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

8 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

If you have a very short question, you have 20 seconds.

8 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Chair, I am curious and would like to ask one more question to David.

In essence, is any environmental assessment trigger going to be removed that means there will be no environmental assessment to a project?

8 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

David Osbaldeston

I can't speak directly to the environmental assessment pieces, because I'm not the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency—those who trigger what goes on the Annotated Law List—but that will be reviewed. I can tell you that in our strategic environmental assessment, which was done as part of our studies, the end result was that the result would be neutral—nothing lost, nothing gained.

8 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Mulcair.

8 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations today.

I would also like to reassure Ms. Tully; there is no need for her to apologize for not taking part in broader consultations, since no such consultations were held. She has nothing to apologize for.

Mr. Osbaldeston, I must start off by saying that I have the greatest respect for the civil service. Having spent more than 30 years in the public service, half of it as a civil servant, including being chairman of a large regulatory agency, and half of it as an elected official, I can say that I know the difference between the two. I don't think, Mr. Osbaldeston, that you know the difference between the two, and I say that with respect.

If you enjoy the game of politics, have the courage to put your face on the telephone poles and get yourself elected. Tonight you came into this committee and did something that none of us has ever seen before. I have never, in over 30 years, seen a civil servant come before a committee and deliver with such a purely partisan mind. When you have the temerity to come before us and say that there's nothing in here that removes environmental protection, you're simply not telling the truth. It is not true that there's a tiered approval process in here. It's a complete change in the whole regulatory structure. All the enabling provisions under this statute will be changed to give, as Ms. Tully correctly pointed out, pure discretion here in Ottawa.

Now, I don't doubt your good intentions, but I am telling you that what you told this committee about the effect of this legislation is not true.

In response to Mr. Jean—and I saw you pass a note to Mr. Jean before, and I think it's worth saying that....

Sure I'd like to see it, Mr. Jean, colleague and confrère. I'm a lawyer too. And I can read a statute, because I was involved in statutory drafting for a number of years.

There is nothing further from the truth than that this doesn't lessen environmental protection. An anecdote is not an argument is not a case.

In Mr. MacLaren's very colourful example he evoked the Drainage Act, which, as you know, is an Ontario provincial statute that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here today. He evoked Fisheries and Oceans, which again has nothing to do with what we're talking about here today. He also alleged that there was an anecdote from the owner of a piece of equipment that it would be Fisheries and Oceans, but we have no evidence of that whatsoever. Yet you bought that holus-bolus, and you reinforced it here before this committee. And that's wrong, because this committee is trying to deal with a statute that would deal with something that has been properly protected in this country for over 100 years. The Conservatives don't believe in environmental protection, and that's why they want to remove it.

You admit that there will be changes to the triggers for environmental assessment. That was leaked a few weeks ago. We made it public. The plan is to reduce environmental assessments as a function of the value of the infrastructure being put into place, as if the protection of a precious wetland had something to do with the value of what you put on top of it. Ten million dollars is the cut-off. If you destroy a precious wetland for infrastructure worth $9.5 million, somehow that becomes okay. It's not okay. That's why we have a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Your anecdote about your North Channel Bridge makes me want to know about the effect of the exclusion of the current Navigable Waters Protection Act--we keep saying navigable waters act, but it's the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I'd love to know what the exclusion of the St. Lawrence Seaway--because it's obviously a continuity of that--has to do with your anecdote about the North Channel Bridge. Perhaps you could provide some of that in writing.

Coming here and pleading the backlog of cases as an excuse to go on and on about the more flexible process is a purely partisan political argument and has nothing to do with the facts. Saying that you're here to streamline is a purely partisan political argument that has nothing to do with the facts. Saying that financial opportunities are being lost is their line. They're elected. They put their pictures up on telephone poles and they were elected to do a partisan political job. You didn't.

Welcome to the debate, Mr. Osbaldeston. If you want to play politics, welcome to the debate.

They're right; this is a scandal, removing a hundred years of protection that Canadians have fought for. There are several signal pieces of legislation in this country we can be proud of, and this is one of them. They don't believe in it. They're removing it.

People, like some of the ones who have spoken, are trying to give themselves a little bit of leeway in their own ridings in the north by trying to say that they did what they could, and that's not what the statute did, and we brought the guy in to tell us that it wasn't the case.

It is the case, Mr. Osbaldeston, because only a very naïve person would believe that with the type of opening at the breaches and the enabling provisions here for coming up with rules and regulations that will allow the creation of categories--that is not a tiered approval process. That's the ability to gut the essential elements of this statute. That's what this is about, and that's why we're opposed to it, and that's why you should have been more forthcoming in your assessment before this committee. I don't agree with the fact that an officer of the civil service—un grand comis de l'État, as we would say in French—should be used to come in here and spin a purely partisan political line. I don't agree with that at all.

I would now like to ask Mr. Edwards if, in his opinion, the wording of the amendments to the enabling provisions for the making of regulations potentially opens the door to the all-out destruction of the protection afforded Canada's navigable waters?

