Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transport.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Greg Farrant  Manager, Government Relations and Communications, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Mark Mattson  President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
Krystyn Tully  Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
John Edwards  Domestic Development Director, CanoeKayak Canada
Jack MacLaren  As an Individual
William Amos  Staff Counsel and Part-time Professor, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, University of Ottawa
David Osbaldeston  Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
Patrick Jetté  President, Association of Justice Counsel
Pierre Laliberté  Economist , Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
John Farrell  Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication (FETCO)
David Olsen  Assistant General Counsel, Legal Affairs, Canada Post Corporation, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication (FETCO)
Anu Bose  Head, Ottawa Office, Option consommateurs
Michael Janigan  Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Claude Poirier  President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll go to questions from members.

We'll start with Mr. Volpe, for seven minutes, please.

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be here. Even though I'm not a regular member of this committee, I am one of the tourists and visitors from the transport committee.

As you heard earlier, the transport committee dealt with much of the background for this, and I want to thank all the witnesses who have taken the opportunity to come forward and share some of their insights with those members of the finance committee who might not have been aware of some of them.

I want to ask a couple of brief questions.

I'm sure you will recall that the conversation went pretty well the same way. In the spring we had nine sessions, I believe, and you were one of the last to appear. I thought we gave you a pretty exhaustive opportunity to share with us what you thought we needed to know for our report.

In your reading of the amendments proposed under this format, whether you agree with the format or not, did you find things there that you didn't explain or we didn't ask in the spring?

7:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Krystyn Tully

I think there were a lot of questions that day, and maybe it was my own failing in conveying the seriousness and the importance of navigation, but unfortunately, the proposed amendments we see in Bill C-10 don't seem to take into consideration any of the concerns I was trying to raise or did raise that day with the committee.

The environmental assessment process is gone. The transparency and decision-making is gone. Centralizing control and decision-making in Ottawa has been added to the act. The consultation, which we did talk about a great deal that day, never happened. We did talk about the possibility of reaching out to communities outside the Ontario region that don't have the ability to come to Ottawa on a moment's notice, and that consultation didn't happen.

Before coming tonight, I had an opportunity to speak to some other people in the community whom I know, and to my knowledge, there hasn't been any outreach to the first nations communities, to the provinces, so it concerns me that a year later a lot of the concerns we raised that day with the committee still stands.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Let me take one of the issues, because I guess in this sense I reflect a lot of other members of Parliament. I don't speak for them, they speak for their constituencies, but I reflect other members of Parliament, I think, in the desire to do the right thing. You and others before you have raised a couple of points I'd like to ask the Transport Canada officials, if I may, but it relates to what you said.

My understanding, as we went through the entire process in the spring, was that Transport Canada and navigable waters are but one of several elements in the whole approval process and that any changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act do not preclude, do not put aside, do not negate the obligations of Environment Canada assessments, provincial environmental agency assessments, and in fact the assessments by Fisheries and Oceans and by conservation authorities before any licences for construction are let. Is that a correct impression?

7:40 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

David Osbaldeston

That's correct.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

I'm going to go to Mr. Amos, who said he spoke for 2.3 million paddlers in a series of organizations.

Mr. Amos, again, I think I reflect a lot of other members of Parliament. They can all speak for themselves, but I thought we were being pretty diligent in reaching out to as many organizations as we could, including first nations communities, including provincial and municipal authorities, many of whom either sent briefs or sent witnesses. I'm a little concerned that the conversation and the presentation that you made might go into direct conflict with what Mr. Osbaldeston just said—that is, those other agencies are also there to protect interests, to protect businesses, to protect the rights of people. It would appear to me that you say this piece of legislation and the way Parliament is handling it would make a—I'm sorry if this sounds a little harsh—liar of what he just said.

7:45 p.m.

Staff Counsel and Part-time Professor, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, University of Ottawa

William Amos

Thank you for the question. I certainly would never suggest that any statements are making a liar of anyone here. I think there are reasonable disagreements, however, on the impact and importance of the proposed changes.

With respect to the variety of different assessment approval processes and environmental assessment processes that may or may not be triggered, I think I was pretty clear earlier, but I'll reiterate just so that we're all on the same page.

There is only one level of government and only one process through which the effects on navigation are assessed, and that is pursuant to an approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which triggers an environmental assessment. Navigation protection is something that is only ever considered through the NWPA process and then, pursuant to that, through CEAA. There are other assessment processes and other approvals. For instance, there are Fisheries Act approvals, which deal with fish habitat; there are approval processes that occur at the provincial level that may deal with waterways. However, those approval processes and those environmental assessments don't deal with navigation, so when I'm representing the paddling interests and navigation interests of the environmental community, the paddling community, the ecotourism community, these are interests that are specifically focused on the right of navigation.

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Volpe. I'm sorry, we're over time. There will be another Liberal slot. He can share his time with you after he starts.

Monsieur Carrier.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Amos.

7:50 p.m.

Staff Counsel and Part-time Professor, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, University of Ottawa

William Amos

Thank you for you comments which were very much on point. I fully agree with you that we are making decisions about matters that are extremely important to Canada and to the people who use these navigable waters. These talks are occurring at the same time as our budget discussions, which are very delicate and highly politicized. In our opinion, we should take more time and reflect more on possible changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Discussions should take place within the context of regular committee meetings and as part of the usual legislative reform process, not in conjunction with budget discussions.

