats at anchor – not backed by any text in the bylaw. 

The City explanation also prohibits anchoring in any way that encroaches on the marked navigational channel and routinely orders vessels to reposition if the situation occurs. This clashes with the wording in the M o U which only permits the City to take action on the basis of “significant interference with navigation”, as allowed under the authority of the Navigable Waters Act. There is no legal basis to order a Vessel out of the navigable channel in False Creek. The basis must be causing a hazard to navigation as understood in Maritime law.

The recent practice by Vancouver Police of towing Vessels to Shelter Island Marina in South East Richmond and to charge thousands of dollars for the transport also appears to violate the terms set out in the City Wharf Bylaw which includes an explicit fee schedule. The City Wharf Bylaw does not contain any language that calls for the towing of Vessels that are not attached to a wharf or to City-owned land.

Memorandum of Understanding (M o U) Between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver

The M o U between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver establishes a framework for the City to administer and enforce the V O R R in False Creek. This delegation of jurisdiction aims to manage the waterway’s congestion and ensure equitable access and safety for all users (M o U between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver, 2009).

The M o U assigns enforcement of the V O R R following roles to the City of Vancouver that are normally owned by Transport Canada. In exchange, the M o U stipulates that all signage about VORs in False Creek be in both official language. As a result, the City of Vancouver can instruct enforcement officers to take action in its name as authorized by applicable legislation.

The City of Vancouver is out of compliance with the requirements set out in M o U and the bylaw it created to enforce the M o U is being ignored by the Vancouver Police Department despite being strictly limited to enforcing an existing bylaw.

In other words, the City of Vancouver is making a mess of enforcing the V O R Rs of things and has been getting away with it since 2009 because it mostly targets Vessels whose owners do not have the means or understanding of the law to adequately defend themselves.

Clear Regulatory Basis of Enforcement by Vancouver Police Department

The City of Vancouver is the Provincial entity empowered by the Canada Shipping Act and V O R R to enforce the V O R R in False Creek through the M o U, an agreement between the City of Vancouver and Transport Canada.  The Vancouver Police Department acts only on the instructions of the City and has no jurisdiction to take action on the V O R R without a bylaw assigning them with duties as Enforcement Officers.

Canada’s law constrains provincial police forces, such as the Vancouver Police Department, to stop them from acting outside the prescribed jurisdiction on their initiative. All Municipalities are required to pass a bylaw in the City council to enable law enforcement to take action in their name, and in Vancouver, this may require an update of the Vancouver Charter by the Provincial government as well as a bylaw being enacted by the City Council. Extending the mandate of the Vancouver Police Department to enforce the V O R R would at least require a bylaw. 

I can find no Vancouver bylaw operationalizing the M o U into infractions or assigning enforcement to the Vancouver Police Department. The Vancouver Charter constrains the City of Vancouver to require a bylaw voted on by Vancouver Council to add new enforcement measures in Vancouver. This was required for the City to  V O R R by voting in a new bylaw. Without this, the Vancouver Council may not actually have the right to task the Vancouver Police Department with enforcement of any of the VORs, which may not have been given the jurisdiction they need to enforce the 2009 M o U. The Vancouver Charter is silent on the Canada Shipping Act, the V O R R, or False Creek, so the enforcement of the M o U must be Taken in light of the regular application of means of enforcement available to the City, which does not include enforcement on False Creek waters.

The M o U does call out that the City may direct an Enforcement Officer to take any reasonable action to ensure public safety or protect the public interest. Nevertheless, the City Council has not enacted this in any City bylaw through a successful motion at Council, and a Bylaw must support all enforcement in a City. 

Until a bylaw is enacted that allows a specific action, the Vancouver Police Department seems to lack proper jurisdiction to enforce that aspect of the V O R R or the M o U giving the power to the City to enforce. 

Provincial police forces have no authority to act outside the Criminal Code of Canada without being tasked with the work by a municipal bylaw, a request by an organization with jurisdiction such as Transport Canada, or a court order.  Because an M o U is in place between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver, Vancouver City Council could create a bylaw to do this – but in its wisdom, it has not chosen to do so.

