Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2008

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

My first question is on the Windsor–Essex–Detroit corridor project. Obviously it's a big project for Canada, and the effects for the U.S. are going to be huge too. My understanding is that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25,000 jobs over seven years will be created to produce this tunnel and start it--around $2.5 billion into the local economy.

Is there anything being proposed or that could have been done differently to speed up the process we find ourselves in today, such as having in place some of these changes under the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Would any changes have sped up this process?

As you know, there was a tremendous amount of talk by the previous government about getting this done--and indeed by our government. Now governments are moving forward with it. But are there any changes that would have sped up this process and helped Canada's productivity overall as a result? I'm leaving that totally open. It's not a big question, is it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Feel free to jump in.

[David Osbaldeston]

From a Transport Canada perspective, it's a major project we would have undertaken even with these amendment proposals we have in front of you. I'm not familiar with the specific file and details, but I can envision exactly the same process with these amendments as it would have undergone then. It is indeed a major project structure going across a major waterway, which would necessarily generate careful review from a navigational aspect. So we would trigger...as we trigger today.

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

Absolutely.

So you see that even with these changes in the Navigable Waters Protection Act, there wouldn't probably have been any faster way to get to where we are today, then?

[David Osbaldeston]

That is correct, other than that we foreseeably would have been able to free up additional resources to be able to respond to that file more quickly, because they weren't involved in culverts going across farmers' fields, etc.

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

Indeed, then, most of the proposals we're suggesting or that have been suggested by departments or by provincial government are for the smaller projects, except to relieve some of the components in the departments themselves. So what we're really looking at with the Navigable Waters Protection Act changes is for smaller projects. Is that fair to say?

[David Osbaldeston]

The greatest relief that these provide is to free us from smaller projects with no navigational impact in order to allow those resources to respond in a more timely manner to the larger project needs of our clients.

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

All right. But to be fair, is there anywhere in this that we are proposing to reduce any navigation by Canadians—for instance, for canoeists, etc.? Have you heard anybody here today or anybody prior to this in dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act say that we want to reduce navigation in Canada? Is that the case?

[David Osbaldeston]

No, absolutely not. Our mandate stays the same, and that is to protect the public right of navigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Scharf, I think you wanted to comment on the infrastructure.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I'd like to respond to a couple of your points.

With respect to the question of whether this will just impact on small or large projects, from our point of view—Keith had run the data and we presented this the last time—about 20% of our MRIF, our Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, our smaller community projects, are affected by this, but about 25% of what were the big strategic projects are affected.

If we're doing a big waste water treatment plant and the effluent pipes are discharging and they're a certain diameter—or not—then we are affected by the navigable waters legislation. Just to press this point to one further aspect, though, if there are deleterious substances going into receiving streams, under the Fisheries Act we'd still be checking that.

With respect to your question about canoeists and whitewater enthusiasts, because Transport Canada was administering the act, they have led any consultations that have occurred. We haven't been in direct contact with them from that standpoint.

I was struck by something that I almost find in common among Madam Tully and Mr. Middleton and the FCM, and that is looking for some kind of operational definition of a major waterway, a navigable waterway, and a minor waterway. The point of adding clarity to that on an operational basis is that, from the standpoint of our clients—municipalities, provincial promoters, the private sector—having that information would be extremely valuable.

If I might go one further step, when applications come in to us, if there were some sort of mapping, as Mr. Middleton described with the Albertan experience, that would be very helpful.

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

Great.

To clarify, though, as far as any of the witnesses are aware today, there are no movements or initiatives by anyone to reduce the ability to navigate in any waters in Canada. Just to confirm that, there is no movement to eliminate the ability to navigate waters.

Is that fair to say, Ms. Scharf?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

That is correct.

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

Indeed, I would go further with my questioning: is there any movement at all to require less environmental assessment or environmental integrity stemming from these changes?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

From our point of view, there is not. We still have our obligations under the law.

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

I was going to ask a question about northern Alberta, Fort McMurray, the Athabaska River, and a bridge that needs to go over it, and I'm going to ask that question very briefly.

We've had two bridges go across the Athbaska River for years and years, about 40 years in total. Now we need another bridge, because we have line-ups of three to four hours to get across a bridge. There has been a proposal for a five- or six-lane bridge to go across to replace an existing bridge.

My question is do we have to go through exactly the same amount of assessment to replace a bridge that has out-used its liveable life? Is that totally necessary, from the department's point of view?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I'm also going to let Keith answer this.

If the environmental impacts when it originally had been assessed haven't changed, if spawning habits or whatever haven't changed, if the repairs are sort of exactly in the same areas--it's still in kind of serviceable areas--it probably would not require a major difference. But if any of those factors have changed, yes, we'd be thrown into a lot of detail, and we're still obligated under the law to do the full environmental assessment.

Keith is more knowledgeable about doing the screenings.

[Keith Grady]

That replacement would require a screening under CEAA if we were providing funding for it or considering it for funding. We would have to address all of the factors that CEAA requires that we address as part of the assessment, including implications for fisheries, riparian habitat, erosion, sedimentation, and so on. So it would go through that kind of an assessment process.

If you've got an existing bridge, we would probably have a lot of existing information, so it may be simpler in that respect, but it would require a screening level of assessment.

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

So it's very rigorous, and it's going to continue to be rigorous, no matter what the changes are that are being proposed by this committee, in essence?

[Keith Grady]

Exactly.

[David Osbaldeston]

If I may, Mr. Jean, if you're nestling that under the current system, it's the same process. Under the proposed amendments--if it's no longer a named work and would necessarily have to trigger a 5.(1)--if it's determined that the replacement bridge poses absolutely no incremental diminishment to the current navigation going under the existing bridge, we would not trigger that environmental assessment under navigable waters protection. We would be provided, by the removal of that named-works clause, with the discretion--based on our officer's knowledge of the area and the navigational traffic in the area--to determine that there was no additional impact to navigation, and we would not trigger it and therefore not have to add that piece to the puzzle box.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We're just going to go around the table one more time for two minutes each.

Monsieur Carrier, I know you have a question.

Mr. Masse, you'll be next.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'd like to give Mrs. Flood the opportunity to answer my question; she wanted to do so earlier.

[Ginny Flood]

As I see it, there are two parts to the Highway 25 project. For the first part, on the south side, the company has already received authorization. For the second part, a compensation plan had to be developed. We're reviewing that plan. Authorization will probably be given later.