Transport Committee on April 29th, 2008

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

—so it'll be easier to look at.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Perron.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the rookie, I am pleased to be at this table. Yes, I said rookie.

Madam, gentlemen, thank you for being here with us. This my first time on the committee.

Let me clarify one thing, Mr. Johnson. If I understand correctly, if I have grasped the definition of "navigable waters", inside a province, it should be the responsibility of the municipalities and the provinces. When a waterway becomes international—going from one country to another—the federal government could get involved.

You mentioned international navigable waters. Between provinces—for example, if a waterway starts in Alberta and ends up in Saskatchewan—if one province declares the waterway to be navigable and the other province does not, do you not think that the matter could end up in court? I agree with you that defining a waterway should be up to the municipalities and the government in whose territory it lies. That is my comment.

[Don Johnson]

If we've given the impression that we're saying just eliminate the navigable waters program and have it provincially, that's not what we're saying. We're saying some of these minor works perhaps belong a little bit more effectively in the responsibility of the provinces and/or municipalities. I think I made reference in my comments that international and interprovincial waterways need to come under navigable waters as well.

We're not saying eliminate the navigable waters program at all. There is a place and a role, and I don't think you can go away from that. We're not advocating; we're just saying to simplify the definition. On minor streams, perhaps leave that jurisdiction to the local areas, other provincial areas.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Do you think that you would be able to manage the larger waterways inside a province? I am thinking, of irrigation canals, for example. Some of them can be huge depending on the amount of water in them. You surely have the ability at municipal and provincial level to make decisions.

[Don Johnson]

Just to clarify on the irrigation systems, the canals themselves aren't huge in terms of width. You might have one that's 50 feet across, maximum, and that will be a major canal, a feeder canal; and then you get into minor canals that feed off that.

In terms of the reservoirs, yes, many of those are very large, such as the Diefenbaker dam in Saskatchewan. It's a very large body of water. There's the Chin Reservoir in southern Alberta, the St. Mary Reservoir, and a number of other reservoirs, such as Horsefly Lake Reservoir, that are primarily for recreational use as well as for irrigation.

So yes, there is a role to play there. What we're talking about primarily, from a municipal point of view, is the intermittent streams, the minor ones, those kinds of streams. So we're not saying, “No, Nav Waters, don't back out, leave it to us”, because I think you have to have some consistency on a federal basis. There's a role for each one of us to play, but on the minor streams, the intermittent streams, those kinds of things, I'm not sure it makes sense to have the navigable waters program involved.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

In my opinion, that is the biggest problem we are facing at the moment. In environmental matters, for example, the municipal government has a role to play and has its regulations. Provincial and territorial governments also have their regulations and their role. The federal government has a role to play, just like its department. It takes years to get agreement between those three, four or five levels of government. That is what is happening in the examples you quote of projects on the ground that have been around for a number of years.

[Don Johnson]

The only thing I'd remind you of is that municipalities are creatures of the provinces, under the legislation and under the federal legislation as well. Under the Constitution, the provinces have been given responsibility to organize and set out legislation that governs the role of municipalities under the Municipal Government Act. We operate under that.

So whether you're talking about environmental issues.... We have an obligation to meet the requirements and standards of the provincial government and the legislation they have. We can't go off and set off something that's at variance, because the provincial legislation has primacy over anything that I might pass. If we passed something as a bylaw that contravened a provincial or federal statute, it would not fly; it would not be enforceable. Somebody could challenge us on that in court and say we don't meet that litmus test, and they would win.

So we're very careful in terms of our bylaws, when we craft those, to be in sync with both provincial and federal legislation. We can't violate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming out.

One of the significant comments that have been made is, how do we get back to where there's actually some common sense in terms of dealing with issues? I want to just reaffirm to you, municipally, that municipalities are as environmentally conscious as anyone is, and so they've never--in the municipalities that I represent, some 13--ever wanted to skirt the environmental issue. What they do want is to have some sort of rationale that makes sense.