Under the terms of the M o U, Vancouver Police act in the name of the City of Vancouver and not in the name of the Government of Canada. Policies of the City of Vancouver as they apply, and VPD need to stop misrepresenting the regulatory context supporting their actions. Outside of matters covered under the Criminal Code of Canada, the combined effect of the V O R R and the M o U gives the City of Vancouver jurisdiction over False Creek’s federally regulated waters. A municipality can not task an Enforcement Officer without a Bylaw, and the Bylaw enacted by the City of Vancouver is insufficient to enforce anchoring in False Creek.

Without the all three components in place: the V O R R, the M o U, and the bylaw enacting it, a provincial police force such as VPD or the RCMP has no jurisdiction in any federally-regulated body of water outside of intervening in criminal matters, enforcing safety regulations at the request of Transport Canada, or providing assistance to Boaters. 

The City of Vancouver itself is tightly bound by jurisdiction and by the VORR, as was demonstrated in 2017 when it tried and failed to extend its jurisdictional scope in False Creek, proposing measures that the V O R R does not already specifically allow. At the time, the city attempted to set aside portions of False Creek for human-powered vessels such as paddled watercraft. This was rejected on legal grounds, and because the purpose of the V O R R focuses strictly on the greater good for navigation in federal waters, there was little chance of extending the V O R R to deny navigation to any Vessels in False Creek to suit a Municipality’s preferences.  

Reasonable Towing as an Enforcement Measure

The M o U provides a basis for enforcement actions, including issuing violation notices to vessels anchored without a permit. However, towing a vessel involves additional considerations, particularly when the vessel does not pose an immediate hazard. 

However, the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Police Department need clear jurisdiction to remove a Vessel from a place where it has jurisdiction to one where it does not, far from the original place. It is unlikely that the current practice of subjecting a Vessel owner to the maritime equivalent of the notorious starlight tours that Canada’s Police have a dark history of using against vulnerable persons in Canada would withstand a court’s scrutiny—especially within the constraints of the M o U, which limits jurisdiction through context and geography.

In a starlight tour, police forcefully relocate a person they deem undesirable far away from where they were to “teach them a lesson” in a way that puts the victim in harm’s way. Similarly, forcing a victim of the City of Vancouver towing a vulnerable person’s vessel to South East Richmond on the Fraser River, on which Vancouver Port Authority strictly prohibits moorage, forces the Vessel owner to traverse through one of the more dangerous sections of the Georgia Strait, which Transport Canada does not consider protected waters. 

Procedural clarity

For enforcement to be fair, it needs to be clearly laid out. There is room for improvement in Vancouver Police Department’s enforcement of the V O R R.

The following steps outline the lawful process for Vancouver Police Department to enforce the V O R R  needs a clear regulatory basis.

1. Authority

The Enforcement Officer must have clear authority to act under a Municipal Bylaw, a M o U between Transport Canada and the local government, and a VORR specifying the scope of delegation.

2. Violation Notice:

The first step in enforcement is an Enfocement Officer issuing a violation notice to the vessel’s owner/operator, as specified in the M o U that complies with the bylaw. This notice should detail the nature of the violation and corrective actions required (M o U between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver, Section 3.7).

2. Adequate Time for Compliance:

Owners/operators must be given reasonable time and pathways to challenge an order to address the violation before any enforcement – for example towing –  is considered. This ensures procedural fairness and respects the rights of vessel owners. Vessel owners enjoyed seemingly unlimited stay durations in False Creek between 2020 and 2023 despite VPD issuing numerous notices of violations that were not followed up on. The current notices are insufficient and do not take into account the effort and planning required to relocate from False Creek to another anchorage. Vessels at anchor are not the same as parked motor vehicles; a Vessel owner should be given a clear view of what the next step needs to be and what alternatives are available when the City orders the vessel to leave the only safe harbour left in the City where small vessels are allowed to anchor. The Port of Vancouver prohibits anchoring in the Fraser River and in Coal Harbour.

3. Authorization for Towing: 

Specific authorization for towing, especially in non-hazardous situations, must be clearly established within the regulatory framework or through explicit delegation. The M o U and local bylaws should delineate the conditions under which towing is permissible (M o U between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver, 2009).

