Dear all,

Safety 1st, Fun 2nd!

New regulations were lunched, in effect immediately, for drone use in Canada just hours ago (March 17, 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ ... c-garneau-1.4027486

The news announced fines and protocol when flying drones for recriational purposes.

A few highlight include drone weight and distances away from objects and area before flight can take place.

It will be interesting to see what come of the next phases of regulations due in Q4 in Canada.

Point to note, the new regulation prohibits drones over 250 grams in flight which could be subject to a $3000 fine. The Mavic pro weighs in at a maximum I modified weight of 743 grams

The new rules do not apply to people flying at sites and events sanctioned by the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada, a national model aircraft association Garneau said has an excellent safety record.

Apparently MAAC pilots are the ELITE.

Happy flying campers.

Is Canada like the us regarding RC flight? Meaning, does Canada also not have any actual enforcement?

Enforcement is now the police. Canadians are expected to call 911 whether they are being raped and murdered or seeing someone enjoying their hobby drone in their backyard.

Acidsnow Posted at 2017-3-18 15:00
Enforcement is now the police. Canadians are expected to call 911 whether they are being raped and murdered or seeing someone enjoying their hobby drone in their backyard.

Perfectly said.

Was waiting until spring to buy my Mavic but with these new regulations is it worth it?  We camp in Provincial Parks and your not allowed to take off or land within.

I agree that there needs to be some regulations but these look excessive.  Every drone hater will be calling 911 at any chance they get.

Thoughts on how this really impacts your flying habits for us regular guys not wanting to fly downtown Toronto.  I am in Whitby just and i mean just outside the 9km zone for Oshawa airport.

Tim

Hi Tim,

Public places are a nightmare for users! I do feel with all the "regulations" ppl are focusing on the Forrest and not the tree.

HAVE FUN.

These drones have so much technology that really helps a new flyer to the experienced flyer engage is safer flying.

Of course if we played by the rules such as distracted driving.....we would see less deaths and fatal injuries because someone was not playing by the rules.

Hopefully you can see my point.

Bottom line is the Mavic Pro is awesome & fun. If these 2 observations tick a box, go for it and worry about the rest later.

No matter what application you choose in life (failure shovel snow on a walkway), there is always someone willing to rat on you.

Oh yes I just got a by-law ticket for failing to shovel my walkway!

Steve

Lemonsorbie Posted at 2017-3-19 08:04
Hi Tim,

Public places are a nightmare for users! I do feel with all the "regulations" ppl are focusing on the Forrest and not the tree.

Did someone call 911 on you because "snow" was flying as you shoveled later?

alirz5 Posted at 2017-3-18 15:07
Perfectly said.

Everyone needs to speak up on this.  Send your tweets to TC Canada and Minister of Transport Canada Marc Garneau!!!!
-----

In an unrelated story regarding 911 use on CBC News:

"We just want to remind people that lives are at risk when 911 is used as an information line or for any other reasons that do not meet the test of a true emergency," said Robertson.

"That is a police, fire or medical situation that requires immediate action because somebody's health, safety or property is in jeopardy, or there is a crime in progress."

Acidsnow Posted at 2017-3-18 15:00
Enforcement is now the police. Canadians are expected to call 911 whether they are being raped and murdered or seeing someone enjoying their hobby drone in their backyard.

I'm sure this will hit the courts if our police force/state acts on this unreasonably.  Regulations wrt Aircraft including drones is under the force of the Aeronautical Act and the Act delegates authority to the enforcement of the Act to Transport Canada fully.  TC cannot delegate their authority to the Police without a change to the Act.  Their new 'Emergency Drone Regulation" is unenforceable under Canadian Law by any authority other than TC.  

I am certain that TC carefully and thoughtfully chose to include the 911 statement in their press release to have the maximum VIRAL EFFECT, though completely irresponsible to do so, Canadian authorities rule by fear.

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 12:44
Everyone needs to speak up on this.  Send your tweets to TC Canada and Minister of Transport Canada Marc Garneau!!!!
-----

Randy,

I am working with a developer on a collision warning system that alerts in real time aircraft position including heading, location, height & a few other things in the case where a drone is flying in proximity to a commercial or private plane.

I hope to pitch this to DJI (if they are listening....contact me) to intergrate into the GO 4 App or other supporting 3rd party Apps such as Litchi.

