Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If the Navigable Waters Protection Act is amended, that won't change your actions in any way. From the moment wildlife habitat is affected, you will have to intervene. Regardless of whether the act is amended, Transport Canada's reason will in no way change yours as regards fish habitat.

[Ginny Flood]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Scharf.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I'd like to add something that is important because it will make it easier to understand.

Infrastructure Canada has funds from the gas tax and from federal funding, but not a project description, since this is a transfer. Infrastructure Canada is not the authority responsible for the entire environmental assessment. In this case, the trigger is Fisheries and Oceans, the approval commission or the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That's simply a clarification.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I think the gas tax should have formed a separate category in the budget, but, for the government, that obviously inflates the figures; it makes a lot of money for the municipalities. The fact remains that it's treated differently, that it isn't a direct subsidy for a project. I understand that. It isn't a project in which you invest, but a lump-sum amount that you pay to the cities for purposes that are beyond your control. In Quebec, it's the province that selects the projects.

Mr. Nash, those who fear a threat to the environment will be rereading us, and I would therefore like some clarification on the purpose of the request that is made and on the report that will be submitted by the committee. You deal with a large number of action requests, but a lot of approvals are nevertheless given, which, in relation to the current definition, has the effect of inflating the number of requests. That definition has to be rediscussed. You're receiving increasing numbers of requests for projects that you authorize in any case, which takes time and delays the process. Is that correct?

[William J. Nash]

You're very correct. From an overall perspective, you have the two approvals: the environmental assessment approval and the Navigable Waters Protection Act approval. In reality, if an environmental assessment approval is negative, the project doesn't proceed. That is to say, for more clarity, it could be very good from a navigable perspective, but if the environmental aspect isn't there, then it would not proceed. So from an environmental concern, I think my colleagues here have explained that these processes would still continue anyway.

From our perspective, these changes that are suggested would certainly improve our ability to carry out our work and at the end of the day would be better for basically all concerned, whether environmentalists or whoever. It would establish a more modern structure, a better way to look at what is navigable and what is not, and not to have a structure in place that could be considered as prohibitive, or even not necessary in some cases.

I don't know if you want to add something to this, David.

[David Osbaldeston]

Monsieur Laframboise, when you asked the question of DFO, “Therefore, if it affects fish you'll look at it?”, the answer was “Yes”. I think with the amendments that we have here, the essence is if it doesn't directly impact navigation, why are we--Transport Canada, marine safety--looking at it? It's not that it won't be looked at by others. We're simply in the wrong church, in the wrong pew, in this particular case, because that's what we're really alluding to with these recommendations for amendment, that there is no impact on navigation under these criteria we're proposing.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You're requesting action because the definition that we've had since the act was introduced, which was amended or interpreted by the courts, means that you now have to act in cases where navigation is not involved.

That's the message you want to pass on to us?

[David Osbaldeston]

Exactly, sir. That's why we're saying if we can get into the right locale, which is navigation, we can free up our resources on these things that we shouldn't be looking at, because there is no navigational impact, and we know that, in order to put those resources against the things Canadians are really quite concerned about, which is the larger infrastructure projects that do have an impact on navigation and need our expert advice.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Ms. Scharf, we talked about this matter earlier, but I would nevertheless like to ensure that environmental assessments will continue to be conducted in cases where federal funding is involved. In other words, the amendments will change nothing in that regard.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

They'll change nothing in cases where we have project descriptions, as I already said. I'll give you an example. In the case of a minor work and a secondary waterway in which there is fishing or small fish are born, we have an obligation to assess the environmental aspects.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the allegations that has repeatedly come forth from witnesses is that the current system, as the applications go through, is actually delaying or limiting projects because of time management, and so forth. I'd like the departments to respond as to whether they feel that their processes right now are actually hindering projects, and maybe which ones won't get done this summer. We're going to have a report issued, but nothing is going to change. So I'd like your opinion on that.

There have been repeated allegations, time and time again, not only in presentations here but also in letters coming in, that the bureaucracy is holding up the process right now. So maybe we could have a response to that as to whether you feel that collectively or individually—I'd like to hear from each department—you are to blame for holding up the actual files, and if files are going to be held up this summer, what would those be, as examples.

[David Osbaldeston]

We wouldn't be here if we didn't think there were some problems relative to delays in responding to our client needs with respect to files. So I would say yes, our processes and procedures cause concern not only for us, but, as you've heard from the witnesses, concern for our clients. But I would extend that, in that our processes and procedures, for the most part, because of the age and style of our act, are prescribed within the act, and that is where the concern rests from a Transport Canada standpoint.