I almost believe there are kindred spirits between navigable waterways, Transport Canada, and DFO. I want to know, when you talk about your definition.... For example, a municipality has purchased a gravel pit and through that gravel pit there's a waterway. That waterway divides a great amount of gravel. Basically, that municipality was told not to even think about it; they cannot divert the stream, which--even though that stream likely runs water right now--I can tell you, in a month will have a gravel base--there won't be any water, there won't be any fish. There likely won't be anything in it for three or four months.

Because we cannot get away from the connection with DFO, will your definition help assist municipalities and others with those sorts of situations?

[Don Johnson]

I believe it will, and one of the things that our chairman was asked when we had the memorandum of understanding between FCM, the municipalities, and the federal government with the DFO was to provide precisely that kind of forum so that we can have a conversation and discussion about what makes sense to do that.

Quite frankly, when David and I were on this committee, we spent three years and made no progress, and all of a sudden, last year, it broke loose; the logjam broke, and we managed to sit down and work out some things that made really good sense. We set up this working group that I thought worked very well and came to an amicable agreement that made some sense to us.

I would suggest that kind of situation could even apply here with navigable waters. We'd suggested that to the chairman in Brandon, that we may want to give some consideration to setting up a working group between FCM and the federal government and the navigable waters folks, so that we could have some of these kinds of conversations on an ongoing basis, if need be. To us it makes a lot of sense to do that, because it has worked very well with the DFO folks.

I'm not sure if that's specifically answering your question about your gravel. I'm not an engineer.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

No, but I think it's in the principle of it--

[Don Johnson]

Yes, exactly.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

--because there's this barrier that comes up, and most of them just can't figure out why, because it doesn't make sense. There's no water; there's no habitation within it.

The second part of it is that you represent a number of rural municipalities, as do I, in terms of your chairmanship, Mr. Johnson. Do you hear through your municipalities about private landowners? Do you hear from farmers, for example, who have a creek halfway or two-thirds of the way through their farm and they're just wanting to put in a culvert so they can get from one side to the other? What happens is that you tend to hear from people, “Well, I can't get permission, so I'll get repentance at some time.” Then the weekend comes along, and they'll put the culvert in. That's not what they want to do, but when we put in barriers that they cannot overcome--either timeline or financially--then those sorts of things happen.

I'm hoping that in your discussions and in your recommendations--also when you come forward--that you can deal with those types of issues.

[Don Johnson]

I think that's fair. One of the things we've noted—and our provincial governments have noted this as well—is that we have a number of structures, culverts or otherwise, that would be considered unlawful under the current definition. That's why the grandfathering perhaps comes in there. That doesn't fully address the farmer or the rancher who wants to get across, and we've had many of those who just go ahead and do it because it makes sense. Or perhaps those things were put in when the homesteads were put in there and they had some water and they needed to get across to the other side, back in the horse and buggy days. If you've got a horse it's not hard to cross.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

That's right. But these are issues that actually jeopardize our drainage people in our municipalities—

[Don Johnson]

Yes, they do.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

—and they get caught. They don't see anything wrong with that, except that they know it's wrong and they've got to deal with these navigable waterways and DFO at some time later. So they get caught between.

[Don Johnson]

In fairness as well, we've had quite a little discussion in Alberta with regard to intensive livestock operations and feeding and bedding sites and not having them in proximity to even intermittent streams that others might be using for domestic water purposes. So there are fairly stringent environmental regulations around that. I sit on an advisory committee on that legislation in Alberta, and it has worked out very well, and we have producers at the table. So it's a matter of education.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Dave.

[David Marit]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shipley, thank you for that question. We really see it in Saskatchewan, because agriculture has just taken on a whole new meaning. The farms are getting larger, and what we call local roads aren't really being used much anymore, other than by a piece of equipment moving from one quarter section to another. We have a lot of these structures there that are becoming what we would class in the municipal system as dangerous, to the point where we as municipal governments can be held liable if a farmer falls through them with a piece of equipment.