After all a drone flying in airspace should enter and share regulation just the same as a Cessna or other commercially operated aircraft.

The minister was sent an email also of the concept for my idea.

Lemonsorbie Posted at 2017-3-19 13:01
Randy,

I am working with a developer on a collision warning system that alerts in real time aircraft position including heading, location, height & a few other things in the case where a drone is flying in proximity to a commercial or private plane.

I agree.  An app integration such as "Flight Radar 24" should do this.  Best of luck.  My opinion is that UAV's should have innovations such as this made mandatory, like geo-fencing that DJI already has...Devices that interfere with UAV (thnik 'drone killers') should be banned except for government use; So that when Joe your neighbour knocks you Mavic out of the air 'just because' this will be an offence since it puts people/things at risk on the ground...

Let's try and get a conversation with the TC started.

https://www.change.org/p/marc-ga ... utm_medium=copylink

I think instead of trying to eliminate all places to fly, why not encourage flying safely in places away from airports, like parks and empty fields.

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 14:53
I agree.  An app integration such as "Flight Radar 24" should do this.  Best of luck.  My opinion is that UAV's should have innovations such as this made mandatory, like geo-fencing that DJI already has...Devices that interfere with UAV (thnik 'drone killers') should be banned except for government use; So that when Joe your neighbour knocks you Mavic out of the air 'just because' this will be an offence since it puts people/things at risk on the ground...

+1 Randy. Thanks for the comments

RWalrond Posted at 2017-3-19 15:22
Let's try and get a conversation with the TC started.

https://www.change.org/p/marc-ga ... utm_medium=copylink

Well written Sir

Does that petition site above get any attention from the government or any authority?

RWalrond Posted at 2017-3-19 15:22
Let's try and get a conversation with the TC started.

https://www.change.org/p/marc-ga ... utm_medium=copylink

Much too late.  Canada's been working on drone reg since at least 2012.  They then copied the Australian draft a couple years ago (which like Canada is VERY pro-regulation); then about a year+ ago they incorporated a huge degree of an EU draft regulation.  The draft regulation is available and has been for a couple years for public feedback and a few revisions already; they were going to release it in 2016 but extended to 2017.  It is a MONSTER of a regulation, deeply routed in adopting much of the safety philosophies from airplane regulations- but extended (I call 'warped') to include/apply to UAVs.

I'm certain the delay to release in 2016 to 2017 stems from the fact that they got caught naked when it was announced that DJI's Mavic would not only fall under their (then current) draft regulation covering drones ABOVE 2KGs (the Mavic is about 700+g) and 7 km range.  The Canadian Govt' (TC) changed their draft to NOW BE 250g and they upped flight distances from airports to 9kms; specifically to keep the Mavic and all other drones unable to penetrate this zone.  This specs had nothing inherently to do with SAFETY; they are countermeasures against what the near-term UAV market was developing.  At least it looks like TC is bending a little on the distance from buildings; used to be 150m; now they are saying 75m.  Their draft regulation 5+ yrs in the making specified max alt of 120m and min distance from buildings (etc) of 150m; this is an impossibility; I provided lots of feedback including this piece of crazy sauce.  It may have been their attempt at prohibiting ever flying over buildings and roads etc which would restrict UAVs to farms.   I could go on and on with examples of crazy/prohibitive clauses.

I should add that Transport Canada has officially published last year that 911 is absolutely NOT to be contacted wrt any drone violations unless it is a bonafide EMERGENCY (like you see someone purposefully flying to intercept a jet or you know of someone that has weaponized a drone OR is doing something crazy stupid over a massive crowd of people).  YET on March 17th in TC's press conference THEY ENCOURAGED/DIRECTED Canadians to "Call 911 and/or your local police" if you see anyone operating a drone illegally.  This is gonna blow up in the press big time.

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 17:00
Much too late.  Canada's been working on drone reg since at least 2012.  They then copied the Australian draft a couple years ago (which like Canada is VERY pro-regulation); then about a year+ ago they incorporated a huge degree of an EU draft regulation.  The draft regulation is available and has been for a couple years for public feedback and a few revisions already; they were going to release it in 2016 but extended to 2017.  It is a MONSTER of a regulation, deeply routed in adopting much of the safety philosophies from airplane regulations- but extended (I call 'warped') to include/apply to UAVs.

