Transport Committee on Feb. 28th, 2008

[David Osbaldeston]

Yes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What would they be based on in your opinion? I know they speak for themselves, but I would like to hear it from you.

[David Osbaldeston]

They know these applications currently generate an environmental assessment in some conditions. An environmental assessment will delay approval and development, and some conditions in an environmental assessment may result in the document being rejected.

As far as we know, they're looking for a time element, because, obviously, if the environmentalists have an environmental concern, time is of the essence for them to be able to be heard.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Would there be those who would suggest those are frivolous environmental concerns? If there's a real concern about going through due diligence on those things, I could see the concern, saying those are considered frivolous or they shouldn't even have to go through the review. What would be the case there?

[David Osbaldeston]

We're trying to send things off that have, from our perception, a substantial interference to navigation. Our major works are indeed major works that may have a substantial impact on the environment, and that's where we feel our resources should be dealt with.

Conversely, with the minor works we've identified, we have identified that these do not have substantial interference to navigation. Aerial cable, for example, is 400 feet off the body of water and going between two cliff faces. Even though you can float a canoe on the water, you won't get a sailboat on the water. It's not a substantial interference, and that is our particular interest in business, so why delay our navigational approval?

If an environmental concern could be triggered through other pieces of legislation, either provincial environmental assessments that would be conducted, for example, for building posts on the provincial shoreline, if there are fisheries concerns, it could be triggered by the Fisheries Act, even a small bridge, for example, that may go over a waterway, just the fact that it casts a shadow on a waterway could change the fish habitat underneath, but the fisheries people will pick that up in their review of the project.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm sure there are groups that will be concerned with those changes but also with some more of the things that can change the fine. But the fine can be changed through an amendment to the current act right now. Is that correct?

[Marc Grégoire]

Everything that we presented today can be done through amending the present act.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

So yes, it's just a matter of the minister submitting or having a private member's bill or whatever. But it could go that route, as well.

When we had a discussion yesterday, it was with regard to--not yesterday, but last week--staffing. When I went through the minutes I saw that one of the things you mentioned was that it took over a year to bring on and train a new staff member. That seems like a long time. You can train a police officer in less time.

Can there not be some consideration given to increasing the staffing component, as well? Because I think we are going to have two groups on this. It could take a long time to get through some of this. We go through a full review, get legislation developed, Parliament continues, and so forth. Hence, I'm a little bit concerned. It sounds like you've done a successful job here of reducing time and moving on in your current structure. But can there not be that type of a pronged approach too? Because even if we get these changes that you're seeking agreed to, it is going to take a number of hearings. It is going to be, I think, a lot more complicated than people think to get this through.

[Marc Grégoire]

I've asked David and his team whether, if we were to double the number of people you have now, you would get rid of all of the files in stock there. And the answer was a clear no. Most of them are hung up to another process. In most cases, it is an environmental process, or the work is delayed and the file stays there waiting for things to happen.

Nevertheless, as I told you, we felt that probably, on the environmental impact assessment side of the House, we needed to throw in more resources. And what we decided to do a while ago--and I didn't mention that at our last appearance--is an in-depth study of the Navigable Waters Protection Act program, including the environmental impact assessments, to see if we're resourced properly within the department.

On the timeframe, my colleague of programs, Mary Komarynskym, is leading this exercise, and we are participants in the exercise. The timeframe to complete that analysis is by June.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's helpful information. I'm glad to hear that, because I'm still struggling in terms of deciding what's committee business and so forth. I've committed to a certain amount of time, but I have other issues that I think are just as important. Not that this isn't important, but somebody building a dock or a boathouse quicker versus whether we are addressing issues in transportation and our productivity at our ports and border crossings and so forth....

I think we need to get a clear understanding. This could really open up a long process. I'm glad to hear that the department itself is doing things internally to move things along. And I sense that you're dealing with a study and so forth. I can understand that if you're waiting for other departments to move forward and so forth, you can't move the file. I just wouldn't want to see a lack of commitment of physical resources to work through the current system.

[Marc Grégoire]

We are doing the maximum. Those pamphlets were all done in the last year to improve the situation so the staff wouldn't spend time on those minor things but would focus on the big things. As your colleague, Brian Jean, mentioned in his opening remarks, with the amount of infrastructure investment being made throughout the country, the problem we see now is that it's going to increase the problems. With the massive investments being made throughout the country in infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and other things, if we don't fix the act now--you can see those charts there--you can forecast that the number of applications will increase, especially in the large project column. And the delays will increase.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

But you're down to your lowest number of applications ever.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I go to Mr. Watson, I think we're just having a bit of a speaker problem, so I will just let Mr. Laframboise hook up and see if it works.

If I may, I want to make a comment, and I think Mr. Jean tried to emphasize this. I have served municipally and provincially, and I know the difficulties. It's the littlest of projects that seem to take the most time, and therefore the big projects get delayed. Hopefully, cleaning the table by half creates the opportunity for the staff to deal with the projects you're talking about.

That's my interpretation. I would hope it would be close to correct.

[David Osbaldeston]

I believe you're correct.

Even with the major projects, I just want to emphasize that if you're talking about infrastructure and a highway construction, you may have a large bridge going over the waterway, but you're also in every small culvert. People really don't care about the culvert. We would rather have the resource looking at the bridge, as long as the culvert is built in a safe manner and to proper design standards.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

But the culvert would be a minor work, right?

[David Osbaldeston]

That's what we would foresee--culverts becoming minor works.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise, are you hooked up? Good.

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We'll presume that for the public record and for anybody reading the transcripts later on, the speaker problem wasn't a problem with our previous speaker, but in fact an earpiece problem experienced by one of the members opposite. I just wanted to clear that up.

Thank you to our witnesses here today.

Of course the importance of this act isn't only about how quickly you can build a boathouse; it's also about whether something like bringing forward a proposal to twin the Ambassador Bridge would also be captured under it. It's for works big and small.

I want to start with the chart on applications that you provided for us. I want to ask you a few questions about applications that are denied. First, are the denials based on a failed EA, or are other factors involved when applications are denied?

[David Osbaldeston]

In some cases they are based on a failed EA. In that particular case--a failed EA--by law we cannot issue an approval, even though our navigational assessment might be positive. In other situations it could be because of a failure to find a way to accommodate the work in a safe manner, even with modification. This particular number also shows in the denials shown as “closed without approval”. These files are closed because we've asked for the applicant to provide us with more information, and they've never come back.

As you can see, there's very little we deny or refuse. I think that's the main thing: if somebody has a need to put something in the water, over the water, under the water, or through the water, and has a valid need to do it, we'll try our utmost to get it done in a safe manner.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Two questions come from that, then. First, is the environmental assessment process a duplication of other environmental assessments that would be applied to a project at a different jurisdictional level or a different departmental level? Second, is there currently in the legislation an appeal mechanism for those that are denied?

[David Osbaldeston]

I'm not an environmental assessment expert, but I can tell you that under provincial law there are provincial requirements for environmental assessments. Quite often they are carried out simultaneously.

As for an appeal process, I am unaware. We don't deal with environmental assessments. We're on the navigational side.

There's no appeal provision with respect to an NWPA approval; I thought the question referred to an environmental assessment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

No; it was whether there is an appeal mechanism to appeal the denial if your application is denied.

[David Osbaldeston]

No, there's not. There's no appeal mechanism capability in the legislation.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You brought forward seven areas in which we could consult stakeholders. Is there an interconnectedness to these provisions? In other words, do all seven have to be considered, or could three or four be considered? If we miss a significant one, could it have a bearing on one of the others? That's the first question I want to put out there for you.