We're looking for flexibility, and that's what these amendments are trying to put forward.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'd like to hear from other departments on this, especially because maybe there are some resource issues over the summer or whatever can be done. But what types of things are going to be held up across this country if the act doesn't change?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I'll speak to the issue generally and then to the specifics you have raised.

As we have testified here before, it does create delays of at least six months and more. Other testimony—Mr. Middleton's and others'—has indicated eleven months. It certainly could go up to that, but we know it can be six months and more.

It creates delays at three points. First, getting site access to assess the waterway or the work is one aspect that is difficult, especially, as you can imagine, with our climate and frozen conditions, and no site access aspect. Second, often promoters will have initial designs done, but then we don't know whether Transport Canada is the responsible authority or not. And then the third point, of course, is just the time it takes to do that approval, because we can't always operate in parallel, but operate in series, so it queues up.

With respect more generically to what areas, there are the water intake ones, which are going to be defined as a minor work if the pipe diameter is less than ten centimetres, for example.

A large proportion of our non-transport stuff is water treatment or waste water treatment. Those are extremely important areas for communities across Canada. So if we're having to do the full trigger of the full assessment for what are really minor works, then yes, it creates a queue, and it creates a queue in infrastructure that's central to communities if we're dealing with potable water issues.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

In the interim, could that queue be alleviated by increased staffing? Even if we don't get these amendments passed, are we just going wait around and see?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

The system we're using now is working fairly well in the sense that it requires legislative change, undoubtedly, because the act doesn't give us this power, but what Transport Canada has done is set up a risk management system. In those pamphlets they gave you prior to March 11, they describe what is a minor work and what is not, and we use their expertise on that now. So everything isn't being held up for assessments of a diameter of pipe that is less than ten centimetres. We use that now.

The ambiguity still rests with definitions of “navigable waters” and “minor waters”, but at least we have that system in place currently.

On the issue of resources, I'm going to answer as others have answered in the past, and I think it's a fair and responsible answer for a manager in the public service.

Every year or so we will review our resources, whether skill sets or resourcing are fitting the functions and the needs we have. In this particular case, we haven't identified, nor have we done a full review, that if we don't get this we're immediately going to need five more people. Not at all. If the act passes, I think we will be in a stronger position, but on an annual basis, we are looking at our resources and the match to the number of infrastructure projects coming through the system and the needs of Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What we're assuming is that even if we get this done and get it done right, it's going to solve the problem. Shouldn't there be a backup or some type of analysis to find out whether this is going to solve the problem or prepare for a transition?

If the situation is so bad now that we're hanging onto a report we're going to do that is then going to be tabled in Parliament.... Draft legislation will eventually come back to the committee in the fall, and then hopefully, if the government stays, we will go through the fall and pass it eventually. It will then have to go through royal assent and be brought in through regulations. We're talking about a long time, versus that of applications that are actually being put on the desktop here.

I guess I'm just worried that we seem to be thinking that this is the recourse that's going to get it done. Should we not be looking at an analysis of manpower and training as part of this to get the job done? Even if this goes through, it may not be entirely successful. We might find some shortcomings.

I'm looking for that type of backup.

[David Osbaldeston]

Mr. Masse, your point is well taken. I think I indicated in earlier testimony, with respect to Transport Canada and our prescriptive processes and procedures, that over the course of the last year we undertook, with our environmental affairs director, our aboriginal consultation group, and our legal counsel, to determine where we could find further streamlining by redefining, or better defining, roles and responsibilities and by identifying and removing any redundances within our overlapping systems, in some cases. We have been conducting that study. Draft reports have been made to Transport Canada, although they've not been approved in any way, shape, or form. They're under review right now. They did take a look at staffing issues, even potential reorganizational structures, all of which resulted in a premise that from our standpoint, the essence of any real success will be legislative amendment.

The answer is that yes, indeed, it's part of a puzzle. And those are all pieces of the puzzle that need to be added in.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Can you table that for the committee so we get that analysis? That would be important, I think, for our work as we get our discussion paper done. Then we'll start to craft some type of legislation.

[David Osbaldeston]

We'll have to move that up the line. It's in draft format right now. It hasn't been accepted by Transport Canada. We'll check on the status of that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We could even get it for when we come back in September.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast. The clock is running.