We would like to replace them with what we would class as a low-level crossing. We're ready to put concrete or rock or washed rock down so that the water flows through in the spring, and that's the only time it flows. Then the local farmer can use the road to access his land. We have some huge concerns on this one in our province, and it all comes back to when you start taking out bridge structures. Then you have to have approval from the navigable waters people on some of this stuff. When we look at it as a local issue, we're actually improving the flow and removing a structure, because it becomes a huge liability issue to our members, and that's a huge concern for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here today and providing evidence.

I want to take us all back to 2004, if I may. For the record and as a matter of interest, I'm from Fort McMurray. I was running a nomination battle, trying to win the possibility of running for the Conservative Party. I represent High Prairie, which means I actually represent about 30% of the province, quite a piece. I met a gentleman by the name of Gerry Williscroft, who sat down with me for half an hour and told me all about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which I had no idea of at the time, and told me all of the headaches and some of these stories that you have given us today.

I made a promise to him that I would bring it up, and I did, actually. Once I was elected, I brought it up to the Liberal government by way of a letter in 2004. Then when we formed government, I brought it up again. When I was appointed parliamentary secretary, I sent a letter to the minister saying the same thing. Indeed, shortly after that, in December of last year actually, the Prime Minister and the minister both talked to me about it. And here we are today; we've received a letter from the minister asking us to deal with this.

So that's where we come from. I wanted to use that as an example of politics being local and that it indeed comes from the top, and in this case it did. I was very pleased to see this process take place.

But today I don't really have any questions. I would like to hear some more examples, if I could--and not to say that I brought this up. I know that Monsieur Laframboise and other people have brought it up. We're very serious about it, because we know it affects people at the very local level, and that's why I wanted to bring it up. It's very important to us in government.

Could I hear some more examples of things you find and have heard of being very strange indeed?

[David Marit]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the question.

I guess as far as examples are concerned, we as an organization have asked right across Canada for examples. What we got back from quite a few, and even in our own province.... I actually spoke to the Institution of Civil Engineers in the province of Saskatchewan, the association, two weeks ago. I met with their executive, and they said that the impact on program funding and on projects was from time delays. They said, how do you measure time delays?

As far as cost overruns are concerned, they had the same examples that we had, but said that on just about every major bridge project they were doing, it was navigable waters that was holding up their approval process, with time delays in some cases of anywhere from three months to well over a year. Their concern was the same thing: how do you measure the time delay in terms of dollars when you're dealing with program funding? You're speculating on what the increases are going to be from 2007 to 2008. You don't know what those cost increases are until you get to 2008, and you haven't been approved, and then you have to go and do it.

What has happened in many cases is that a lot of municipalities can't then afford to do the project. Now they're trying to find other means to do it, and that's where it becomes burdensome to our members right across Canada—and the territories, of course.

[Don Johnson]

I appreciate that the area you come from is one of the most environmentally sensitive and talked-about areas right now, because of the tar sands and what's going on there. There have actually been some very good things done in terms of reclamation in that area, which I don't think get enough credit in what's going on there. Those with questionable intent sometimes take advantage of those things for political purposes. I think it underscores the importance of making sure we're environmentally responsible in terms of how we deal with these things. I think that at the end of the day most of us want to be that way; most people I deal with, most ratepayers, certainly want to be that way. Many of them lack understanding of how to go about doing that, and that's our role, to educate.

Mr. Chairman, if I may respond in part to what Brian was saying, I think we need to go back to our membership across Canada and put out an immediate call again for some additional examples from every jurisdiction in Canada—the Maritimes, la belle province, and right through the Prairies and British Columbia, and the territories as well, where we have some of the most pristine land in this country that needs to be protected. We should ask for some additional examples and see if we can't bring those forward in the next couple of weeks.

I know you're probably getting towards the end of your deliberations and that you probably want to get to the end fairly quickly, and I don't know how quickly we can get those back, Mr. Chairman, but if we could have that latitude to probably provide some additional examples, we'll certainly provide some copies, as I said at the outset of our presentation today, of the specific points. But we should get some concrete examples from our membership that would be helpful and reinforce what was said today.

We know that they're there, because we hear about them all the time, just as you have.