Transport Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I just want to make that very clear.

I was also very attracted by some references around this table to removing some of the red tape that presently stands in the way of a timely development approval process. Can you comment on the kinds of applications you think will receive faster approval by moving toward a more streamlined act?

[David Osbaldeston]

I'll try to put it into context here.

We'll talk about Infrastructure Canada and the building funds. Let's say you're going to re-deck a bridge that's been there for 40 years and the bridge was approved when it went in. In re-decking that bridge, you're not hanging anything underneath it and there's no scaffolding there, so why are you coming to us? You're just on top; you're not changing the structure or diminishing the envelope of the navigational channel underneath it.

On building small bridges over those little creeks and waterways, right now if you refurbish a highway and replace all the culverts, every culvert that you can stick a canoe or kayak in, regardless of whether the culvert is five feet long or 500 feet long.... Even if it were 500 feet long but only 20 feet high, I don't know many people who canoe or kayak who would want to go through that culvert. For those sorts of projects, as long as we can establish the type of criteria whereby navigation could be reasonably anticipated or expected....

Projects that fall outside of that, and ones that do not affect the navigational channel that already exists for refurbishment, alteration, or repair would be streamlined. Under this new style of legislation we propose a tiered approach to our approval system based on perceived ultimate impact to navigation: no impact, no process; little impact, little process; big impact, big process. We would be able to define for you exactly what those levels of process would entail from both an overall time standpoint and a performance standpoint on our part.

On the cost-recovery aspect, I have gone across the country talking to all these associations listed here and average Canadians with concerns. All of those people expected that we had fees associated with our approval processes, because that's the course. We have the only building permit I'm aware of that's absolutely free of charge, although in the Mackenzie Valley it might cost $1,000 in chopper time and over $20,000 to take one flight to look at something. But they expect it and are surprised we don't have it.

When you can start assessing these costs against the level of service provided, which you have to in accordance with the User Fees Act, if we don't meet the level of service, we can't charge Canadians the cost. It forces us to be honest. It provides clarity to the situation for our proponents, and ultimately it's just better government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, you're the only person on the committee without questions. You have five minutes. Then we'll go to a round of questioning by everyone.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You mean I'm the only member who hasn't asked questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely. Sorry. You have many.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Well, I have a few anyway, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Thank you to our departmental officials.

Of course, an initiative like this may be important to municipalities of all sizes, but I can tell you that improvements will be very important to smaller municipalities, particularly to rural municipalities.

We have a number of projects. I can think of two that came forward to the department. One was for a pedestrian pathway bridge over what could generously be called a ditch, but it was a large enough waterway, if you will, to have a railway trestle a few hundred feet upstream. The pedestrian bridge had higher clearance than the rail trestle, and they still haven't received approval, and I think we're into our second year of waiting for something like this.

In one of my other municipalities, at one of the major ingress/egress points in the community, they had to repair a bridge over a small creek. It took them many, many months to get approval. Of course, traffic reroutes around the town were quite significant.

There are a lot of issues for our municipalities to deal with, and of course they're raising their hands saying this is crazy, there should be a much more sensible process.

You've provided, in your guidance, a document to this committee. You were able to outline for us how many applications you've received, how many applications have been processed, and how many environmental assessments have been conducted.

Can you tell this committee how many of those applications are for what you'd call minor works or minor projects versus large, major infrastructure types? It can be a percentage; it doesn't have to be a number. Are we talking about 80% of what you deal with being minor things and 20% being major things?

[Marc Grégoire]

We're not able to do it, but we'll try, because the information comes from five administrative regions throughout the country. So we have to gather the information. We already committed at the beginning to Monsieur Masse to come back with more information on how many we refuse. So we'll try to provide the committee with more information at large and with more of a breakdown and more ways to look at this data.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm a little disappointed, because you've already anticipated a tiered approval process, which you're talking to us about. So you obviously have some idea of the nature of the projects coming through.