I'm certain the delay to release in 2016 to 2017 stems from the fact that they got caught naked when it was announced that DJI's Mavic would not only fall under their (then current) draft regulation covering drones ABOVE 2KGs (the Mavic is about 700+g) and 7 km range.  The Canadian Govt' (TC) changed their draft to NOW BE 250g and they upped flight distances from airports to 9kms; specifically to keep the Mavic and all other drones unable to penetrate this zone.  This specs had nothing inherently to do with SAFETY; they are countermeasures against what the near-term UAV market was developing.  At least it looks like TC is bending a little on the distance from buildings; used to be 150m; now they are saying 75m.  Their draft regulation 5+ yrs in the making specified max alt of 120m and min distance from buildings (etc) of 150m; this is an impossibility; I provided lots of feedback including this piece of crazy sauce.  It may have been their attempt at prohibiting ever flying over buildings and roads etc which would restrict UAVs to farms.   I could go on and on with examples of crazy/prohibitive clauses.

I should add that their 'excuse' for rushing an emergency regulation out on the public is what they say 'due to a 3x increase in incidents since 2014'.

This is a LIE.  Essentially we've basically gone from (on a relative scale to safety issues that really matter) ONE incident to THREE!!! Yes 3x!!

In Canada (and for sure world-wide) there have been 10,000 % more incidents regarding green lasers being pointed at coc#pits from the ground; all over the news.  Canada will soon ban the use or importation of lasers and all of us will need to go back to a pointing stick when doing presentations.

Sorry DJI for swearing (Coc#pits). LOL, forum wouldn't let me post an aviation word

This "Point to note, the new regulation prohibits drones over 250 grams in flight which could be subject to a $3000 fine. The Mavic pro weighs in at a maximum I modified weight of 743 grams "   is incorrect....the fine is imposed on not complying with the regulation (any part of it); nothing to do with weight class.  Only UAV's weighing greater than 250g are regulated.

Timbit31 Posted at 2017-3-19 06:47
Was waiting until spring to buy my Mavic but with these new regulations is it worth it?  We camp in Provincial Parks and your not allowed to take off or land within.

I agree that there needs to be some regulations but these look excessive.  Every drone hater will be calling 911 at any chance they get.

" Every drone hater will be calling 911 at any chance they get. ".

This is true and a HUGE problem.  TC has even setup a website for our neighbours to report inappropriate drone use.  So get ready for those drone-hating grannies and mommies reporting you anonymously.  Every mother out there thinks b/c these things have cameras on them that every drone user is a perv. I'm sure that is a rarity....isn't that what the web is for????

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 17:20
" Every drone hater will be calling 911 at any chance they get. ".

This is true and a HUGE problem.  TC has even setup a website for our neighbours to report inappropriate drone use.  So get ready for those drone-hating grannies and mommies reporting you anonymously.  Every mother out there thinks b/c these things have cameras on them that every drone user is a perv. I'm sure that is a rarity....isn't that what the web is for????

Oh-- I forgot- for sure still get your Mavic!!  These are just the growing pains of any new tech.  Remember the 'dark decade' when the RCMP would bust down our doors b/c they didn't want us watching US TV?  Same thing and both had the arm of collusion with the government and our police...

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 17:15
This "Point to note, the new regulation prohibits drones over 250 grams in flight which could be subject to a $3000 fine. The Mavic pro weighs in at a maximum I modified weight of 743 grams "   is incorrect....the fine is imposed on not complying with the regulation (any part of it); nothing to do with weight class.  Only UAV's weighing greater than 250g are regulated.

Thanks for interjecting about the weight reference.

Timeline 6:00 gets interesting

Lemonsorbie Posted at 2017-3-19 18:55
https://youtu.be/tFXPDFNls20

I like this guy's videos in general.  It's good to see him pick up and offer to assist Canadians as well. I'm an Engineer as well and I've been following closely our Regulation's development for many years.  Unfortunately way too many parts of existing aviation regulation has been applied to remotely piloted air vehicles (RPAV- which is likely the final terminology that the final Regulation may use).  

