Transport Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

That's nice. I don't know if there are that many hours in the day.

[Marc Grégoire]

It was also specified—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have heard something about the Liberals taking us down in the near future for an election, so you never know what can happen.

I'm wondering if the department has a short list of low-hanging fruit that may be available. For instance, my understanding from reading some of the material is that a change in the definition of “navigable waterways” might be one way to do that, as would a list excluding some areas.

Does the department have low-hanging fruit or quick fixes that would be of a temporary or permanent nature, which could be done quickly? Is there some low-hanging fruit that this committee could grab and put into legislation and make a change that would help?

[Marc Grégoire]

Yes, absolutely there is, and that could be the recommendation the committee would set forth. But rather than doing some patchwork on this very old piece of legislation, we would really prefer to promulgate a new act and to delete this one entirely.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand, and I would ask that the department provide the committee in writing with that low-hanging fruit. I understand what the department is saying, and I agree, but at this stage there are so many variables. Quite frankly, this is the number one complaint I get in my riding in northern Alberta. I've heard that from many other people, from Quebec to New Brunswick to B.C., that this is the number one complaint. This is where the federal government is not doing the job. I would prefer to see a fix, rather than waiting three, four, or five years to have it happen.

[Marc Grégoire]

Our experience in the past with amending legislation is that if we open a piece of legislation for some quick fix, our chances of getting back for a big look at it are very slim. We think there are so many problems, it's really worthwhile to do a major overhaul to this act.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I only have two minutes left. I do understand that, Mr. Grégoire, but I would appreciate a list of those quick fixes, just for the committee's information.

The second line of questioning I would like to pursue is the issue of abandonment that was brought up earlier. I use the rivers and lakes a lot in northern Alberta. In fact, just about every weekend I go camping with a jet boat, and I find boats abandoned. It's very common. In fact, my Conservative association has what we call “clean up Canada day”, on which we go into the river valleys and clean up barrels, grocery carts.... It's unbelievable the number of things people leave. We have hundreds of volunteers who do that, and it's a very good effort. But no matter what dent we make, we find that the next year it's back.

I believe in the “polluter pays” principle. Has the department looked at some way of making those people who allow, for instance, grocery carts or fast food refuse or things like that...making them pay to clean it up, using some sort of a refund scheme? Is there some way to make them liable for that? This is a huge issue to Canadians, not just from a beautification perspective, but the long-term environmental impact to the fish stocks and to the habitats is also tremendous.

[David Osbaldeston]

If the item is in the water and posing a hazard to navigation and an owner can be found, we process that. Most times, that's not the case. I think what you're really speaking of is stuff on the shoreline, and that's outside of our jurisdiction.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Is it within the mandate of this legislation that it could possibly become part of that jurisdiction?

[David Osbaldeston]

Again, we're looking for vessels for the most part here. Vessels and other man-made obstructions to navigation are covered for the waterway. When we start talking about the shoreline cleanup...again, the target of this was vessels, which are obviously within the Transport mandate.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I do understand that, but it seems as though there's a no man's land somewhere in between, and nobody has taken responsibility for it. I don't like creating more government, but if there's no responsibility for it, it seems that it's a no-brainer as far as fixing it.

My understanding is that under the Canada Shipping Act, a vessel is not considered abandoned until it's actually been 12 months. So under the Canada Shipping Act, somebody can go in and grab a vessel that's been abandoned, but it has to be 12 whole months or 18 months—I think it's 12 months—and then they can go in and grab that vessel. For instance, I've seen jet boats in 12 feet of water, underneath the water because they've gone over rapids, and somebody just leaves them there. They take the registration and stuff so nobody can find it, or they actually leave a snowmobile out in the middle of a river because they broke through the ice. They just won't go and get it because there's no value to them.

[David Osbaldeston]

As part of our navigable waters protection program, we also regulate under the Canada Shipping Act as the receiver of wreck for Canada. Those items are covered under that particular jurisdiction and legislation. It's not so much that they have to stay there for 12 months; they have to turn the items into the receiver of wreck for Canada. If no owner is found after 12 months, it can be disposed of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question to Mr. Grégoire with respect to the timing. You say the minister would like a report in June 2008. The problem with the time is that we have to do our rail safety report. We're waiting for that report to come in, and then we want to have adequate discussions. I'm looking at the legislative calendar between now and the normal summer break—forgetting the fact that my colleagues may lay a trap to cause an election—and my concern is that we don't really have time to start touring the countryside. We're waiting to consider that rail safety report and then decide what we want to do further. Do you have any indication as to when that might be?

Secondly, I would support the low-hanging fruit approach that Mr. Jean suggested as an alternative to that. Then perhaps we can come back in the fall to get serious about this and do the proper public meetings that are being suggested.

I'd like a comment on that first, and then I have some other questions.

[Marc Grégoire]

With respect to the first question, the report should be ready in a few weeks. The minister should be able to make it public before the end of the winter. I don't have an exact date yet, but it is the intention to render the report public this winter. So with winter ending March 21, that's a few weeks away.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I thought that report was supposed to have been received by last December.

[Marc Grégoire]

It had to be translated and it had to be printed. This is being done now.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I see. Okay.

The next question is with respect to a comment I heard from Mr. Osbaldeston about the sequencing of departmental approvals. You indicated that your input goes into the environment ministry's assessment. I thought I heard you say earlier that you do an assessment and you get the environmental report. If the environmental report is yes, then you look at it from your point of view and say yes or no. If the environmental report is no, then it doesn't matter what your recommendation is because they have priority in terms of protection. Yet you're saying your report goes into their report. Can you explain that to me?

[David Osbaldeston]

Sure. I understand the confusion, because it's very confusing how these various pieces of legislation work.

We do our navigational assessment and provide it as part of the environmental assessment. The impact a project has upon navigation is one of the components of an environmental assessment, but we're only one of many components that is evaluated under that environmental assessment.

If in the overall picture of the environmental assessment, from all the information gathered on all of those components, the decision is made that the project proposes no substantive impact to the environment and therefore a recommendation is positive on an environmental assessment, at that point, if we wish, we can issue an approval document.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I see. Okay.

What about private wharves within port areas? I'm thinking of greater Vancouver now, the Vancouver Port Authority, and the private wharves in my riding of North Vancouver, which are adjacent to residential properties. Because they're not part of the port operation, do they come under your jurisdiction?

[David Osbaldeston]

That's correct. If they're not part of the port operation, if they're not constructed by the port for the port, they are under our jurisdiction.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

My understanding is that the ones in North Vancouver have been licensed by the port. That's the water lot leases, or whatever is required. Is that something separate and different?

[David Osbaldeston]

We don't deal in leases. We are approving the actual construction and placement of the work.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

And would aesthetics be considered a factor from a municipal point of view? I'm a former mayor, and the residents were concerned because of the low tide aspect and because of the eel grass, or whatever it is. Some people wanted to run these docks out 100 feet into the water.

[David Osbaldeston]

A 100-foot dock on a 105-foot river is not a good idea.