4. Procedural Fairness:

Adhering to principles of procedural fairness, including timely notification and the opportunity to contest violations, is essential before towing to ensure that the rights of vessel owners are respected. Any towing decision needs to take into account the safety of the owner of the Vessel, as well as the existing regulatory framework. It is unfair to move a vessel an unreasonable distance from where it was impounded – or to an arbitrary location outside the jurisdiction of the municipality on whose orders the towing was executed. Towin, like any enforcement action, needs to be called for in a bylaw. Although the M o U authorises the City of Vancouver to tow a vessel it does not allow the city to do whatever it wants. Every municipality is constrained by the Provincial Law that authorises and constrains its actions.

5. Towing Operation:

If towing proceeds, it must be done safely, minimizing potential damage to the vessel, and it must be done by authorized personnel or entities.

It is unclear whether the City of Vancouver has the jurisdictional authority to remove any Vessel from its Jurisdictional boundaries. If it does not, the current practice of Vancouver Police removing Vessels from False Creek exposes the City of Vancouver to significant liability.

In the event that the towing of a Vessel on orders of a law enforcement force acting on behalf of a municipality results in damage to the towed Vessel or personal property inside it, Vessel owners may have the right to seek compensation. It is reasonable to expect significant motions during a multi-hour tow from False Creek to Shelter Island. It is, therefore, imprudent for Mariners such as the VPD Marine Unit crew members to cause a Vessel to endure a town from False Creek to Shelter Island without adequately preparing the towed vessel and its contents for transit through unprotected waters of the Georgia Strait. Considering current best practices, a failure to sufficiently prepare the vessel for towing from False Creek to Shelter Island is likely to be regarded as a negligent act by law enforcement and the towing company they contracted for the work.

It would, therefore, be reasonable that a victim of such an action would pursue the Vancouver Police Department or the municipality (or the government) responsible for damage caused during towing.

Furthermore, British Columbia has oversight bodies, such as the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) for municipal police forces. Individuals can file complaints about police conduct, including property damage, with OPCC. The OPCC investigates complaints against police officers for misconduct.

6. Post-Towing Notification: 

Following a tow, the owner/operator should be promptly informed of the vessel’s location, reasons for towing, and any applicable fees or penalties. This communication should also include information on contesting the tow and retrieving the vessel. Unless a Vessel is abandoned, the onus is on the Police to ensure that contact has been made with a Vessel owner, and leaving a voicemail or sending an email without confirmation of receipt is not sufficient.

8. Record Keeping:

Comprehensive documentation of the violation, enforcement actions, and towing operation is crucial for transparency, accountability, and addressing any disputes that may arise.

7. Reasonable consequences:

Any action by Law Enforcement must be proportionate to the offence that triggered it.  It is most likely a Court would agree it is not reasonable that a Vessel overstaying a mooring permit in False Creek should be allowed to result in a major accident such as a wrecking of a Vessel or the loss of someone’s home. Moving a vessel an unreasonable distance or out-of-jurisdiction of the municipality whose rules permitted the towing of a Vessel is likely to be unsupported by a Court. Unfortunately, this has not yet been tested.

Consistency of enforcement

Selective enforcement of laws, including those pertaining to False Creek Anchoring Permits, can indeed impact the perceived legitimacy and fairness of enforcement actions. Legitimacy in law enforcement is fundamentally tied to the principles of fairness, equality before the law, and the consistent application of regulations to all individuals and entities without bias. When enforcement actions appear to be selectively applied, several issues can arise:

1. Perceived Fairness:

The consistent and unbiased application of laws is a cornerstone of legal fairness. Selective enforcement can lead to perceptions of unfairness among the public, especially among those who feel they are targeted or discriminated against, and those who see others seemingly exempt from enforcement.

2. Equality Before the Law:

A fundamental principle of democratic legal systems is that all individuals and entities are subject to the law in the same way. Selective enforcement undermines this principle by creating de facto categories of enforcement priority that are not legislated or regulated. The City of Vancouver has won a number of delegated powers in False Creek for the purpose of equitable use of False Creek and for the purpose of public safety, yet it only seems to act on a small subset of these, and only when it suits the City. The City seems to leave wrecked boats on the shoreline for weeks before they are taken away. It has polluted False Creek with sewage for decades despite being charge with enforcing environmental protection in the inlet. The largest hydrocarbon spill that occured in False Creek in 2023 was dumped into the inlet through the municipal sewage system, yet nothing came of it. The City is enjoying delegated powers from the Federal Government yet is not taking the actions necessary to effectively protect False Creek navigation or to prevent pollution in False Creek. 