However, he's greatly over-simplified our Regulation; it is actually WAY more convoluted and imposing on recreational users that what he discusses.  The actual wording of Canada's Regulation in regards to "75m away from buildings etc" is actually buried in terminology used in aviation operations.  Specifically the clauses rely on the term "Build-up Areas" and when applied to recreational drone usage...it means essentially UAVs are prohibited from flying inside any city and surrounding area- rural only (getting technical, it among a few things is related to requiring a distance of 150m from any roadway where the street lighting is separated by no more than 20m; e.g. only in the country is the lighting less dense than this according to roads and highway engineering specifications.).  May sound strange but it is a key component of the regulation.  So much so that a few months ago the Calgary Police held public town halls to explain and interpret the regulation for the citizens of Calgary.  Calgary Police summarized the regulation by one statement "You may not fly anywhere within the city limits of Calgary".  They were relying on their interpretation of the 'build-up area' clause.   They even went on to say you may not fly in or use any city park and because it is impossible to be less then 150m from a roadway, you may not fly within the city.  Calgary Police in purpose misrepresented the Regulation on purpose to serve their desire to not have to deal with enforcement.  In truth, Canadian Police have no legal jurisdiction to enforce the Regulations of Transport Canada and they know this.  They are only partially correct about the flying in the Parks areas as this area is the only area within any canadian city that is not under the jurisdiction of TC (it is up to the city Parks and  Recreation Bylaws, which Police enforce).  Aviation rules and regulation by law (Act) are under sole Federal Jurisdiction; delegation to Police is against the law unless the the associated aviation Acts are amended.  Calgary Police (I use them as example as they are one of the few authorities to blatantly claim to be able to interpret the Regulation) left out a key part of the clause wrt flying within city parks....they said (google it) you can't fly in a city park.  This is totally false.  The Parks and Rec bylaw states that "...you may not FLY FROM any city park".  Emphasis is the key.  This means that you may fly from a property TO a city park and fly within the city park- but you may not land or take-off from the ground inside the park.  Transport Canada controls 100% of the airspace above all city parks within all of Canada; you are free to use this airspace so long as you follow TC regulation.  Police can only prevent you from flying inside the park WHEN YOU ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED in the park yourself as the operator.  So Calgary Police misrepresenting here.  It still is bad that many bylaws have restriction on such use in the first place.

The youtube host is confused about the choice of the 90m rule for max altitude.   This is the logic (and I will inform him directly on his youtube channel):

90m is not random although it looks like that at first.  It is based as I said earlier that our regulation is way too mixed up with 'actual' aviation operations.  Many people here are pilots themselves and understand (maybe ) it's origin.  A long while ago it was calculated that a 3km radius about an aircraft landing/departure site is sufficient safe distance for remote aircraft to observe.  Typical north american flight paths are a 3 percent glideslope for takeoff and landings and given this geometry an aircraft will be at an altitude of precisely 300ft at 1.7km (the radius); so a circle of diameter of 3km was considered a very appropriate safe distance to protect the airspace around and airport.  90m is exactly the closest whole number to 300 ft (296') and directly a result of the 3km zone.  Any wider zone is purely arbitrary and unnecessary  because if you extend this radius it will put the intersection of aircraft with UAV at a height greater than 500'; and this (and above) is intended for aircraft only.  So in the USA, they are correct in allowing UAV/quad operators to at least go to say 400'.  The Canadian regulation is way to mathematical in this regard and not practical for the sake of drone fliers.

Pilots will also know that "Build-up Areas" (the term above and in the regulation) is and actual 'thing'...they appear as a graphic symbol on every flight chart (as a triangle with the notation "BUA").  These are the areas that pilots are to be cautious about upon flight takeoff and landings as they represent where your plane is likely to crash (!) during this critical flight phase; I believe pilots are required to maintain min altitude/height of 500m; above these areas.  Why was this terminology used in drone regulation???? It should not have been.  Transport Canada btw has no official definition for this.  And now our Police forces are making up their own definitions for their own desires.  Of course since TC is no help in this matter, so if you are fined for violating their interpretation of the 150m rule (which now I guess is 75m- which I can't find any logic for, but It is certainly better than 150m   ) you have to suck it up or go to court if you want to fix it; but for sure TC won't be there to help you out.

I've got lots more to share

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 21:53
I like this guy's videos in general.  It's good to see him pick up and offer to assist Canadians as well. I'm an Engineer as well and I've been following closely our Regulation's development for many years.  Unfortunately way too many parts of existing aviation regulation has been applied to remotely piloted air vehicles (RPAV- which is likely the final terminology that the final Regulation may use).  

