Transport Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Marc Grégoire]

In 2003 it was transferred back to Transport Canada.

I think we're making—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

So you've hired a person per year since then, because you had an increase of five people—if you want to go back to 2003.

[Marc Grégoire]

We're making the most efficient use of the resources we have, and these pamphlets are a way of reducing the pressure on our inspectors, so they can focus on the more significant pieces of work.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Have you approached the minister about increasing your staffing component? Has that request been made to the minister?

[Marc Grégoire]

Normally, when we discuss resources, we do that in-house, and the resources are allocated after comparing competing priorities within the department.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I understand that, but has the department made a request to the minister to increase the staffing component to deal with this situation?

[Marc Grégoire]

We've made a number of requests in various modes and in various organizations within Transport Canada over the years, but I didn't think we were here to debate the specific budget.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

But the evidence right in front of me now is that it's a matter of resources to clear off some of these cases, and the resources aren't getting to the department. If that's the case, I think it's something we need to discuss while we are looking at—

[Marc Grégoire]

Sir, the answer is not to throw in a whole bunch of inspectors; that will not resolve this problem. The answer is not there. The answer is that there is one place where there is a clear need for more resources across the country, and it's in the environmental impact assessment group, and we are looking at various options for that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Until you actually have legislation changed, would it not be helpful to have an increase in inspectors to clear off the backlog? You're simply saying it's acceptable for people to wait up to two years because we don't have the resources. I mean, there are two--

[Marc Grégoire]

No. We think it's more efficient to have more of these policies there and to exclude other work. For instance, we're working now on some new policies, which we hope to finalize in a few months, to help with work done on the properties of farmers.

Today, if a farmer wants to build a little bridge over a creek in which there's water only in the summer, he has to ask for an environmental--

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I can appreciate the review for all the different reasons you've put out, but again, to get legislation and hear consultation and make people wait simply because of that, as opposed to putting in more people to be able to clear the backlog....

We routinely do this in other types of departments, in immigration and other things of that nature, when there's been a need or a requirement. In employment insurance there's been an increase in the staffing component to at least clear up the backlogs. Your position now is that until legislation changes, you'll make people wait.

[David Osbaldeston]

We're currently reviewing our program in conjunction with our environmental assessment group and our aboriginal consultation group--because we three interact, as you can tell from our paperwork, on virtually every single file--to determine, with the resources we currently have on hand, how we can most efficiently and effectively discharge our responsibilities to Canadians.

For purposes of hiring, to bring on the numbers of staff we would need to deal with this load would take us a year or a year and a half. We don't need to meet that load if we change the legislation. We don't need to have excess staff on board once the legislation is changed. We need to have a reasonable complement to do what Canadians expect and to deal with the new responsibilities that the act would bring to us.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I don't disagree with that, but the reality is that although legislation could come quickly, it may not come at all. It's good that you're going through some other types of mechanisms to improve the situation, but I find it hard to believe that...this is a staffing component that would be successful to move through the system.

I want to move on quickly to another question--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Actually, I'm going to have to stop you there.

We'll go to Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming out.

I'm interested to know that you've been working in the background for a year and a half or so and that the minister has taken the initiative. Quite honestly, all of us around this table know that something has to be done with the antiquated act we have in front of us.

I'm wondering about the process a little bit. My background is in Ontario. Not only was I a farmer in the past, but I was also a municipal mayor. I can tell you that in both venues there's a fairly significant level of frustration. It's not necessarily people understanding the navigable waterways legislation, but also the reference that comes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, trying to follow that particular legislation.

Can you just help, though, with the process a little bit? What we're trying to do here is understand the duplication we have in place, which causes the high cost of projects because of the delay. Quite honestly, all of us are here to understand responsible environmental concerns. We can't sweep that under the rug. It will be an issue, and responsible environmental concerns have to be addressed.

Can you just help us a little bit? We have municipalities, the provinces, territories, and the federal government. From the federal government come transportation and DFO. Can you help us a little bit with the process, so that it's on the record? Maybe people will understand the process we have and how we can simplify it, in short.

[David Osbaldeston]

Sure. An application for anything arrives in the door.... Is this the process you're speaking of, Mr. Shipley?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Yes.

[David Osbaldeston]

An application will arrive in the door at a government department that has a potential responsibility. It could come in initially through a Fisheries and Oceans application because there's a concern or knowledge on the part of the proponent that there is fish habitat involved. Most things that go in the water have fish habitat involved. In the case of pipelines, it could come through the National Energy Board, where an initial notice of project comes through. We'll just call it a notice of project, as opposed to an application.

