Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 30.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the orders of the day are for a study of the current status of navigation protection of the Canadian waterways, including their governance and use, and the operation of the current Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Joining us today, from the Department of Transport, we have Mr. William Nash, director general of marine safety; David Osbaldeston, manager of the navigable waters protection program; and Cara McCue, manager of environmental assessment.

From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, we have Yves Leboeuf, vice-president of policy development.

From Infrastructure Canada, we have Shirley Ann Scharf, director general of the issues management directorate, program operations branch; and Keith Grady, senior advisor for environment review and approvals in the issues management directorate, programs operations branch.

And from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Ginny Flood, the national director of environmental assessments and major projects, oceans and habitat sector.

Thank you, and welcome to all of you. I understand that you've been here and made presentations before. One of the requests of the committee was that we bring you back before our committee and just review the things we're heard and help us clarify some of the questions that have come up as a result of the other witnesses who have presented here.

So without further ado, I welcome the Honourable Joe Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

I guess this is just a continuation of the discussion we had earlier on. I have no doubt that you have followed, at least in part, some of the interventions that have been presented to this committee in the last little while since you were here. There are a couple of concerns that maybe you can address.

First of all, we heard last week about some of the advantages, perceived and real, and the disadvantages, perceived and spun, of the proposals that are before us, such as for minor works, etc. I wonder if you have any observations you think this committee ought to take into consideration, given the testimony we're received so far.

Perhaps Mr. Nash and Ms. Scharf might want to talk about that first, because the discussions have really been about Transport Canada and infrastructure more than anything else; that's where the focus has been. And then we'll talk, if you don't mind, about the environment and DFO afterwards.

[William J. Nash, Director General, Marine Safety, Department of Transport]

Okay. Maybe I will turn to David Osbaldeston. I know that he has been following this closely from a technical perspective and will be able to shed some light on this.

[David Osbaldeston, Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Department of Transport]

Yes.

Mr. Volpe, I'm not quite sure I understand your specific question.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Initially, we had thought that perhaps this ought to be a fairly easy exercise, that we would make minor amendments—because they are minor—and that we would address those issues relating to infrastructure and the way the Department of Transport, in this instance, might be able to facilitate many of the applications that pile up and are actually going to be approved. But the process is unduly long, and apparently it does not have much to do with staffing and has everything to do with the procedural steps that must be taken, which will eventually end up exactly where everybody expects them to end up; that is, in approval—

[David Osbaldeston]

Correct.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

—of a very minor number, according to the list, and the additional costs associated with them, both in terms of time lost and actual material resources expended.

That's why I wanted to get your sense of some of the testimony that has been brought forward. As you know, last week we had somebody from Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, who appeared to suggest that these are not as minor as we had considered them to be initially.

[David Osbaldeston]

I have followed the testimony closely. I did listen to the latter half of the Waterkeeper testimony. Unfortunately, because of the vote call, we were back in the office and didn't realize that you were reconvening, but I had occasion to listen to the Internet coverage.

On the minor changes, I don't quite agree with the Waterkeeper view of the NWP processes, procedures, and constraints. I have to say that within the program, we've had very limited, if any, contact at all with the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, or that particular association. I verified this with our sources prior to the hearing. I was the first to have any contact with that particular group.

As we have laid out before you in earlier testimony, these changes in process—although they are minor, as you have well put it—require, from a process standpoint, an amendment to the legislation in order to make them happen. And I think you have heard, as I've listened to other witnesses, that these minor changes requiring this legislative amendment will provide great, great benefit in time and cost elements to Canadians at large, in that they will allow us to look at the things that really matter to them more closely, by freeing up resources to industry and by enabling us to move forward more quickly with economic processes and projects that they have in place, and, perhaps most importantly, as you've mentioned, allow us, with our infrastructure colleagues, to assist in the rebuilding of Canadian infrastructure in the most expeditious manner possible, while at the same time ensuring that our environmental due diligence—which was the key or essence of the Waterkeeper concern—on the part of government is indeed practised and in place.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Osbaldeston, do you mind if I just put the question directly to Ms. Scharf?

I say this because we had a sense—I think all of us did, though I'm not speaking for anybody else on the committee—that there had been engagement by Environment Canada, and in fact by the environment departments of the various provinces, in the process of consideration of the merits of the amendments proposed.

