Interesting post Clint. Raises some interesting legal incongruities and issues that may have to be sorted out in court. The RCMP members interpretation of the law is only that - an "interpretation" until ruled on in court and becoming part of case law. It can also be argued both ways:
If when tied-up in a raft - and assuming the RCMP have a correct interpretation of what "public" means - how can anyone be in "charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft" if it is now a publically owned/operated vehicle?
If someone wants to trespass on your "public" boat - now what?
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96462_01
""premises" means land, including enclosed land, foreshore and land covered by water, and anything on the land including
(a) a building or other permanent structure,
(b) a ship or vessel, train, railway car or vehicle, except while in operation,
(c) a trailer or a portable structure designed or used as a residence, for shelter or to house a business, and
(d) water;
"vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Motor Vehicle Act."
Seems the BC Liquor Act, and the BC Trespass and Motor Vehicle Acts are in disagreement.
Then there is the Federal Criminal Code:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html
s.98(2): "(2) In this section, “break” has the same meaning as in section 321, and “place” means any building or structure — or part of one — and any motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, railway vehicle, container or trailer."
That BC Liquor Act is "Provincial". The Criminal Code is "Federal". Federal Acts always supersede Provincial ones to the extent of the discrepancy.
It does seem that: "the officers are making it up as they go"