Evidence of meeting #13 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was navigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
I can't speak to that. I'm just facetiously giving you the example that we would take a look at the size of the dock. As opposed to the aesthetic aspect, we would determine whether or not the length of the dock was substantially interfering with navigation and if possible find a way to work around it.
February 12th, 2008 / 12:30 p.m.
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
Our criterion is navigational safety, not aesthetics.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
So if the municipality wanted to object to the aesthetic impact, who would it speak to?
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
I don't know.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
So you're basically saying you have the authority, but aesthetics isn't one of your criteria.
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
It's not one of our criteria. They go through building permits to put these things in the water, so I would just assume they are looking at that.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
I have to specify, related to your question, that we have a policy and therefore a little pamphlet on docks. It specifies the maximum size and at what distance a dock can be built. If a private owner meets the criteria there, he can build his dock without ever talking to us, and we're happy.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
No, your time is up, Mr. Bell.
Just further to that, I've experienced instances where neither the municipality nor the community jurisdiction would intervene on a dock that was being applied for. Basically that person was left in limbo with nobody taking responsibility. So what you're saying to me is very confusing.
Mr. Fast.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
In your departmental briefing documents that each one of us has received, you refer to the current legislation as being a command-and-control type of legislation. Could you expand on that a little bit?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
We're trying to come up with performance-based legislation and regulation. This one is extremely prescriptive. It tells you exactly what you need to do, and there's no margin for manoeuvres. In a nutshell, that's what we mean.
We would like to move this to a performance-based piece of legislation.
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
I can give you some hard examples of that, and it's referred to in the document. Our act, not our regulations, tells you that you must deposit your plans with the public land registry offices. There are no longer public land registry offices in many jurisdictions. In order to change that requirement, we have to change our act.
Our act tells you that every proponent—the guy who wants to put the dock in front of the cottage or the swim raft out for this kids—is going to have to post ads in two local papers and the Canada Gazette, at his cost. Very few people read the Canada Gazette, and in some areas there aren't two local newspapers. So again, we are setting them up for not applying.
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
It tells this in the act, not in the regulations. So in order to change that requirement, we need to change the act.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
So the legislation you would like to see come into force would provide the department with greater flexibility to adapt to a changing environment through regulation, as opposed to having to change the act. Is that correct?
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
Absolutely. Perhaps not even through regulation, perhaps through administrative policies and procedures, memorandums of agreement, or agreements for delegation of authority with other jurisdictions. But we need to change the act to allow us that flexibility. The act of 1882 didn't know anything about smart regulation or about streamlining regulations. It was looking after rivers as highways and only for commercial purposes.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Let me just talk a little bit about the environmental process. There's been a fair bit of discussion here. I still don't quite understand it. Is an environmental assessment something your department is charged with? Is it something the ministry of the environment is responsible for?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
It depends on the project. If it's a very small project, we will do it ourselves in Transport Canada. If it's a little bigger project, it may involve only two departments: maybe only Fisheries and us. If it's a little bigger still, it may involve four departments, and the lead may be with another department. So it really depends on the project, the scope and size of the project.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
But you're not specifically charged with protecting our fisheries resource.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Absolutely not.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I want to make sure we don't raise expectations, because there are communities right across this country where there have been ongoing battles between municipal councils, farmers, and DFO when it comes to protection of the fisheries resource. These are farmers who have dug ditches to improve drainage, and now those drainage ditches have become water courses, essentially attracting initiatives that are intended to protect fisheries resources.
That is not going to change DFO's position on those kinds of issues.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
No, not at all.