Transport Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Although I do appreciate the comments made by Mr. Berthold with respect to endorsing the national transportation strategy as well as endorsing its priority within the committee, I have to say that with this on our plate now there are reasons for it, and you just outlined some of those reasons.

I want to dig a bit deeper with respect to the dialogue, I guess, for lack of a better word, with indigenous people as well as other folks who may have an interest in this. How deep does the minister or your department intend on going with respect to that consultation...the direction the previous government had taken?

[Catherine Higgens]

Madam Chair, the department has opened up a dialogue with national associations to outline clearly the changes in the legislation from the 2014 amendments, so that there's a clearer appreciation, I believe, with indigenous people across the country of what those changes were and what they could signify for their particular concerns and traditional rights. We have understood that information will be disseminated more broadly within indigenous communities, and we would look to have a dialogue at a more granular level on what those changes mean in specific circumstances. The conversations we have had to date with indigenous people have indicted a concern with the schedule, and a concern broadly with waterways in their geographical region. But we have asked them to come back with specific concerns so we can understand the nature and specific concern and what would be potential avenues to address them. We can make that information available.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'll pass the rest of my time on to Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies, thank you for being with us today.

Just quickly, I'm afraid of duplicity here. I understand there are parallel proceedings going on with respect to the Fisheries Act. What can we focus our efforts on to avoid doing the work twice?

[Catherine Higgens]

Madam Chair, this committee is considering the Navigation Protection Act, which is primarily a safety act. It ensures the oversight of works that can interfere with navigation, and its priority is to ensure this can be done safely and with minimum impact on navigation.

There are other legislations that also provide regulatory approvals. There's a review of the Fisheries Act under a separate committee, and it would look at the fish and fish habitat impacts in many of the same waters, but from a very different lens in terms of looking at the changes that were made to the Fisheries Act, which defined the scope of that act and the protections it affords for fish and fish habitat.

While they both concern waterways, they take a very different focus and approach in terms of the purpose of the legislations.

The environmental expert panel will be looking at the environmental assessment process, and it will be posing questions: what are appropriate projects to be subject to the environmental assessment, how should those assessments be done in a way that builds confidence and trust in the process, and are there gaps in the way that legislation is currently functioning?

These are very different lenses, Madam Chair. I think the minister has stressed that, for the Navigation Protection Act, the top priority is safe navigation for Canadians.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

Would it be best to focus on things like which waterways are covered by the act, which obstructions might interfere for the purpose of the act, and what tools the department or the minister might have to deal with those obstructions?

[Catherine Higgens]

These are exactly the tools and the advice that would be critical for the minister in responding to restoring lost protections and modern safeguards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Miller, you have five minutes.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks to Ms. Young for taking some questions.

First of all, maybe for your own interest and benefit and that of the other members, do any of the members here know the history of why changes were made by the previous government to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? I was chair of the rural caucus at the time, and we had a number of groups, organizations, and individuals approach us wanting those changes, and probably the first one was SARM, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. Madam Chair, one of your staff here was in the room and used to live in Huron County in Ontario, just southwest of my own riding. We had multiple requests from farmers there because of the problems with the act. The changes were brought about in consultation and with suggestions from a lot of groups out there. They weren't just brought in unilaterally, and I think with all due respect, if the government were to spend as much time listening to those groups and figuring out why we made the changes instead of just wanting to change everything that the previous government brought in, I think it would be more valuable.

I'm not going to pretend that any piece of legislation is perfect, but I can tell you it's a lot better than it was. There were cases, I can tell you, one not very far from my own farm. I am a beef farmer in my other life, and there was no common sense or urgency. When farmers are wanting to get on the fields either to put a crop in or to take it off, the last thing they need is a bureaucracy that doesn't work. I can tell you that the bureaucracy behind the Navigable Waters Act didn't give a damn—pardon my French—as far as getting the job done was concerned and making decisions, and farmers and rural municipalities across this country suffered because of it.

Having said that, to the minister, what kind of specific changes is this government hung up on changing, and where did those complaints come from? Was it people who thought that the changes in it were actually a detriment to the environment and what have you, because I can tell you that it was not the intent and I don't believe anything in the bill took waters, actual navigable waters, out of protection. And I want to ask Ms. Higgens too to comment on that. That wasn't the intent and I don't believe it to be. I'd like to know where that consultation is coming from, what national organizations or what have you. Ms. Higgens, could you comment on that and Ms. Young as well?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

I'll start. I don't want to give the committee any sense that we're saying that there are major problems with the act that need to be changed. What we're saying is that, when it was first brought in, the consultation process wasn't as robust as it should have been. This is giving the committee an opportunity to take a second look.

There are also provisions in the act that are a challenge to implement, and I think that's an area that Ms. Higgens will be able to comment on.

[Catherine Higgens]

Thank you. Yes, I would be happy to speak to some of the areas that we've heard are challenges.

Just in terms of the question of whom we've been hearing concerns from, we have heard obviously a significant concern from indigenous groups across the country that are concerned that their waterways no longer are under the protection of the act and there is therefore no opportunity for a dialogue or consultation with the crown and with the government on those waterways as works are developed in them. This is an opportunity lost that indigenous people have brought to our attention in multiple forums.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Ms. Higgens, could you name a couple of bodies of water, specific rivers or lakes that are excluded, because I believe this is not a valid issue.

[Catherine Higgens]

We have asked various indigenous groups to come back to us with specific areas of concern, specific waters, and that dialogue is under way. I'm not in a position to provide specific rivers and waterways, by indigenous group, at this time.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Will indigenous groups and communities be treated the very same?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Your time is up. See if you can get a fast answer to that question.

[Catherine Higgens]

Sorry, which question?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I was asking if indigenous groups would be treated identically to any other stakeholder.

[Catherine Higgens]

No. The crown has committed to a nation-to-nation dialogue with indigenous people, and we have established a participant funding program, which...

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

The answer is no; they won't be treated identically.

[Catherine Higgens]

Participant funding is available to indigenous people, so that they can participate in the consultations and in the review. That is available to them in all four of the reviews the government has launched. This is important funding to allow them the capacity to understand the changes and to be able to express their concerns and views.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

The answer is no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I have just one last point, not a question.