If a municipality wishes to be entrusted to uphold Federal laws in the name of Transport Canada, it needs to do it equally and fairly – and to be seen to be doing it.

3. Public Trust and Cooperation:

Effective law enforcement relies on public trust and cooperation. If the public perceives that anchoring permits are only enforced against specific vessels, trust in both the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) and the regulatory framework governing False Creek gets eroded. This erosion of trust can lead to decreased public cooperation with law enforcement and regulatory authorities.

4. Legal Challenges:

Selective enforcement can lead to legal challenges against the VPD or the City of Vancouver. Defendants in enforcement actions might argue that the selective enforcement of anchoring permits constitutes an abuse of discretion or violates principles of administrative law, potentially leading to legal and financial repercussions for the city.

5. Policy Effectiveness:

The ultimate goal of the False Creek Anchoring Permit system is to manage the use of the waterway for safety, environmental protection, and equitable access. Selective enforcement can undermine these goals by allowing some violations to go unchecked while penalizing others, potentially leading to overcrowded or unsafe conditions that the permit system aims to prevent.

To maintain the legitimacy, it’s crucial for the VPD and other enforcing bodies to apply regulations uniformly and transparently regardless of who the person is they are dealing with – within the wider mandate for bylaw enforcement prescribed by the City of Vancouver.

This includes clear communication about the rules and criteria used in enforcement decisions and ensuring that any discretion in enforcement is applied consistently and fairly across all cases.

Addressing selective enforcement requires a commitment to reviewing and, if necessary, adjusting enforcement policies and practices to ensure they align with principles of fairness and equality. Additionally, providing training and guidance to officers on the importance of consistent enforcement and documenting enforcement actions can help address potential biases and ensure accountability.

Equitable Access to Critical Infrastructure

As the only safe harbour available to boaters in Vancouver, False Creek is critical infrastructure for the boating community. This is one reason it is so carefully protected from municipal excesses by Transport Caada. The City of Vancouver’s challenge in managing False Creek includes balancing the enforcement of an anchor permit system with ensuring that live-aboard boaters have access to a safe harbour. This situation requires thoughtful policies that recognize the unique needs of the live-aboard community while maintaining the safety, environmental integrity, and equitable use of the waterway. Here are several strategies the City could consider:

1. Expand Permit Availability:

Increase the number of anchoring permits available for live-aboard boaters, especially during adverse weather conditions or in seasons when a safe harbour is most needed.

Consider creating a separate category of permits for live-aboard boaters that accounts for their specific needs and contributions to the maritime community.

2. Designate Specific Areas for Live-Aboards:

Allocate certain areas within False Creek specifically for live-aboard anchoring. These areas could be chosen based on minimal disruption to navigation and local activities while providing safe and sustainable living conditions.

3. Implement a Tiered Permit System:

Develop a tiered permit system that prioritizes boaters with fewer alternatives for safe harbour, including those who live aboard. Factors such as the boater’s dependency on the vessel for housing and the vessel’s seaworthiness could influence permit allocation.

4. Enhance Support Services:

Offer support services to live-aboard boaters, such as dedicated spaces at municipal marinas set aside for year-round liveaboards, waste disposal, water, and emergency services. This approach recognizes the live-aboard community’s unique needs while promoting environmental stewardship and safety.

5. Engage in Community Consultation:

Conduct consultations with the boating community, including live-aboard residents, to understand their needs and concerns better. This dialogue can inform policy adjustments and foster a collaborative approach to harbor management. The V O R R was implemented with no community consultation with the those whose conduct it most directly likely impacts: boaters. 

This is a failure in democracy that can luckily be addressed by reviewing the 2009 M o U to better take into account the needs of boaters who have historically used the inlet.

The M o U needs to be updated to take into account the needs and wishes of all stakeholder groups who use False Creek, and False Creek’s user community expressing concerns about negative impact from excessive enforcement does have recourse to address improper application of the V O R R:.the M o U has a 30-day unilateral notice period for cancellation.

6. Develop a Temporary Moorage Program:

In partnership with local marinas and boating clubs, establish a program for temporary moorage that provides additional options for live-aboard boaters during extreme weather conditions or when anchoring spots are scarce.

