Transport Committee on Feb. 28th, 2008

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Have something a little more serious.

[David Osbaldeston]

A little more serious, because of its positioning; it's not attached to land. But again, this would be something that would have to be considered, I would suggest, in discussions with clients—and cottagers, definitely, are some of our biggest clients.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

You also have fines with ranges that are minimal or not significant.

[David Osbaldeston]

I'm sorry...?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Your range of fines, as you've suggested, is not really a deterrent because the amount is $500 to $5,000. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations of what you feel might be more appropriate in the circumstances?

[Marc Grégoire]

I would presume that the proponents of projects will not be seeking increase in fines. So for this I would rather look at what the government has passed in recent legislation, or even at what this committee has done in the last year. For instance, in the Aeronautics Act, there were significant increases in fines to what we used to have; and the same thing was done previously to the Canada Shipping Act.

The fact is that $5,000 for the proponent of a big project, a multi-million-dollar project, is pocket change. And yet that's the only power that we have now. So we think the amount of the fine should be big enough to discourage somebody from not obeying the law. Today it's not; it's a pure joke.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think that the way in which you have summarized these pressing problems is interesting. It makes me want to go further. Tell me if I am wrong, but if we decided, for example, to exclude minor waters, navigable ones, it would not mean that works would not be subject to regulations. Provinces have regulations and municipalities may well have too. So, just because we decided to focus on the Navigable Waters Protection Act, it would not mean that construction and works would not be subject to regulations. Do I understand it correctly?

[Marc Grégoire]

You are correct.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

The problem is that regulations are piled on top of regulations and the works themselves are being delayed in a climate where significant sums will soon be spent on infrastructure. Quebec will be making a number of announcements. The Quebec government, that is; it will be making a number of announcements.

I think that it is time to remove some of the federal burden in this and to concentrate on the major projects.

As well, we are going to define minor waters. If I understood correctly, you are not providing that definition today because you want us all to work on it together. Right away, that is going to eliminate some of the applications. Do you know how many we could eliminate? Minor waters...We are going to focus on principal waterways. Have you determined the scope of that?

[Marc Grégoire]

I would just be speculating. It will depend directly on the definition we choose. The closer the definition of waterways moves towards the definition of a major river or a navigable channel, the more our workload will be reduced. Presently, we have a large number of applications for small streams and watercourses where there is very little water. We have applications for places where water flows only in the spring. It will depend on the definition we arrive at after going through the exercise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You set up your table by work of minor, moderate and major impact, so clearly...

[Marc Grégoire]

We did not set it up by the kind of waterway.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

No. So if we redefined minor works, for sure they would probably be eliminated. Then, if we modify the definition of "minor waters", we would be addressing the problem of moderate works, maybe even some major works. As you said, your table is not by the kind of waterway, but by the kind of project.

The act does or does not apply to four "named works": bridges, booms, dams and causeways. Are you proposing to change these? Can we take them out?

[Marc Grégoire]

Our proposal is to take them out.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Right.

[Marc Grégoire]

Our proposal is to remove them from the act in order to leave the department with the responsibility to decide if an application is really needed. At the moment, the department does not have this flexibility with the four named categories.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

They are set in stone.

[Marc Grégoire]

Yes. For example, we could not make an exception and issue a brochure on bridges under five feet, because the act stipulates that an assessment is required for all bridges.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Right. Now I understand. It is probably case law that forced you into this.

[Marc Grégoire]

For the four "named works", it is not case law, it is the act itself that requires it.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Right.

[Marc Grégoire]

We have to do everything if it has one of those names. Case law comes into play for the type of water. Over the years...

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

All waters.

[Marc Grégoire]

It is all waters now.