Transport Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Miller, can I just say I really appreciated your information for the committee? We try to do this in a non-partisan way, so sharing some of that background was helpful.

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

Ms. Higgens said, Ms. Sgro, that they asked the natives for some specific waterways, and I just wondered if those could be reported back to the committee when they come in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Higgens, if you can provide that information to the committee members, we would appreciate it.

Mr. Aubin, you have three minutes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given that we dove into this study, let us go back to its source. People often say that ministers come and go, but that the public service remains.

I would like to understand the beginning of the process. We know that the previous government brought the number of protected lakes and rivers down from 30,000 to less than 100. There is probably no connection, but when we look at the map, we see that about 90% of the lakes and rivers that remained protected were in Conservative ridings.

Ms. Higgens, what were the criteria that made it possible to keep those 100 or so lakes and rivers?

[Catherine Higgens]

Madam Chair, under the previous legislation, prior to the amendments, all waterways in Canada were subject to the protections of the act, and this included some 17,000 named waterways and unnamed waterways, and it was virtually impossible for the department to implement the act for such a broad scope.

So, moving to a risk-based framework under the amended Navigation Protection Act defined the criteria with which efforts would be focused on Canada's busiest waterways, and there were criteria established to define what those waterways were. They were threefold. The first was that there was charting available for those waterways, which is an essential support to navigation. The second was Statistics Canada information about the level of commercial activity and freight activity on the waterways. And then there was historical information from the program about recreational use on the waterways.

Those were the criteria, Madam Chair, that were used to establish the new boundaries and the new scope of the act.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The amendments made to the legislation reportedly helped reduce the pressure of useless assessments, among other things.

I must admit that I have a hard time imagining what a useless assessment is. Perhaps not all construction projects on a river require the same type of environmental study in light of the scope of the project. However, are there really any useless projects? If so, give me some examples of what those might be.

[Catherine Higgens]

Examples of projects that consumed resources under the program that were not seen as a significant impact on navigation would be seasonal ditches where you could technically float a canoe, but they were not used for the purposes of navigation; or repairs to culverts. Very minor works in minor waters of this nature were seen as consuming review resources where there was very little or no impact at all on navigation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Your time is up.

Ms. Block you have six minutes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have to admit that I feel like we are getting conflicting messages from the minister and from the department in terms of consultations. In the beginning of the minister's statement, he suggested that he had not launched any sort of formal consultations on the Navigation Protection Act and that was why he was really looking forward to the work of this committee to inform him in terms of what changes need to be made—yet we know that on June 20 he already identified that there were definite changes that were going to be made. We asked what those were, and Ms. Young could not provide us with an answer on that.

We also know that in response to Mr. Fraser's question, when he basically outlined some tools that perhaps we could focus on, your own response, Mrs. Higgens, was that those would be absolutely the tools needed, critical to restoring the lost protections in the Navigation Protection Act. One is led to believe that it is a foregone conclusion that there will be a restoration of the lost protections in the navigable waters act based on the comments that the minister has made publicly, based on the comments that you have made here today, and based on the mandate letter that was given to the minister.

Something else I heard from you, Mrs. Higgens, was that you were reaching out to first nations communities to identify for them what is problematic in the act to their communities at this time. I'd like you to clarify. It sounds to me like the department is actually out looking for evidence to make the point that the Navigation Protection Act needs to be changed and that the protections that were changed need to be restored.

I'm wondering if you would comment on that.

[Catherine Higgens]

Yes, thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

We have heard concerns from indigenous communities, and also from other users of the waterways, that focus primarily on the focus of the schedule of waterways: are the appropriate waterways covered or not? Concerns have been brought to our attention. We maintain, as the minister outlined, an ongoing dialogue with indigenous people. That's appropriate for the crown, and for us as stewards of the legislation. That is an ongoing conversation. We have asked them, in the course of that dialogue, to bring precision to their concerns, and where particular waterways might be of concern. We are asking them, in the course of a conversation, for clarification and precision. We aren't directing in any way that conversation or the outcome of that conversation. The minister, I think, is aware that the concerns that have come forward have been of this nature.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much. I think I have the answer I need.

I want to follow up, then, with subsection 29(2). You mentioned that the concerns that have been raised with the department are, in effect, the fact that a certain waterway within a community has been left off the schedule, left off the table of waterways identified to fall under these certain protections, yet we know that subsection 29(2) gives authority to the minister to amend the schedule 3.