As government departments, we share information amongst ourselves. Those government departments that receive the application take a look at the project proposal. They say, well, there are a bunch of other departments that will be implicated by this, an interest in those departments that it should be reviewed. They take those and they refer them out. It could be through the environmental CEAA, the environmental agency process as part of a CEAA review, or it could be from regulator to regulator, passing the information over. We work quite closely with Fisheries and Oceans.

Once those departments have those pieces, each of the regulators look under their particular legislation at their regulatory authority to make a decision. In our case, it would be with respect to navigational concerns, as to whether or not the project imposes either substantial or very little interference to navigation, and, depending on what it does, if we can find a way to make the project go and approve the project with certain terms and conditions. If we can, we generate the approval. If we can't, an approval is not issued.

Meanwhile, while we're doing that work, in the case where an environmental assessment is required, you will have the environment assessment agency involved--relative to posting the environmental assessment requirement and information pertaining to review of those materials--and you'll have the fisheries department looking at the fish and habitat concerns associated with the project. You may have other departments, depending on what the project is.

All of that material, which ultimately comes together under an environmental assessment indicator, or an environmental assessment, where it's been called upon and required, would come out as either a positive or a negative. We would get the results of that environmental assessment, in our particular case, where called upon. If the environmental assessment comes out as negative, we cannot, by law, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, issue our approval. If it comes out with a positive and we have a positive navigational capability here, based on certain terms and conditions, then we would issue our approval. That's generally the normal course of action. Fisheries, as well, issues a letter of authorization or other documents associated with the fisheries. All of it glues together for the proponent.

There's no doubt that there are about four or five different areas at times--government departments--that need to make a determination or a review. We would hope, under a new piece of legislation--and I think it's identified within our guideline document--that we could start to delegate some of our authorities in carrying out those functions.

When we were with Fisheries a while ago, prior to 2003, we actually started that, by cross-training fisheries officers and our officers. We could do some habitat assessments for them and they could do some navigational assessments for us, on the smaller projects where extensive qualifications and knowledge base were not required,and based on certain criteria that we would cross-train each other on.

We've transformed that now, in our department, to these minor works policies. We're actually having the proponents self-assess themselves in certain areas. But we would hope with the new legislation, as identified within the guidance document, that we would be able to get a capability to delegate certain authorities to other agencies, such as fisheries officers and perhaps some municipal inspectors. We don't know exactly to what level we'd take it. That is something that would have to be discussed and consulted upon.

Right now, we don't have the capability to do that within our legislation. It does not provide it, because back in 1882 when it was developed, you just didn't do that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Could there be a delegation of authorities that would go not just to municipalities but to provinces and territories to actually reduce duplication?

[David Osbaldeston]

I personally don't see why that can't happen if they would be willing to take it on. I think the biggest obstacle, in a way, is our legislation, and the last modification, amendment, or change doesn't allow it. We'd love to do it.

Indeed, we've got many agencies that we work with hand in hand. There are associations such as the forestry industry, the pipeline industry--they're out there self-regulating themselves in certain areas, doing their own evaluations on behalf of other regulating bodies on a regular basis. We'd be willing, and they've told us, to take some of that on, but we just don't have the mechanism to do it within our legislation.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

You spoke earlier about high-priority projects. Some of these may not be associated with smaller agricultural or municipal projects. They may not be as significant to those individuals or municipalities. I suspect they do not rank very high on the priority list. How does this get dealt with? Am I assessing this correctly?

[David Osbaldeston]

There lies the frustration of the farmer who wants to put a culvert in to get drainage from one field to another, or the municipality that's having great difficulty and simply wants to repair a bridge.

I do not understand, in our legislation, why we would treat a foot bridge going over a golf course creek the same as the Confederation Bridge going to P.E.I. Why should we have to run them through the same process? It doesn't make sense. In a similar vein, your five-foot culvert between two farmers' fields requires the same process.

How does it get dealt with now? For the most part, for the little stuff, people don't apply. It breeds non-compliance with the legislation. So by rights their work is unlawful. It's illegal, and they're criminals. And I'm not saying that to be facetious.

The trick is, we don't want to be in the little-stuff business. We think that with the little stuff, if you tell people how to do it, they'll do it correctly and up front. If they don't, we want the capability to act. If we find out that there is a problem, through complaint or our own inspection, we need to be able to go in and regulate it to see that it's corrected and made safe. That's how it should be done.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Yes, the weekend fixes are not what we want to have happening.

[David Osbaldeston]

No.