I agree with you completely and I appreciate your comments.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

There are 30 seconds left, if someone else would like to comment.

Mr. Mattson.

7:50 p.m.

President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Mark Mattson

As we've suggested, if it were severed from the budget bill it would benefit all Canadians, and it would be in the public interest that we take the appropriate amount of time to hear from Canadians from coast to coast to ensure that this bill achieved what Mr. Osbaldeston would like. As well, it would still protect the public interest and their right to give consent to the government before it takes these rights away or that they be infringed.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Tweed, please.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll share my time with the member for Fort Mac.

Thank you, everyone, for attending. I appreciate all the comments.

I was the chair of the transport committee that proposed the changes to the Navigable Waterways Protection Act. I want to make it clear that there were no dissenting votes on the proposals and changes to the act that were put forward. We did include a sunset clause because we felt that, like all legislation, there are challenges that have to be met at a future date. If we see deficiencies, then we certainly have the ability to make those changes.

I want to start by commenting to Mr. MacLaren that I've had the opportunity to serve provincially and on a municipal council. I would have no qualms in saying I probably have a thousand people like you in my riding in the very same situation, where a man-made ditch that serves no other purpose than to move water for four or five days in the spring is deemed a navigable water and they can do nothing with it. It hinders their ability to develop their own property and it excludes them from any other process that everyone has to go through.

As a committee, we heard from municipal, provincial, and other organizations involved in working with navigable waters. I think it was unanimous, in the reports we received from them, that these were the issues that concerned them the most and that had to be addressed by our committee. Monsieur Carrier was a very active member, and I think we all compromised a little bit to bring something forward that was amenable to most Canadians.

I want to talk to Mr. Osbaldeston. I think Mr. Volpe raised this, and I want to make it as clear as I possibly can. It's a comment we're hearing most around the table and in e-mails from people who are concerned about this issue.

Do the rights surrounding navigable waters change with any of the amendments we're proposing?

7:55 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

David Osbaldeston

No, they don't. Water that is navigated today will continue to fall under the purview of this act, as will all water in Canada.

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

I'd also like to ask you this, and I know it was discussed in our committee. How many projects approximately are backlogged because of this process? I'm not referring to the major projects; I'm talking about the ones you discussed in your opening comments that are being held up because of this process, that actually are not impacted by the Navigable Waterways Protection Act.

7:55 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

David Osbaldeston

I can't give you numbers off the top of my head. In general, though, we receive 2,500 applications a year and we continue to have 2,500 remaining from the year before, so we never catch up.

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Have you had any comment made to you, or through anyone else, that would suggest the changes we are recommending would actually change the definition of the term “navigable water”?

7:55 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Last, before I turn it over to Mr. Jean, I'm interested.... I think the committee had a sincere feeling that we didn't want that—I think you reflected it, and it is reflected in the minutes of our meetings—and that it was not the committee's intention to impede navigable waters. It was to improve the act so that a person like Jack MacLaren can get on with his life and do the things he wants, and municipalities can do the same things, without impacting the term or the definition of navigable waters.

Would that be a fair statement?

7:55 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

David Osbaldeston

That's a fair statement.

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Jean, you have six minutes.

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also sat on the committee; I was the parliamentary secretary. When I hear of fish habitat removed, the use of rivers for anglers gone, removing environmental assessment triggers, public notices gone, scientific reviews terminated, interference with the public right to navigation, it sounds like a Twilight Zone movie. I wasn't there for the meeting that said this and I didn't see any legislation that did. But the truth was and is that I went to every meeting, I heard from every witness, and I looked at the legislation thoroughly, as a lawyer for some 11 years litigating in the courts of Alberta.

That's another point. I'm from Alberta and I represent 30% of rural Alberta, places where people are impeded by this legislation on a constant basis. When I ran for this job in 2004, this was the number one concern. It wasn't BSE; it wasn't same-sex marriage; it was navigation and the ability to deal with things properly. I want to let you know that.

As well, I am a registered trapper, an avid hunter, and I have taught canoeing. I have canoed most of the rivers in northern Alberta and I taught canoeing for some period of time. I love canoeing and I love the outdoors, both winter and summer, and I would not ever put anything forward in any kind of legislation or proposal that would impede that in any way.

Saying that, primarily for my constituents, who vote me in at 67% every time I have an election, I want to ask a question, David, to clarify this. Will bridges, booms, dams, and causeways, which everyone here knows are the primarily named works, still be reviewed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act after the proposed amendments are passed? That is the main concern—those major works, those named works.

8 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

David Osbaldeston

Yes, they will. I know there is misinformation out there that, because they are named and there is talk about removal of named works, the interpretation is that therefore these obvious obstacles to navigation would not continue to be reviewed under our legislation. But that is not the case. The removal of “named” works, which is how the amendment is worded, is simply removing treating these things with any special accord and rather treating them like any other obstacle that could potentially be placed in the water in the way of navigation; that is, equitably, against the same standards, and most specifically, according to the degree of impact upon navigation. These items would definitely continue to be reviewed under the legislation and have to meet the same benchmarks as all other works placed in navigable water.