7. Educate on Safe Anchoring Practices:

Launch educational initiatives aimed at promoting safe anchoring practices and environmental awareness among live-aboard boaters. Education can empower the community to contribute positively to the management and stewardship of False Creek.

8. Facilitate Access to Alternative Housing:

For boaters who might be anchoring in False Creek out of necessity rather than choice, work with local housing agencies to provide information and access to affordable housing options.

9. Implement a Grace Period for New Regulations:

When introducing new regulations or changes to the permit system, consider implementing a grace period during which boaters can adjust without the immediate threat of enforcement actions. This approach can ease the transition and reduce potential hardships.

10. Establish a Boater Assistance Fund:

Consider creating a fund to assist boaters, particularly those who live abroad and face financial hardships, with the costs associated with compliance, such as relocating to a marina or paying for permits.

11. Set aside much-needed and affordable live-aboard spaces in False Creek marinas:

Liveaboard boats offer an opportunity to relieve pressure on Vancouver’s rental housing market through alternative means. Safe and environmentally-sound liveaboard boat usage should be encouraged in Vancouver. Set aside a sufficient number of fully-serviced live-aboards spaces in city-owned municipal marinas to address demand for on-water housing. Supported by a policy requiring that all Vessels in Vancouver must be able to prove operability, False Creek would easily support the needs of owners of boats while addressing the real problem posed by neglected and derelict vessels. 

By adopting these strategies, the City of Vancouver can work towards a balanced approach that respects the rights and needs of live-aboard boaters while ensuring the sustainable and equitable use of False Creek. The goal should be to foster a vibrant, safe, and inclusive waterfront community.

Conclusions

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) typically requires a court order or federal request to operate outside its usual jurisdiction. However, in False Creek, VPD’s authority is extended through the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulation and a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (M o U) between Transport Canada and the City of Vancouver. This M o U allows for local enforcement of maritime regulations, addressing the specific needs of False Creek as a navigable and residential waterway within an urban environment.

While the M o U facilitates the management of anchoring and boating safety, its enforcement has been inconsistent, sometimes appearing arbitrary and excessively strict. Enforcement actions, including towing, should respect legal standards, procedural fairness, and communication clarity. Moreover, training for provincial law enforcement in maritime law, vessel operation, and residential privacy rights is crucial.

To uphold the safety and legality of boating activities in Vancouver waters, the City of Vancouver must adhere to precise legal and procedural norms, ensuring respect for all stakeholders’ rights. As urban waterways management becomes more complex, collaboration between federal and municipal levels is essential to balance safety, environmental protection, and diverse user interests effectively.

After 15 years of Vancouver exercising power over False Creek without review, it is imperative for the City of Vancouver to revisit its policies regarding False Creek liveaboards and boaters facing dock space shortages. 

The persistent complaints from stakeholders being negatively impacted by noncompliant enforcement indicates that the City’s approach to enforcing the V O R R in False Creek has serious gaps. The City needs to take a better, more holistic approach to its practices in False Creek that do better integrating and accommodating the needs of everyone sharing this valuable urban amenity.

Too many False Creek users have been complaining about unjustified enforcement and about the City of Vancouver’s excessively muscular approach in False Creek, and it seems that Vancouver Police does not actually have the right to enforce the City’s wishes on boaters in the inlet. If this is true the City may be jeopardizing the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding that gives it jurisdiction over the body.

If Transport Canada were to invoke their right to unilaterally revoke the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding and take over enforcement in False Creek waters,  the city’s ability to have a say in False Creek would come to an abrupt halt on 30 days’ notice.

It is my recommendation to the City of Vancouver that it needs to do better and that a good place to start is for the City of Vancouver to regain the support of all False Creek users.

Mayor and Council may want to look at directing the City to apply the advice offered in the Transport Canada Local Authorities Guide to the Vessel Operating Restrictions Regulations and to not lose sight of the terms of the 2009 M o U.

The City of Vancouver is accountable to Transport Canada and Canadian boaters for the conduct of its Enforcement Officers in False Creek.

Under the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding between the two parties, Transport Canada can revoke delegation of VORR enforcement for any reason on 30 days notice. The Municipality does not currently uphold the terms of the agreement, and maybe it should.