If this is the case, and we know that waterways have been added already, perhaps you would highlight why this undertaking hasn't been provided to those communities that are raising concerns about their own waterways. Contrary to what Ms. Young has characterized as an ad hoc basis for adding waterways to the schedule, it's articulated in legislation how that can happen.

When a community comes to you and says they are concerned that a certain waterway within it isn't on the schedule 3, do you advise them that there is a way of getting that waterway put on the schedule? If you have issues with the process, what would those issues be?

[Catherine Higgens]

Madam Chair, for information, the Governor in Council may add waterways to the schedule if he is satisfied that it's in the national or regional economic interest, that it's in the public interest. These are broader questions. The minister, I think, is asking the question, “What do Canadians feel are the gaps? Which are the types of waterways and the types of protections that should be encompassed by the act?” That would inform, in fact, a decision to change which waterways are covered. Those are the questions the committee has been asked to provide advice on. There is authority to add a waterway, and two waterways have been initiated for the process to add them, but that doesn't answer those broader questions that will inform the public interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Your time is up, Mrs. Block.

Mr. Fraser, for six minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much. I'll start by spending some additional time on the schedule.

Ms. Higgens, I believe it was you who discussed some of the criteria the department considered when coming up with what waterways should be on the schedule. I'm curious. Is there a certain metric that was used to measure the commercial activity, the recreational traffic, or freight? What were you measuring to determine what should get onto the fee schedule?

[Catherine Higgens]

The available information at the time provided information on the level of freight movements on a waterway. We used that as an indication of the level of commercial activity.

The information around the recreational use was less detailed and less informative. We drew upon information the program had on where projects had been engaged in on waterways and where users had come forward to indicate that they were using the waterways.

It was information that was perhaps more precise for the freight and more precise for which waters were charted or not charted. The information around the recreational users, I would say, was of a less comprehensive nature, if that answers your question.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That's helpful.

Is there a way that the department or perhaps Stats Canada could get more information about recreational traffic other than measuring freight?

[Catherine Higgens]

It's a very difficult area to get at. It does rely in part on users coming forward and raising concerns on specific waters and providing that information proactively. It's not a captured body of statistics that's easy to measure.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That's helpful.

Being an east coast member of Parliament, I have two separate coasts in my riding alone, on the Northumberland Strait and on the eastern shore. Here's one of my big concerns. The commercial fishery often has very small harbours. A lot of the small marinas that the tourism industry depends on may be impacted by this.

I'm curious. Would it be a simple exercise to expand the criteria to capture the kinds of bodies of water that impact people in my community? Would there be an easy fix to simply extend the metrics we're talking about?

[Catherine Higgens]

My answer would be that it is something that perhaps that the committee could advise on as to whether that's a fruitful area to develop that information and statistics to inform the criteria.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

From the question, perhaps you know where my preference lies.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Shifting gears for a moment, I'd like to chat about abandoned vessels and how they may impact navigable waters. There are communities throughout Nova Scotia, such as Marie Joseph in my backyard.... The member for South Shore—St. Margarets actually has a private member's motion on this right now in the House. What is Transport Canada doing about abandoned vessels?

[Nancy Harris, Executive Director, Regulatory Stewardship and Aboriginal Affairs, Department of Transport]

The issue of abandoned vessels is partially addressed in the Navigation Protection Act. The Navigation Protection Act does not provide the full set of tools to deal with abandoned vessels. To a large extent, abandoned vessels are the responsibility of the vessel owners to deal with.

Through the Navigation Protection Act, there are some provisions to deal with obstructions to navigation. In the event that abandoned vessels are obstructions to navigation, there are provisions that would allow for those vessels to be managed. There's also a provision in section 20 of the act that allows for abandoned vessels to be addressed, provided there's a third party who would like to take ownership of that vessel.

There are some provisions within the NPA, but there are also broader considerations and the responsibility of the vessel owners that need to taken into account.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Are there any powers of Transport Canada or the federal government more broadly if the owner is known and is unwilling to move an abandoned vessel that's been sitting there for years? Is there any power of the federal government to impose a solution to that situation?

I'm just asking if the federal government or Transport Canada has the ability to require an owner of an abandoned vessel who's unwilling to dispose of it or move it.... Can we make an owner take action?

[Catherine Higgens]

Perhaps we could get back to the committee with that information with regard to exactly where the boundaries of the authorities lie, and what is possible and not, so that we provide precise enough information.