However, he's greatly over-simplified our Regulation; it is actually WAY more convoluted and imposing on recreational users that what he discusses.  The actual wording of Canada's Regulation in regards to "75m away from buildings etc" is actually buried in terminology used in aviation operations.  Specifically the clauses rely on the term "Build-up Areas" and when applied to recreational drone usage...it means essentially UAVs are prohibited from flying inside any city and surrounding area- rural only (getting technical, it among a few things is related to requiring a distance of 150m from any roadway where the street lighting is separated by no more than 20m; e.g. only in the country is the lighting less dense than this according to roads and highway engineering specifications.).  May sound strange but it is a key component of the regulation.  So much so that a few months ago the Calgary Police held public town halls to explain and interpret the regulation for the citizens of Calgary.  Calgary Police summarized the regulation by one statement "You may not fly anywhere within the city limits of Calgary".  They were relying on their interpretation of the 'build-up area' clause.   They even went on to say you may not fly in or use any city park and because it is impossible to be less then 150m from a roadway, you may not fly within the city.  Calgary Police in purpose misrepresented the Regulation on purpose to serve their desire to not have to deal with enforcement.  In truth, Canadian Police have no legal jurisdiction to enforce the Regulations of Transport Canada and they know this.  They are only partially correct about the flying in the Parks areas as this area is the only area within any canadian city that is not under the jurisdiction of TC (it is up to the city Parks and  Recreation Bylaws, which Police enforce).  Aviation rules and regulation by law (Act) are under sole Federal Jurisdiction; delegation to Police is against the law unless the the associated aviation Acts are amended.  Calgary Police (I use them as example as they are one of the few authorities to blatantly claim to be able to interpret the Regulation) left out a key part of the clause wrt flying within city parks....they said (google it) you can't fly in a city park.  This is totally false.  The Parks and Rec bylaw states that "...you may not FLY FROM any city park".  Emphasis is the key.  This means that you may fly from a property TO a city park and fly within the city park- but you may not land or take-off from the ground inside the park.  Transport Canada controls 100% of the airspace above all city parks within all of Canada; you are free to use this airspace so long as you follow TC regulation.  Police can only prevent you from flying inside the park WHEN YOU ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED in the park yourself as the operator.  So Calgary Police misrepresenting here.  It still is bad that many bylaws have restriction on such use in the first place.

correction, I meant "Built-up Area" It's late.

Lemonsorbie Posted at 2017-3-19 18:55
https://youtu.be/tFXPDFNls20

I couldn't leave without addressing this video's assertion that birds are a worse issue that drones when it comes to drone vs airplanes. He is completely wrong in this regard.  As much as we'd like it to be true, drones maybe even of the mavic size may be FAR MORE injurious to an aircraft than a bird, possibly even as big a bird as our precious geese!  I wish he didn't include this part and it may destroy the credibility of other things.  Swarms of birds may be a different story.

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 22:24
I couldn't leave without addressing this video's assertion that birds are a worse issue that drones when it comes to drone vs airplanes. He is completely wrong in this regard.  As much as we'd like it to be true, drones maybe even of the mavic size may be FAR MORE injurious to an aircraft than a bird, possibly even as big a bird as our precious geese!  I wish he didn't include this part and it may destroy the credibility of other things.  Swarms of birds may be a different story.

Don't you mean flocks of birds! ;-)

Woodwanger Posted at 2017-3-19 23:38
Don't you mean flocks of birds! ;-)

For sure!  ...But from the UK you gave us the "Flock of Seagulls" - were they really???      

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-19 17:00
Much too late.  Canada's been working on drone reg since at least 2012.  They then copied the Australian draft a couple years ago (which like Canada is VERY pro-regulation); then about a year+ ago they incorporated a huge degree of an EU draft regulation.  The draft regulation is available and has been for a couple years for public feedback and a few revisions already; they were going to release it in 2016 but extended to 2017.  It is a MONSTER of a regulation, deeply routed in adopting much of the safety philosophies from airplane regulations- but extended (I call 'warped') to include/apply to UAVs.