8:05 p.m.

Domestic Development Director, CanoeKayak Canada

John Edwards

I apologize. I'll have to respond in English.

I'm not a lawyer. I apologize. I'm a paddler.

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

So am I.

8:05 p.m.

Domestic Development Director, CanoeKayak Canada

John Edwards

I'm also a municipal politician, by the way, so I know about roads, bridges, culverts, and beavers.

We're deeply concerned about the amendments in the act. We're deeply concerned about not being consulted. I'm sorry if I'm not answering your question directly.

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

It's good.

8:05 p.m.

Domestic Development Director, CanoeKayak Canada

John Edwards

We do serve on the standing committee on recreational boating, which deals with safety issues. Those are our primary concerns with regard to this legislation.

I feel somewhat caught between two railway trains. Over there, there's an opinion and suggestions that there's no change, yet everything I've read suggests that there are substantial changes. I feel there's an enormous lack of communication. As I stated in my initial statement, we do wish to improve the legislation, if at all possible, but we do need to be part of that process.

8:05 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

I can only tell you that we will be fighting hard to have it decoupled from Bill C-10. It deserves another analysis.

Go ahead, Mr. Mattson.

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Mr. Mattson, do you want to respond very briefly?

8:05 p.m.

President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Mark Mattson

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, like you, I've been an environmental lawyer for 20 years. I've worked at 50, 60, or 70 hearings. I've also done criminal, parole, and prison law, and immigration law. There's always work that goes with getting approvals.

Mr. MacLaren could probably phone me up and I could help him with a few pictures and a call to Transport Canada. We could probably resolve his problem, along with the other thousands. You don't need to overthrow the right in Canada that government--not the politicians but government--go to the public to get their consent when navigable rights get taken away or when they're infringed upon. That's what the Navigable Waters Protection Act currently gives Canadians.

Mr. Osbaldeston may be correct in that he will still consider all the changes, but his consideration and that of the Government of Canada is much different from that where you have to go to the public in order to get that consent. That's the difference in the bill: it turns a right into a discretionary decision.

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Storseth?

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Out of respect for my colleague Mr. Mulcair, I waited until the end of his tirade to bring this up. I do believe that under Marleau and Montpetit the House of Commons and parliamentarians are guided by a code of language, both in the House and in all adjuncts of the parliamentary precinct. I believe we also extend that to the witnesses we bring before us.

I should think that we would have a common code of decency to not be calling.... I do believe it's unparliamentary to call anybody who comes before us liars or to accuse them of such things. I do wish this committee to continue in a respectful manner. We can discuss the different ideological viewpoints, but this is a piece of legislation that's good for all the people in this country, particularly in my riding.

Thank you.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

On the same point of order, Mr. Mulcair.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I said was that the affirmations made by Mr. Osbaldeston were not true. That is a question of fact, and I maintain it, and I will not withdraw it.

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Yes, I would certainly agree with Mr. Storseth that we want to be respectful and rule by decorum, but I did not hear Mr. Mulcair call Mr. Osbaldeston a liar. That was my hearing of the case.

I know this is a very tense subject, and obviously there are strong feelings on both sides, but I would encourage him to continue to be respectful.

We'll go to Mr. Volpe now.

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I really didn't have a speech to make, but I wanted to pursue the line of questioning I had before, if you'll forgive the diversion back to a different approach.

I was more interested in what Mr. Amos and Mr. Edwards said. Again, I go back to what I indicated earlier on, without any false humility. I think I am reflective of the people who actually worked on the committee to try to get to the heart of the matter. I think Ms. Tully, who came as one of the witnesses, would probably say that members around the table were really trying to come up with an appropriate report. Whether they succeeded is another matter.

There are two things I've heard that caused me some concern. One is that the language suggests that parliamentarians are poised to take away rights of Canadians without having consulted with them. I'm concerned because it puts me in the position of someone who is ready to take away a right that's been enjoyed. I'm not in government, so I'll leave that responsibility to the people on the other side.

We do represent Canadians and we did go through a consultation process. I'm not sure it's very helpful to think in terms of whether rights were being removed.

I want to ask that question again, maybe to Mr. Amos and Mr. Osbaldeston, because I asked this question once before when representatives from Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and I believe, Newfoundland and Labrador—although I may be wrong on that one—and the various municipalities and organizations of municipalities came forward, and that is this. If Transport Canada receives a report that suggested it could make changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act consistent with what is now on the table, does that in any way derogate from the authority of Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and the other provinces to conduct their studies and come up with a negative response?

8:15 p.m.

Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport

David Osbaldeston

No, not in any way.

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

And if it does not, then Mr. Amos—assuming that Mr. Osbaldeston is giving us a perception that reflects reality—if those subsequent assessments are negative, does that take away Canadians' right to enjoy the navigable waters in the way they currently do?

8:15 p.m.

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

William Amos

Thanks for the question. I'll try to—

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Is it yes or no?

8:15 p.m.

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

William Amos

I think it does incrementally take away rights of navigation, and I'll explain how.