The Waterkeeper witness, while she didn't suggest it directly, left the impression that environmental communities—including, of course, the environment departments of the various jurisdictions around the country—had not been invited to the table when assessing whether these amendments were minor, whether they were process-oriented or whether they were in fact dismissive of the substance of the matter.

I want to get your take on whether that perception, left deliberately or unintentionally, was an accurate one.

[Shirley Anne Scharf, Director General, Issues Management Directorate, Program Operations Branch, Infrastructure Canada]

Thank you.

Certainly I understand the concerns of the waterkeepers and their concerns about the environment. So we appreciate that fact. And we have not been engaged in consultations with them. But both with them—

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Them, meaning the waterkeepers?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

The waterkeepers, that's correct.

But I do want to speak to that point, because in that, as well as in some other things that have come forward, I think there's the assumption that we at Infrastructure Canada don't do an environmental assessment if the trigger isn't in the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I realize this committee is very well aware of this distinction, but I would just reiterate for the record that when there is a funding trigger, that is, when the federal government gives money to a project, and when there is a detailed project description, we are obligated by law to conduct a full environmental assessment. We must conduct one. Navigable Waters Protection Act is part of that process, but we still must consult with DFO; we must consult to see whether environmental damage is done. And just from a practical point of view, we would not proceed with a project unless we solicited the expertise of Transport Canada and there was an assurance that the community was accepting of those results. So I just want to put that assurance to....

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

But if it's not a funding factor, or it's just a question of a property owner wanting to make a different use of property or to build up the capacities that exist or to make some other changes, does Mr. Leboeuf automatically become involved, and is he brought into the process? And by “he”, I mean his department.

[Yves Leboeuf, Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

Mr. Chairman, an environmental assessment will be started in cases where a decision triggers the process. To refresh your memory, I recall that we're talking about situations in which a federal authority is the proponent or cases in which financial assistance is granted to the project, by Infrastructure Canada, for example.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

In the case of private properties, that triggers no assessment, does it?

[Yves Leboeuf]

That would indeed be the case in certain situations. If I correctly understood the concerns raised in your hearings last week, you were talking in particular about the possibility that works other than minor works located on secondary waterways would be subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In such cases, no environmental assessment linked to that trigger would be required. As for knowing whether that's a problem and, in that event, what the scope of that problem would be, my colleagues at the Department of Transport will probably be in better position than I to answer the question.

It is important to keep in mind that this kind of legislative initiative must be the subject of a so-called strategic environmental assessment, not under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but under the cabinet directive on the environmental assessment of policy, plan and program proposals. That makes it possible to determine whether a gap might be caused in the environmental program field and, if so, to clarify ways of minimizing the extent of that negative impact.

Based on what my colleague Mr. Osbaldeston said, a strategic assessment of the initiative as it existed at that time was conducted a few years ago, and Transport Canada intends to update that assessment in light of the initiative as it stands now or as it will be following this committee's hearings and report.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

So what I hear you saying is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, I'm sorry.

Monsieur Carrier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry, it's Monsieur Laframboise. Sorry.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to continue with you, Mr. Leboeuf, since we're dealing with this subject.

Regardless of the situation, an environmental assessment is done from the moment the federal government invests funds.

[Yves Leboeuf]

Indeed.

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

Some witnesses told us last week that it was automatic. So, if funding is invested, you have to intervene in the matter.

[Yves Leboeuf]

Earlier I talked about a gap, but there isn't necessarily a gap. We'll have to see what project it is, whether it is funded by the federal government and whether it is subject to authorizations under the Fisheries Act or to a provincial assessment, which will be the case in many situations.

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

It's never easy when you talk about the environment. I've received e-mails in the past few days. There isn't any environmental psychodrama, but it is important that you all be here today, including Mrs. Flood, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

You intervene from the moment there is a wildlife habitat problem. Is that correct, Mrs. Flood?

[Ginny Flood, National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Yes, if there's an impact on fish or fish habitat, then there would have to be a Fisheries Act authorization. If we were to issue a fisheries authorization or request the issuance of a Fisheries Act authorization, we would have to embark on an environmental assessment prior to issuing that authorization.

So, yes, but we also have—