[David Osbaldeston]

Mr. Watson, this is strictly off the top of my head, but if we have three tiers, say 30%, 30%, and 30% and you're doing pretty well. But you know, for the 30% of 40 staff members out there, that time and effort wouldn't have to go to the lowest tier because those projects would be treated as minor works--as long as you do this, no need to apply. That level of effort subsequently applied to those major projects at level one, which we already know are coming on strong with the infrastructure fund and with the mining and energy development stuff we have to look at, goes a long way towards a serious improvement.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Over the century, courts have expanded the definition of navigable waterways. If we were to narrow the definition, do you have any idea as to what types of waterways or what classes of waterways could be defined out, if you will, as you set the parameters for what a navigable waterway is?

[David Osbaldeston]

Yes, we do. As a start, I think I alluded earlier to our minor waterways policy, which is just about ready to be put in place.

If it winds back and forth so often that it takes you a week to go five feet forward, there's no need to apply, because nobody's going to want to do that. It just doesn't make sense. If there's so much natural deadfall across the waterway or so many natural obstructions in the water that you're portaging more than you're in your boat, there's no need to apply. If the depth of the particular waterway for the bulk of the year--and we have measures for this--is so minimal that you won't be there, there's no need to apply.

We started with five. We actually had the Forest Products Association of Canada test this in the field for us. Could they self-measure this and therefore self-regulate? They came back last summer and gave us some input. We've modified it, and I think we're working now on six.

It wouldn't be that you would hit, for example, one criteria and then pull yourself off. When we say no need to apply, we're taking it off that navigability map forever. So you have to hit two, not just one, criteria. You'd have to hit two. That's what we're working with right now as our proposed policy statement on this. That would create, for example, that lowest level of approval in that new world we envision.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

If I understand this correctly, you wouldn't be excluding, say, ditches. You would be excluding things based on their current navigability. You wouldn't exclude a class of waterways. You would exclude waterways of various classes based on their navigability. Is that what I'm understanding?

[David Osbaldeston]

No. We would be classifying the waterway based on its capability to actually entice navigation, and the bottom line is that it doesn't entice navigation.

We also have another policy, which we're just about ready to drop, on drainage ditches. If it wasn't built for purposes of navigation, if it is not wide or deep enough to support navigation, if it cannot accept navigation the year round, then it's not a waterway suitable for navigation and there's no need to apply.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

With the time we have left, we will have a series of rounds.

I have Monsieur Laframboise, Mr. Maloney, and Mr. Masse.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to quickly address the subject of wrecks. No doubt you have read some articles about an airplane that crashed in Lac Simon. The story received extensive media coverage. Apparently, a float plane crashed 50 years ago and the wreck containing the skeletal remains of three people was discovered last fall. I seem to recall reading that Transport Canada would not be taking on the job of salvaging the wreck. Why is that?

[David Osbaldeston]

That actually falls under our Canada Shipping Act and receiver of wreck, so it's a different jurisdiction.

In that particular situation, if somebody found it and wanted to pull the plane up, we would deal with the salvor. But we would first be dealing with whoever owned the plane and the families to determine how they're going to extract the remains onboard. Only after this had been done would we be dealing with the salvor to actually salvage the aircraft. This would be under the receiver of wreck function.

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

Otherwise, we leave the remains there. If no one claims the bodies, then we leave them be.

[David Osbaldeston]

Yes, if it doesn't cause any interference to navigation.

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

I understand.

My final question concerns the bridge on Autoroute 25. Earlier, my colleague asked a question about this structure. If Quebec applies for a permit, to ensure legislative compliance, can it begin construction without the actual permit in hand, or must this permit be issued before the work can start?

[David Osbaldeston]

It's unlawful to commence work without Navigable Waters Protection Act approval.

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

I understand. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Maloney.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

From your discussion this morning, it's apparent that you've had some preliminary consultations with someone. Was there a report prepared, and would you share it with us?

[David Osbaldeston]

Over the course of the last year and a half we've been working quite extensively within the program to pull together comments, issues, concerns, and recommendations from the Canadian public and our industrial clients in the event that we need to consider new legislation. We have completed this work, and we have some pretty substantive reference materials. These would be made available to the committee, should the committee wish to take this task on for us. The materials include a public consultation document and discussion paper, which we've drafted for public consultation. The paper contains a clause-by-clause analysis of the current legislation as well as remedial recommendations and our reasons for them. All of this would be made available to the committee for further review. As experts on the subject, we would be pleased to discuss this matter with the committee.