Transport Committee on March 11th, 2008

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

I'm not talking about bridges, though. I didn't reference that.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

Understood.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

In trying to draw a definition of what is a minor water, I think Mr. Grady indicated that if there were many obstructions--I assume that would be rapids or a waterfall.... But after a while, would not a causeway or a dam be considered an obstruction such that you could say this is no longer a navigable water, which it once was?

[Keith Grady]

I think the point here is that through the consultation the committee will be undertaking, they'll add some clarity to exactly which types of projects or waterways should be covered and which can be managed in a different manner, and perhaps more efficiently as a result of that.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

You also referenced the notice provisions, suggesting that registration about deposit plan, land titles, and publication in the Gazette are archaic. What do you suggest for a notification that people would see?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

We didn't want to make specific proposals at this time. It may be something that the committee, when it undergoes its other consultations, may get responses on from folks. I know our officials at Transport Canada have mentioned just using Internet communication or websites, bringing it into this century in a sense, from that perspective, and using those kinds of tools. The act doesn't give that flexibility at this point.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Smith, if I can turn to you for a moment, you're suggesting amendments to enforcement provisions. Right now it's $500 to $5,000. What would you suggest if we were to change enforcement provisions? Do you have the power to have the works removed if someone proceeded to install something that had no approvals? Are hefty fines enough?

[John Smith]

If your question refers to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, there aren't any fines or enforcement provisions in that piece of legislation. What that legislation does is impose obligations on federal bodies to conduct an environmental assessment of the project they're considering making a decision on, and to identify mitigation measures and put those in place.

The point I was making is that the mitigation measures that are put in place following an environmental assessment can be put in place for a number of mechanisms. If it's a funding decision that's being made, then the funding agreement can include those mitigation measures. If it's a land transfer that's being considered, then the mitigation measures can be imposed there. There is the possibility, through various regulatory decisions, of having those mitigation measures put in place.

My point in the presentation was that strength and enforcement capabilities under the Navigable Waters Protection Act would be beneficial because of the flow-through nature of mitigation into these various other instruments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming today.

Very quickly, are there any witnesses here today who are not in favour of changes to this act to make it a better act? There are none.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Call the question.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I hope the intervention by other members doesn't cut into my time.

I want to take off where Mr. Julian left us, because I have some concerns as well. It's good to see you back here, Mr. Julian. We've missed you.

I would like to use an example from my riding. I think I have one of the fastest-developing ridings in the country in northern Alberta, because of the oil sands and other issues.

I'd like to think of myself as a great environmentalist. I've spent a lot of time in the bush. I have a trapline up there that I spend some time on. Indeed, I have some waterways that I think would be considered minor waters, and I'm concerned about that. I don't want to see oil companies, quite frankly...and I don't think anybody in the Conservative government would like to see anything sacrificed to move forward, especially not the environment. I know I wouldn't, and I don't think any members of this committee would.

Although we want to simplify, make things better, and remove duplication, we don't want to sacrifice things. Certainly we don't want to sacrifice our environment or the integrity of our country.

I have this little creek, which is called Gregoire Creek, which runs into the Christina River, which runs into a heritage river called the Clearwater River, and that runs into the Arctic. In the meantime, there are a lot of beaver dams in this. It's navigable, but it's navigable for about five feet at a time because you have to go through a lot of beaver dams. Now, would that be considered a minor water?

I'm not getting very good responses today.

[John Smith]

The interpretation of what specifically would constitute a minor work is, I think, a question we would have to put to our Transport Canada colleagues in terms of any specific waterway.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have Nexen, an oil company, on my trapline, and obviously I'm quite concerned. They've put a lot of roads in, and quite frankly I'm concerned about the environmental integrity in that particular area.

Are you trying to tell me that if indeed we define minor waters as something you float a canoe in on a continuous basis, for a hundred yards or whatever the case may be, they would not have to have some sort of environmental process on that creek? They wouldn't have to be called to task for what they'd do as a result of putting a bridge on that creek?

[Steve Burgess]

Perhaps I can answer part of that.

With respect to the amendments to NWPA, I think the changes being proposed to the legislation would identify minor works from a navigation perspective. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be the possibility of an environmental assessment being undertaken should a project be proposed that could damage that waterway--if, for example, it constitutes fish habitat. So if fish are there, the Fisheries Act is another trigger for CEAA, or if there's federal funding going into a project, but I think it's fair to say that the trigger for EA would be lost if that type of waterway were deemed to be a minor waterway.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Would any other environmental assessment take over that--for instance, a provincial environmental assessment, or one under DFO? Because I'm not prepared, quite frankly, to see that change.

[Steve Burgess]

Depending on the nature of the project, there may be a provincial process that applies. If there is another federal trigger for EA, usually when there are impacts to water, we turn to the folks at DFO and the Fisheries Act to undertake an assessment.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I guess my question comes down to whether we can eliminate unnecessary actions and not sacrifice, first, as I've said, environmental integrity; second, navigable waters issues, because I do jet boating and canoeing a lot; and third, safety, such as the docks and other things that come out from the waterway.

Can all of you witnesses at the table today see that we can make some changes that would eliminate what is not necessary, to make sure that we keep those things intact?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

From our perspective, we continue to support the streamlining.

With respect to the issue of infrastructure and environmental assessment, because it's the funding trigger for us, that will automatically happen on any project that has a project description, even if it's smaller. We are looking at long-term ways to streamline that, but that will automatically happen.

Part of the aspect that has to be worked out--it gets to the question of what is a minor work and what is a minor waterway--is the specific definition that will have to be evolved to go into the new act or the new amendments. It will have to be designed in a way that includes those areas that may be small but still extremely significant.

So I guess part of the fact that we haven't been as fast to answer that today as perhaps the committee would like is that we don't have a definition of what those are in front of us. That has to be evolved. We would hope that the committee, in its consultations, would be able to provide us with some direction on that as well.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have 20 seconds left, but I'm going to try to get two more questions in.

First, can these changes not be done by regulation? Do they need to be in legislation?

Second, is it possible to have an environmental assessment that, if they see...? The common complaint I hear in my area is that an environmental assessment costs $150,000 to put a culvert across a creek that flows for about three days a year. It does happen a lot.

I see you shaking your head in agreement,

Now, could there be a different environmental assessment, or two different ones, or three different ones, depending on the size of the project, to say, okay, at first blush, phase one, phase two, and phase three environmental assessments will be done on contaminated sites? Could there be a system like that in place?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

On the second question, we are working with our colleagues at the assessment agency to look at ways to streamline environmental assessments, particularly for infrastructure, which we haven't touched on today. Those are evolving now, and we're looking at options, absolutely.

On the assessment agency....

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Ms. Flood, would you like to comment?

[Ginny Flood]

Sure.

As to whether or not there would be an environmental assessment, I think if anything is going to have an impact on fish and fish habitat, obviously the Fisheries Act authorization has to be applied, so we would need to do an environmental assessment.

The other side is that we do have some tools to work on. With regard to the culvert crossing, we have what we call our operational statements--that is, if proponents do it in a certain way, it's not going to have an impact on fish and fish habitat. We would be looking at working with the navigable waters people to make sure this also may be taken into account with some of the work they're doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Having served provincially and municipally, I can tell you that nothing ever happens with water without DFO being involved in it.

I'm not sure if that's a positive comment or not.

[Ginny Flood]

There are very few waterways without fish.