Evidence of meeting #30 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 project.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to keep it to the point.
I wonder, Madam Scharf, if you might.... I'm glad we have people who are concerned about the larger projects. I come from an area where it's rural small community--agriculture--so I'm going to try to work around some of those comments.
One of the concerns is that when a private construction is done--it has been raised, particularly by the last delegation the other day with the Ontario lakes people--how do you deal with it in terms of an EA? What triggers an EA in that particular case?
Noon
Director General, Issues Management Directorate, Program Operations Branch, Infrastructure Canada
From an infrastructure point of view, unless, as I mentioned earlier, we're putting in funding and we're getting a project description, we are not, to use Yves' point, the responsible authority coordinating the whole thing. In those cases where we wouldn't be the responsible authority, if it impacts on fish, on federal lands, and right now, of course, navigable waters--Yves can add to this list if I've missed anything--those are the areas that would trigger either a regulatory permit or.... In this case it's a private person, so we're not the promoter.
If the feds are the promoter, they automatically have to do an EA. From that point of view, they're faced with a number of different permitting or regulatory approvals that they need. In the case where we fund and we have a project description, we coordinate that. We try to get it all in hand for them, and we work with them to see them through those challenges.
Noon
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
There's a project. It's on a municipal road--a back road. It's a bridge that has deteriorated. It has to be replaced. The municipality is funding it. There's not direct funding in terms of an application for it, but there is funding through the gas tax rebate. Is that considered to be federal funding if they take a portion of that money and use it towards that particular project?
Noon
Director General, Issues Management Directorate, Program Operations Branch, Infrastructure Canada
This is that unique case. When we do a block transfer, even though it's federal money and we don't have a project description, we are not the responsible authority. In those cases it's the permitting or the regulations, or their provincial regulations or municipal bylaws.
Noon
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It doesn't preclude that there wouldn't be any federal regulator on the project just because the funding hasn't flowed. There may be a regulator, such as DFO, involved in that project. I'm not sure what project we're talking about, so I can't give any specifics. But certainly we would be working with the province if there was a provincial EA.
Noon
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I agree that there would be. I was mayor of a municipality, and I can tell you that DFO shows up at just about everything. That happens to lead, Ms. Flood, to another question following the one I had to Ms. Scharf in terms of the funding.
This legislation is about improving navigation of our waterways for transportation. What happens is that it may be over a creek or a stream that has water in it year round, but not a lot, and it could get brought in under terms of having some navigable waterways. We've had some where the discussion was that it sits dry for the greater part of the year, but it still had to go in judgment of whether it was actually a navigable stream or not.
That takes me to DFO a little, because we cannot get away from the tie-in. We have the DFO regulations that come in on a stream, and I don't have the wording, but it's where you can't harm or harass any species. There was talk earlier from my colleague about holding up projects. I'm wondering, Ms. Flood, where the balance actually is.
I've had a project where the waterway was filled with silt that had come off farmland and there was some species at risk in it. I could have taken you up the road two miles where they were plugging the intakes, as there were so many of them up and down the streams, but it stopped this project, quite honestly. If we harmed a species taking it out, then there would be a charge. Nobody was willing to take the risk.
I'm looking for an answer on how we get some balance here of what the benefit actually is, or if there's a benefit, so that these projects don't get held up, sometimes, quite honestly, inadvertently.
Noon
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would definitely agree that it is a challenge, because DFO is pretty well everywhere.
It's interesting with the question on resources. One of the ways we're trying to find the balance is by applying some risk management principles and looking at how we can mitigate. It's not to circumvent CEAA and not do an environmental assessment, but there are ways and we have tools that if work is conducted in a certain way it will not create a HADD, which is the “harmful alteration, destruction, or disruption” of fish and fish habitat.
Unfortunately, the Fisheries Act is very specific about how we apply it with respect to environmental assessment. We are trying to find ways to work with proponents to reduce those delays. Part of that is through our operational statements that describe ways of doing certain types of activity that will not create a situation where a proponent has to come to us for an authorization. We also work very closely with proponents so that those small minor projects would not have to require a full-blown environmental assessment in that way.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Shipley.
Mr. Zed has generously donated his time to Mr. Volpe.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
That's the thing about our party: they are so altruistic that they are always looking to help other members along.
Ms. Flood, I wonder if I can pick up on your response a moment ago.
DFO is everywhere. And as Mr. Shipley said, while we're talking about the navigable waters and trying to make some improvements so that the process can be accelerated without compromising the intent of the legislation or projects, it would appear that notwithstanding our efforts to focus on navigable waters, we end up at your door. While that may have its own merits, I want to go back to something from last week. I would like us to walk away from here with some kind of assurance that we're not committing bad policy by proceeding along the lines of helping to streamline the process.
I'll use a specific example. Did DFO do an environmental assessment before the permits were given to Enwave to suck water out of the bottom of Lake Ontario in order to provide air conditioning for the about 50-block area of downtown Toronto about four years ago?
