Yes.
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.
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.
12:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Yes.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
All right.
If I could now follow up on a report that you gave us, it was a review of approaches to navigable waters protection in other jurisdictions, foreign jurisdictions.
As I understand it, you chose, I believe, seven different countries to review their legislation and how it addresses their needs. I was a little puzzled, because we had Vietnam in there, yet you neglected to study places such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia. Australia has topography that might be similar to ours. I'm just wondering why you chose those countries.
And as a follow-up question, of those countries, which of those legislative frameworks most closely resembles what Canada probably needs at this time?
12:45 p.m.
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
The choosing of the countries in that particular scope was really limited by time and quick Internet access. It was a request for a very quick study that I asked one of our consultants to do for another purpose, and I needed a turnaround time that was very short. So the answer to why these countries were chosen is the fact that they came up quickest in his research scan, with readily available information to give us some idea of equivalencies that may exist out there, or not.
Further studies could be done down the road, but I think I'd rather spend our time on new legislation at this point, or modifications.
On the second piece of your question--who would be most similar to us--from what we picked up, the U.S. is probably most similar to us, but they have great differences as well. Aside from federal law dealing mostly with interstate commerce waters, they then have individual state laws that deal with internal inland waters to the state. We don't have that. We have federal waters and federal laws.
So there are variances throughout that differ from us in each country that we looked at, and there are others that match up, the U.S. probably the most. The U.S. does regulate their aids to navigation. It does provide for navigation rules in regulating those aids. They do issue permits, similar to us. They call it a permit; we call it an approval. And they do base their issuance on evaluations of impact on navigation on those waterways interstate.
There is an environmental assessment process there--similar to our environmental assessment process--that looks at fishing and game and other issues.
They do have some responsibility for identifying and removing obstructions, mind you, because the Army Corps of Engineers there have authority. They have a lot more power than we have with our fines, and we have no cost recovery, which they do. They also have capability to actually pursue criminal and civil actions for violations, which we don't have.
So there is a system of enforcement and compliance in the U.S., which because of our proximity to them, we can relate to. We don't have that. Whether it would be a good thing would be something that would be obviously considered in consultations.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Fast.
We have a few minutes left. I will open the floor up for a couple of minutes if anybody has any follow-up questions. If not.... Is everybody good?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Well, I will thank you again for attending. We appreciate your input and hopefully we can move forward. Thank you very much.
Mr. Volpe.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, an issue has come up during the course of this meeting that may or may not have any impact on the debates we've had so far, but I want to take advantage of the fact that the department officials are here. If they're in a position to address this issue, or whether this is going to be addressed by Mr. Jean, that's fine.
There is a voice in the marketplace today that suggests that NavCanada may be in some serious financial difficulties as a result of some investments made in the sub-prime market. I would like either the parliamentary secretary, through the minister, or even the department to give us an indication at our next meeting whether that is in fact the case or whether they can give this committee a sense of the stability of one of the foundation stones of our transportation system.
12:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
NavCanada is a private company, and I suggest that if you want to know more about their financial situation, you should call them here.
We regulate NavCanada from a safety perspective, and we constantly monitor the operations from a safety perspective, but certainly not the financial situation. They are a not-for-profit organization, so presumably, if they had financial difficulties, they would increase their rates. Over the years they have decreased their rates and they have increased their rates, but there are enough airplanes in the sky to pay for whatever the cost is.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
My question really was related to the role that Transport Canada has with a not-for-profit organization, because whatever it does is going to impact on the security in the skies and on the ground. So I want to at least put the department, the minister, and this committee on notice that we may be finding ourselves in a position where we'll be asking very specific questions in that regard.
I appreciate that Mr. Grégoire has already given us an indication that he, I guess, is aware of some of the general circumstances associated with this, and that gives me some level of confidence that Transport Canada is actually monitoring the situation.
I look forward to an opportunity in the course of these next several days, at least those that are open to us as a committee, to get more specific information. If that might require, Mr. Chairman, bringing NavCanada before this committee, then maybe we should consider that as well.
12:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
The air navigation system was sold to NavCanada on November 1, 1996, so almost twelve years ago, eleven and a half years ago. NavCanada has been extremely successful in ensuring safety in this country and in a very efficient manner.
We continue to monitor them. Part 8 of the regulations under the Aeronautics Act deals with NavCanada, and we have a number of inspectors, both here and in all the regions, constantly overseeing what's going on from a safety perspective.
