Transport Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

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

The fact remains that these applications must be reviewed. Unless your table is not accurate, you received 4,000 applications in 1999 and 4,2000 in 2000. That means you receive more applications than you ultimately approve. Regardless of what you are saying, or whether it is over a two-year period, the fact remains that many applications are not approved.

The problem is simple. You would like the committee to hold cross-country consultations and make a stop in Quebec. However, given that you reject anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 applications each year, environmental groups will be asking me to intervene on their behalf. I wonder if you really want to stir everything up. I do not have a problem with consulting people. Really, I would be happy to do that. But seriously, there are groups listed here — associations like the Transportation Association of Canada — that could send representatives here to Ottawa. If we decide to travel, then we will need to hear from everyone, including those who asked you to intervene. Often these are environmental groups.

I am willing to hold cross-country consultations, if that is what the Conservatives want. I do not have a problem with that, but then we will hear from anyone. If 4,000 applications were received and 2,000 rejected, that means that some people wanted you to step in and would be happy to have you do so.

[Marc Grégoire]

Both sides are pressuring us where the act is concerned. Those wanting to build infrastructures are exerting a great deal of pressure on us. They are complaining that the process is not moving forward fast enough. Pressure is also coming from some environmental groups that use the act for environmental purposes more so than for projects. Opponents will seize this opportunity to express their opposition to projects requiring an environmental assessment.

Yes, some applications are refused, but a certain number are also sent back to the applicants, who are advised that their project requires neither an application nor approval by us.

On that note, we have prepared a number of pamphlets on policies arising from subsection 5(2) of the act that we will be forwarding to the committee. Several exempt categories were agreed on several years ago. People are not aware of these exemptions when they file an application to build a dock at their cottage. We inform them that they are not required to file an application if they comply with the standards for this type of work: for instance, if the build does not exceed certain dimensions, if it is located a certain distance from the neighbouring lot, if it extends no further than a certain number of metres from the shoreline, and so forth.

Many projects, however, drag on for several years and never come to anything. We receive applications for projects that never come to fruition. We often receive applications to build a particular infrastructure, although nothing ever comes of the project. The statistics do not take situations like this into account.

There are three categories of exempt projects: those that have been refused, those for which no application is required, or those that are extended or withdrawn by the applicant.

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

I have no problem with coming up with a new definition of navigable waters under federal jurisdiction. Provinces and, often, municipalities must comply with standards in the case of certain types of projects. However, there is no need to do a cross-country tour in order to come up with this definition. That is where I have a problem. You are asking us to conduct extensive consultations, whereas your document has clearly identified the problems. You have even made recommendations to address each of these problems. Therefore, you seem ready to go forward with a bill at this time.

[Marc Grégoire]

Of course we can always draft and table a bill, but traditionally extensive consultations are held in the case of each piece of draft legislation.

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

Really now. That is funny!

[Marc Grégoire]

Traditionally that is how we work. For example, the Aeronautics Act, one of the last pieces of legislation you examined, was the subject of extensive consultations with over 700 groups across Canada.

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

I agree, but these consultations were not conducted by the committee.

[Marc Grégoire]

No, but consultations are commonplace. It is not up to us to dictate to the committee how to conduct consultations. The committee can choose to invite people here to give testimony, or it can opt to conduct cross-Canada consultations. That is the committee's prerogative. In my opinion, both approaches have merit. I am confident that groups from across the country would travel here to make representations to the committee.

If you did decide to hold cross-country consultations, as we have seen in the case of different bills recently tabled, then we think you may have to stop in at least thirty different locations in Canada to consult with groups about the bill. That may be too much for the committee, but it is not my call. All of the options have merit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

According to the statistics here, what is your percentage of applications that are refused?

[David Osbaldeston]

I don't have a specific percentage, but I did want to address that point. Very few applications are refused actually; it is very, very low. I don't have the number on that, but our job is to attempt to find ways to share the use of the waterways and therefore to work with proponents, to work with Canadians who just want to build a dock or put a swim raft out front, to find a way to do it safely. I am pleased to say that through the expertise of our officers we normally find a way.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, if that's the case, then how do you explain your statistics when you say that in 2002, for example, you didn't get to more than half of them, and then in 2003, again, you didn't get to more than half of them? What happens to all of those files?

[David Osbaldeston]

Again, we have a group that comes in and carries over. We have a group of files that is completed that following year, and we have new ones that arrive.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

If you look at your chart, though, that doesn't logically make sense, because you never catch up. Every year, even if you're rolling them two years ahead, by this chart, you still never catch up.

[David Osbaldeston]

I cannot agree with you more.

As a matter of fact, with all of our clients that we list here and every single one of our stakeholder groups, there are two things they comment on. And it doesn't matter whether you're the provincial authority, the municipal authority, or the guy who just wants to put the dock in front of the cottage, they comment on the delay. The delay is usually—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's not my question.

My question is related to your statistics here, which don't appear to be accurate. If you follow your logic, that you do actually complete just about every file, that you do reach a conclusion at the end of the day for the vast majority of your files, given the number you have each year, even if you just move them one or two years in advance, they still don't add up to these numbers.

How many files does the department have right now that you can't get to because you physically don't have the staff to get to them? Maybe that would be a better way to get that number.

[David Osbaldeston]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can tell you that the second concern of all of our clients and our staff is the backlog. The backlog is severe; the backlog is what causes the delay. Each of our officers has in excess of 100 files they must be working on each year.

[Marc Grégoire]

We will provide you with more information about this.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, because it just doesn't make sense. According to this, if you have double the files, they just compound and compound, but we're not seeing that shown here.

If I could go to the staffing levels, what is your current staffing to deal with this type of process? What are your staffing levels right now?

[David Osbaldeston]

Across the country we have approximately 40 officers designated to make decisions and to sign documents with respect to approvals.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What was it, say, back in the year 2000?

[David Osbaldeston]

It was approximately 35.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thirty-five. So since the year 2000 you've added five officers, up to 2007.

I understand there's a need to review legislation, but wouldn't it make more practical sense, if you can reach consensus with these files, to actually increase the staffing component to be able to meet these new needs? That would be a lot quicker way of getting at some of the lower-hanging fruit, so to speak, on which you can reach consensus. It would seem to be an obvious solution.

If you've been hiring less than one person per year from 2000 to 2005, that seems to be shortchanging the general public.

[Marc Grégoire]

First of all, we haven't had this program at Transport Canada since 2000. This program was part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I think we had it prior to 1995, but it was transferred to Fisheries and Oceans in 1995, and then we got it back in 2003.

[David Osbaldeston]

Yes, in 2003.