12:05 p.m.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would have to check on that, because I would not have that detail. I will have to get back to you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I'm surprised, though, Ms. Flood, because that's a pretty significant project. And last week we heard the Waterkeeper witness express concerns on behalf of the environmental community, of which I think you are the major player--no offence, Mr. Leboeuf--that a project like that would not have gone through the kind of scrutiny that DFO would put some of the private property owners through in Mr. Shipley's riding for the purposes of a small construction project.
That surprises me, because the Waterkeeper witness said that she and the organization are concerned about the quality of water as well as the navigability of waters. I hope I'm not misinterpreting what she said, but I think colleagues heard more or less the same thing.
So if it wasn't that pipe that caused some concern, I'm wondering whether the pipe that's sucking the water out of Lake Erie and Lake Superior to feed the Ogallala reservoir is something you would have been engaged in.
12:05 p.m.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I really don't have the details. I apologize, but our regional offices, if they were here, would probably be able to respond to that directly. I do apologize for that, but what I would say is if there were any impacts to fish and fish habitat, we would definitely be there. If it's with respect to water quality--
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Ms. Flood, I appreciate that. I appreciate all of those things.
I'm asking these questions not because I want to be argumentative or be a problem for you, but I want to express some of the frustrations that all of us want to overcome because we all want to be environmentally sound in our decisions. We all do.
When we juxtapose a process that seems to retard decisions unnecessarily for an outcome that's going to be the same, and the main problem is not, as was asked by another colleague, the lack of staff, but might actually be the lack of coordination.... I've heard the three colleagues from Infrastructure Canada and Transport Canada say “We can't be the coordinating body unless these two triggers bring us in”, but it doesn't matter whether they are triggered in or not. Either Mr. Leboeuf or you are part of the action, one way or the other, it would appear to me.
But in major projects, like the two I gave you as an example...or a third one, with all the logs that are clogging up the rivers and streams in my province in northern Ontario, the fish habitat has been affected, whether you choose to recognize that or not. Nobody is talking about cleaning up those streams or those rivers. That will affect habitat and water quality. But in Mr. Shipley's riding, because some farmer wants to establish a more solid footing for the bridge he needs to go from one side of his farm to another.
Ms. Flood, I want to talk to the guys from Infrastructure Canada, because they seem to be pretty reasonable, but I have to constantly talk to you. And you're a reasonable person too, but you're pointing out that the Fisheries Act is extremely important. It applies to the farms in southern Ontario in the same way it efficiently applied to the Grand Banks and the raping of the cod and turbot in that area. You have to help me through this, Ms. Flood.
12:10 p.m.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I know we've received a lot of criticism over a number of years, and we've certainly made a lot of efforts to move forward in really streamlining our approval processes, figuring out when we need to be there.
In our department right now, what we have done over the last three to four years is basically set up identification of what are those high-risk types of projects, what are those habitats that we have to be really concerned about and look at from a very strategic environmental assessment. I don't mean strategic environmental assessment the same way that Yves talks about it.
And the other projects that are considered kind of medium to low risk we deal with in a very different manner. We try to apply our tools we've developed, such as our operational statements, so that we're not going into lengthy approval processes and lengthy environmental assessments.
I think environmental assessments in general, though.... There are a number of categories, and certainly some of them can be done very quickly and without much delay on any project.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mrs. Flood, I leave you with that. I thank you for being patient with me while I express myself in less than eloquent language.
If this committee accepts the amendments that are being proposed and discussed, I wonder if you will be supportive of both the intent and the amendments as they are accepted, so your department will not undo some of the actions we hope are going to be put into place.
12:10 p.m.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Certainly our intent is to work within the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but we would still be tied by law through the Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act. So our intent is to always ensure that we don't impede competitiveness and cause undue delays.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
You've done the assessment already and you think these are okay. There are things you can live with on the surface; at least you can live with the amendments that are being discussed. Transport Canada or Infrastructure Canada say they will meet whatever standards DFO might put in place or has in place.
12:10 p.m.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I don't want to leave the impression that because of the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, DFO does not do environmental assessments. If there are impacts and there is a project that will have an impact, by law we have to be there, unless we do something to change the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or the Fisheries Act.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Okay, let's deal with that issue at another time. But meanwhile, if we streamline a process, are we doing that in reality, or are we simply displacing Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada for DFO and Environment? I don't know whether we're taking away with the left and putting in with the right. That's all I want to know.
12:15 p.m.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I don't see it as much of a change for DFO. Where we were working with Transport Canada before, if it's a project that requires Fisheries Act authorizations, we will still be there. I don't think changing the Navigable Waters Protection Act changes things for us.
12:15 p.m.
Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport
Removing Navigable Waters Protection Act review for something that has no navigational impact--and those requirements that are a process unto themselves for their proponent--will take a piece of the jigsaw puzzle away from the box that the proponent needs to put together in order to get the full picture, which is ultimately his project in place. That in itself will streamline the process.