I'm certain the delay to release in 2016 to 2017 stems from the fact that they got caught naked when it was announced that DJI's Mavic would not only fall under their (then current) draft regulation covering drones ABOVE 2KGs (the Mavic is about 700+g) and 7 km range.  The Canadian Govt' (TC) changed their draft to NOW BE 250g and they upped flight distances from airports to 9kms; specifically to keep the Mavic and all other drones unable to penetrate this zone.  This specs had nothing inherently to do with SAFETY; they are countermeasures against what the near-term UAV market was developing.  At least it looks like TC is bending a little on the distance from buildings; used to be 150m; now they are saying 75m.  Their draft regulation 5+ yrs in the making specified max alt of 120m and min distance from buildings (etc) of 150m; this is an impossibility; I provided lots of feedback including this piece of crazy sauce.  It may have been their attempt at prohibiting ever flying over buildings and roads etc which would restrict UAVs to farms.   I could go on and on with examples of crazy/prohibitive clauses.

I commented on the draft regulations a long time ago.  At that time they did seem reasonable but what was issued is so much more restrictive.  Studied the German regs yesterday.  Their airport no fly zone radius is 1.5km at a max altitude of 100m.  I even passed the Lufthansa Technik SafeDrone course.
https://www.safe-drone.com/de/?lang=en
You can check the size of no fly zones at this site.  I was surprised that NFZ in the United States varies in size, many of them much smaller than what Canada has put in place.  Check out this link, zoom out, it is valid for the whole earth.
https://app.airmap.io/#

Hummingbird.UAV Posted at 2017-3-20 07:57
I commented on the draft regulations a long time ago.  At that time they did seem reasonable but what was issued is so much more restrictive.  Studied the German regs yesterday.  Their airport no fly zone radius is 1.5km at a max altitude of 100m.  I even passed the Lufthansa Technik SafeDrone course.
https://www.safe-drone.com/de/?lang=en
You can check the size of no fly zones at this site.  I was surprised that NFZ in the United States varies in size, many of them much smaller than what Canada has put in place.  Check out this link, zoom out, it is valid for the whole earth.

Very good.  I'm aware of these tools and agree they are very good.  Everyone should take advantage of any drone training as well, so It's great you shared this link.

I'll comment about Canada's NFZ sizes (wrt drone regulations) current and past.  It is my opinion that Transport Canada has demonstrated a motive to set NFZ sizes for drones in direct correlation to a drone's ability to fly that distance.  Early on these zones were sized smaller, now because the Mavic can fly upto 7 kms, TC has extended NFZ to 9km.  This is not for technical safety reasons, but rather to eliminate a person's ability to be able to fly and push them farther and farther away from airports.  What will they do next when the Mavic 2 can fly unlimited via cellular signal and batteries improve flight times....

alirz5 Posted at 2017-3-19 16:31
Does that petition site above get any attention from the government or any authority?

Long story short, No it does not. the only way to get attention is to talk to your local MP and bring it up as a problem.

Under the new laws the 9 km distance is pointless as you can't fly past 500 m and must be in line of sight at all times so a lot of comments on this issue are silly and have nothing to do with Drone capabilities.  The 90 m height is the same as it was in 2016 but was only a suggestion then.  The 75 m law is very vague and I still can't find a clear definition of buildings vehicles vessels animals or people/crowds on the TC site.   The TC infographic is even worse then the actual printed interim laws.  They use the word etc. which is complete nonsense.  I'm with TC on people flying on airport property or near any manned aircraft and I think the fine should be more and possible jail time in those cases..  Manned aircraft fly near everything they mention all the time so the risk assessment of a small drone causing injury is flawed in many ways.  Flying near people has risks and should not be done unless said people are willing to assume that risk.  I looked at the incidents for drones on the TC site and vast majority of them are unconfirmed reports of drones and many were found out to not be drones at all.  I'm not sure whether these were the ones used in the so called tripling of incidents since 2014 though.  I didn't read all of them but I've yet to see one where someone other then the incident reporter verified seeing a drone.  As per enforcement of these laws just like any federal law the RCMP have the power to do so already.  If a complaint is made the police have to investigate regardless of whether a law has been broken also.  Canada's privacy laws already afford them many options to make your day suck long before these regulations came to be.

TC laws are only part of this.  You need to check for any provincial or local laws as well.  I'm still investigating all the legality of this as well.  Since parks are considered private property they may be able to override some of the TC laws.

Please offer me any links and comments you can as I am still gathering information in the hope to change not only the government perspective but also the general public which is far more important to educate on this wonderful hobby