Evidence of meeting #14 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was minor.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Yes, but the minister has chosen to ask the committee. It's for the committee to decide whether it wants to deal with it or not.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To some extent, I share the concerns expressed by my Liberal colleague. But I am still in favour of an approach by which we would specify the amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and we would consult with stakeholders about them.
As to the term "minor waters", I would like you to provide us with definitions. It would be good not to rely on a term that is very general and, at the same time, largely left to everyone's discretion. For one person, a navigable waterway may seem minor while for another it can be quite major. With your knowledge of the area, you could provide us with a kind of table where you would provide various possible definitions of minor waters. In that way, we would have, from the outset, a range of possibilities or exceptions that we could include in the bill. At least, we would have some kind of guide. Otherwise, we would have to rely on information coming from all over the place and to come up with our own ideas.
The same applies to the definition of the term "minor works". That is the term you already use in your brochures. You could tell us what limits to use in defining the term. There again, it is largely left to everyone's discretion. For some, a certain number of metres is a minor work, while for others, it is taking up half a river.
Would it be possible to come up with this kind of table with different definitions from which we could choose after having discussed it amongst ourselves, or during the tour?
February 28th, 2008 / 12:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
The biggest problem with your request is that our proposal was not at all going in that direction. In fact, we were proposing that the act be repealed and replaced by a new one with a completely different approach. We have never held public consultations, and it would be very difficult for us to gauge what would be acceptable for Canadians with one point of view or another.
When we review legislation, we do not start by proposing things. Otherwise, the people with whom we are consulting will feel that decisions have already been made or are about to be made. When we hold consultations, we do so by themes, and we want to hear what people have to say about them. Then we make a recommendation. If, at the outset, our experts provide the answer they want, you can bet that the consultation will not be well received.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
You did not understand what I meant. I do not want your definition, I want several possible definitions, ideas for definitions.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Ideas we have.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
We are not experts in navigable waterways. With your knowledge of the area, you could give us several possible ideas rather than just one. That would allow us to assess how far the term "minor waters" could go. Maybe that would end up in the act.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Case law defines minor waters as any body of water that can support a canoe or a kayak, that is about four inches, or ten centimetres, of water, for a very short distance. We have no choice but to tell you that this is much too restrictive. The last time that we spoke to you, we discussed exclusions. We would like to exclude a lot of navigable waters all across the country.
As to the committee's request for definitions, I can tell you that we should have as few restrictions as possible. But would that be twelve inches, or a metre, or 500 metres long? Does someone have to be able to paddle for a kilometre before having to portage? At the moment, if someone can paddle a canoe for a minute, get out of the water, paddle again, and do that for two days, it is navigable water. But that definition makes no sense.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
On the matter of excluding bridges, booms and dams, you should do a full study. The minister has no discretion.
In my constituency, there is a dam built in 1929, I think. You say that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is one of our oldest ones. It dates from about 1878. The dam has made all navigation impossible. We constantly get complaints from pleasure boaters that the dam stops them from getting around.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Are you talking about the dam on the Rivière des Prairies?
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Yes. I have heard people talking about it for several years. Under the current act, you would have conducted a full study and issued a decision.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
That must have been done before it was built.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
But your dam was built in 1929.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Order, please.
There are too many conversations going on, and I can hardly hear the member.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
The act applied. I doubt if those records from 1925 can easily be found. But an impact study was probably done and a permit issued because the dam was built.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
That does not change the fact that it has made navigation impossible.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Was it navigable at the time? Perhaps the dam improved the navigation. Perhaps the Rivière des Prairies was not navigable then; perhaps the current was too strong or there were too many obstructions. Perhaps building the dam improved things.
Conservative
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
Prior to 1992, many crown-built facilities were not approved under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Up to that point the NWPA did not apply to crown-constructed works because the crown looked after itself and all interests of those under it. In 1992, with the Oldman River Dam decision, the Supreme Court indicated that was not so.
My suggestion is that because of the age of that work and the supposition that it was probably built with provincial financial interests, it probably was not approved. At this point in time, because the dam has been constructed.... Once you construct a dam you create a new standard of navigation, the standard of navigation being the lake up top and maybe a trickle down below. That is the new standard of navigation that we protect. While the individual may have concerns with respect to the trickle of water down below, that's the standard of navigation we protect for them.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chai.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us again on this very important issue. I can tell you that there are many people across Canada who are looking forward to these amendments or new legislation coming forward--especially municipalities.
Just so I understand why you're proposing seven amendments, as opposed to a wholesale review of the act, it's my understanding that it's an issue of timing. As you know, our government has committed $33 billion in infrastructure money over the next seven years. Any obstacle that stands in the way of getting that money delivered is going to cost the country significantly.
In the last two years we've passed a number of pieces of legislation--for example, the bridges and tunnels, and the aeronautics provisions. Those provisions go back many years, perhaps to the year 2000 or 2001, under previous Liberal governments. There were various iterations along the way, but they never were actually passed, simply because Parliament ran out of time. Now we're in a minority government situation--the government could fall at any time--and there is no guarantee that there will be a majority government the next time around.
Am I correct in assuming that the purpose for bringing forward these seven amendments is to speed up the process so we can address some of those critical infrastructure needs in Canada right now?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Actually, I'll go back to the letter we received from Mr. Tweed on February 15. Your chair said that the committee believes that rather than deal with the entire piece of legislation, it would better serve the needs of stakeholders to first deal with those sections that can be resolved quickly. So our wish, when we came here two weeks ago, was to review the whole act.
The reason we came here with the wish not to look only at seven aspects is at the request of the committee, but we still think that these would be good, positive amendments to make to the legislation.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Well, hearing some of the comments at the table right now from the opposition members, I'm not sure whether they support moving forward with amendments as opposed to a completely new act, so let me rephrase my question.
Would you agree with me that moving forward with these amendments will significantly speed up the process of getting the needed legislation in place to address some of the infrastructure needs in our country?