Evidence of meeting #120 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was noise.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
So you would also agree, Mr. Burrows, that the evidence for making the substantive changes really isn't there. It's driven more by ideology.
President, Chamber of Marine Commerce
I certainly couldn't argue against that.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
We also always hear about the government trying to balance the environment with the economy, but it seems as though every time we are considering new legislation, it involves more regulations that business will have to take into account in their daily activities. Is this another example of business continually being strangled by regulations?
President, Chamber of Marine Commerce
If you're asking me that question, my answer is yes. As I said earlier, there is so much we can do on a voluntary basis that is often more effective and more considered, so I would agree.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Now that I've got the answers I want, I'll give my last minute to Mr. Badawey.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
That's so kind of you.
I just need a couple of seconds. With respect to the comments made by Mr. Burrows, I just want to ask a last question about defining responsibilities and working with emergency service providers, etc. In my view, this is what this bill is actually doing. I'm no expert when it comes to that line of work. I'm just here to help govern and put legislation forward. So I'll ask the expert we have with us, Mr. Lowry.
Mr. Lowry, do you see this legislation as a mechanism or a tool for you to actually do your job a lot better?
Manager, Communications, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation
As I mentioned earlier, the amendments do not directly impact Western Canada Marine Response, but we do feel they clarify and improve the ability of the Coast Guard to respond with authority and leadership to incidents on the coast. We feel that's a net positive.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, witnesses.
I have a question for Ecojustice, in particular, pertaining to the east coast of the country and the right whales. I sit on the fisheries committee as well. We've heard from many witnesses from the the fishery, the shipping industry, the tourism industry, and whale watching operations and so on about the impact of the legislation or the measures taken by DFO to protect right whales on the east coast. They've been fairly significant. The result has been great in terms of protecting the whales. I guess we have had no loss of whales in 2018, after a disastrous 2017.
I want to ask Ecojustice whether you think the measures taken were stringent enough. Should the same procedures be applied in 2019? In your opinion, will the cumulative effect of all of the legislation or the measures they've put in place protect the right whales going forward?
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice Canada
I think the evidence, the outcome of the measures put in place in response to the volume of ship strikes and entanglements in 2017, going from quite a large number, a very significant percentage of the global population, dying in Canadian waters to no whales dying, speaks for itself. My understanding is that there is an ongoing discussion about how we can modify the orders that have been issued with respect to fishing and shipping to ensure that they are responding to our evolving information and understanding. That is why I think it's really important to introduce the power to have interim orders into the Canada Shipping Act for environmental purposes. You can see that you can tailor them, alter them and amend them in a way that is much more challenging to do through the regulatory process.
Whether the orders go forward next year in exactly the same way they have in 2018 I believe is the subject of a very complex discussion and consultation with multiple stakeholders on the east coast. I'm not going to offer an opinion on how that's going to land. I think it's a really good illustration of how using notices to shipping and fisheries orders, which are themselves interim orders, can be a balanced decision-making process but with a regulatory backstop to make sure that hard decisions that need to be made are made. We see that the outcome of this has been that no whales have died in 2018.
Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.
Thank you very much.
From the shipping industry perspective, what's your opinion on what was done on the east coast of the country?
President, Chamber of Marine Commerce
That's a very good question, and I have quite a few opinions, but let me be very brief. I'm picking up on Mr. Hardie's earlier comment. He was quite right that we have to be careful with interim orders and so on. There could be damage from too broad an application of rapid intervention. In fact, that was the case with the whales. The government, in its haste, had to contort itself like a cirque du soleil gymnast to find a fit for some regulation, and the application was too broad because there wasn't proper science-based consultation.
All the lanes were affected in a way that was really inappropriate initially, and that affected a lot of communities along the north shore, where we had to change schedules. We do a lot of community service, in people and goods, to maintain connections, because it's a very remote part of the country, and it was not applied appropriately. That is a good example of what not to do.
We finally did have a result that was clearly beneficial. After lots of consideration, I think we still have an interim order, a notice, that's not quite appropriate for next year. Hopefully there'll be some further modification.
Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.
That's fine, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to focus on the east coast for now and the impact of the regulations.
Liberal
Edmonton Riverbend, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief.
We've just heard testimony here today about how rapid this consultation has or hasn't been, and the scope of the omnibus bill. I've counted the time. We've had one hour of testimony. It was one hour with the officials. We then had 20 minutes of questions with stakeholders and then this hour here with stakeholders. That's an hour and 20 minutes of consultation with stakeholders when it comes to this bill, and it's a significant bill.
Let's keep in line with what happens at the finance committee when they have the officials there in front of them. It's in public. There's a lot of back and forth in a transparent manner. That's typical of what happens at the finance committee, and we should also do the same here at the transportation and infrastructure committee.
We have the next 45 minutes. Instead of going in camera, I move that we remain in public. I put that motion before the committee.
I'd like to ask for a recorded vote this time around.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Jeneroux has asked that we go in public, rather than in camera, for further discussion on Bill C-86. It's a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.
Again, to our folks from British Columbia, thanks for being up so early this morning, and have a wonderful day.
We will suspend for a few moments for our witnesses to leave.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I am calling our meeting back to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a briefing on the status report on phase 1 of the new infrastructure plan.
Our witnesses for this next hour are from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Welcome to you all.
Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, welcome. We're very happy to have you with us today.
Jason Jacques is chief financial officer and senior director of costing and budgetary analysis. That's a long title. Diarra Sourang is the financial analyst. Thank you all very much for being here today.
I'm going to open up the floor to Mr. Giroux. The committee has lots of questions. Thank you very much.
Yves Giroux Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Good morning, Madam Chair, vice-chair, and members of the committee.
Before I start, I would like to apologize for my intrusion while you were in camera. There was absolutely no sign outside and I didn't want to be late and so I entered the room. I'm sorry about that. I didn't want to listen to any secrets you might have been discussing.
Conservative