Transport Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Catherine Higgens]

No, I don't believe there was any desire to delay the projects. I believe it was an increase in workload because all 17,000 named waterways in Canada were subject to the act, so the workload.... In fact, streamlining the projects was an important process improvement, but there was still too little focus of the resources under the legislation to allow the department to fully implement that legislation for all waterways.

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

Can you tell me exactly what tools the department did not have to keep up to those? Putting back the delay time to get approvals.... It doesn't matter how many are coming in, the department has to deal with them. You can't just expect municipalities or anybody to wait, so what tool were you lacking?

[Catherine Higgens]

I would say the tool that was introduced in 2014 was a move to a risk-based framework, which is consistent with other safety legislation where you assess the risks of different waterways and focus resources on the types of works and the types of waters that pose the greatest risk to safety and navigation, and that is the tool that was introduced in 2014. The questions on the table today are, were they optimized, were they done in the best way, and were the right waterways identified according to risk?

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

In your opinion, has that change of 2014 been working? Has it reduced the time?

[Catherine Higgens]

Applications have reduced, obviously because of the narrowed focus of the legislation. The timeliness has increased. We don't have a backlog currently, and we are able to meet the timelines that we've committed to as part of the broad government review process, so there have been important improvements in the administration of the act.

What we've been hearing from stakeholders is concern that they haven't had the opportunity to express their views on the schedule and the implementation of the risk-based approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'd like to pick up where part of my prior questions left off, particularly turning my mind to the recreational industry in navigable waters. Were there any steps taken to encourage users to request being added to the schedule if they thought they were going to be impacted by the changes when it was last amended?

[Catherine Higgens]

I'm not aware of specific initiatives that have been undertaken to gather up that feedback at the time.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

As part of the consultation process, independent of whatever this committee does, are there going to be efforts made to engage the public proactively by saying, “If you think you're impacted by this, let us know so you can be part of it”?

[Catherine Higgens]

As part of the broad review of regulatory processes, there is the public portal. There was a survey of Canadians done not simply on the Navigation Protection Act but on all four pieces of legislation that are subject to a review, and the public was encouraged to provide views through that mechanism, and we're going to provide access to that site.

There was also an online survey. There is regular information disseminated through this site, so there are opportunities for recreational users to provide views, and they also have the opportunity of this committee to come forward.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I guess it's as much a PR exercise as anything and making sure that everybody knows about what's going on. Rather than ask a question, I'd made a suggestion that the department invite local representatives to reach out to groups in their communities across the country to say that, if you have a small river with a marina, you might want to consider having some feedback in the process.

I'm sorry, did you—

[Catherine Higgens]

No.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Just to shift gears for a moment, I have some questions following up on Monsieur Aubin's earlier comments about pipelines. I apologize if we've covered this, but I didn't quite pick everything up.

Why was there a transfer of responsibilities from Transport Canada to the NEB for the approval of some pipelines?

[Catherine Higgens]

There was at the time a duplicate authority. There was authority under the Navigation Protection Act for the minister to regulate pipelines and there was also a duplicate authority to regulate pipelines under section 108 of the National Energy Board Act. The changes streamlined and consolidated those authorities with the National Energy Board as a one-window regulator so that these crossings,... Primarily they were minor impacts on navigation, such as directional drilling, which goes under the waterway rather than through it.

There was a series of discussions with NEB on how we could consolidate those authorities and provide a more comprehensive safety oversight supported, of course, by Transport Canada under a memorandum of understanding to make sure that our expertise was made available to them.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Does Transport Canada still have a role in regulating non-NEB pipelines that may have an impact on navigable waters?

[Catherine Higgens]

The National Energy Board regulates interprovincial and international pipelines. Where a pipeline remains within the boundaries of a province, it falls under the Navigation Protection Act.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Ms. Harris, perhaps I could ask you this question, although Ms. Higgens might be in a better position to answer. I'm not sure.

As part of the consultation process, we heard about this website. Any time you embrace the online community, that's great. Could you share a few more details as to what this website is going to include or does include presently?

[Nancy Harris]

The website, the portal that Catherine mentioned, did include a questionnaire that was open during the summer timeframe to collect some preliminary views from Canadians on their overarching perspectives with respect to the review. The information received through that questionnaire is currently being collated and can be made available if that is of interest to the committee.

We are currently looking at putting additional questions onto the website to seek some additional views from Canadians. We're currently planning and designing some questions that would get at the issues that were discussed here today regarding the kinds of things the department would be interested in hearing about from Canadians in relation to the NPA. For example, what is their experience with the act? Do they think, as Catherine mentioned earlier, that the balance is right in terms of the changes that were made?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'd suggest that you invite local representatives in both houses of Parliament to share this with their own communities online as well.

Madam Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 45 seconds.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

If there is an obstruction to a navigable water, does the minister currently have the tools required to respond quickly if that obstruction is going to interfere with navigation or business?

[Nancy Harris]

In terms of obstructions to navigation in scheduled waters, there are tools available now through the program to respond in those situations. As was mentioned, those obstruction provisions in the act apply to scheduled waters.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

There are no powers that the minister should have, in your opinion, that aren't there presently for scheduled waters?

I'm sure I'm over time, by the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You are. Thank you.

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I listened carefully to what the people had to say. I listened to the comments made by the parliamentary secretary and the minister. My sincere thanks to the officials for the clarifications.

After this first meeting, my opinion has not changed. My colleague pretty much confirmed that what we are seeing right now is a public relations campaign. It is very unfortunate that we are using the committee resources for an exercise like that.

The parliamentary secretary told us earlier that she did not want to suggest that major changes be made to the Navigation Protection Act. However, the departments seem to be so interested in doing so that they must be made right away. Our committee's agenda has been turned upside down just so that we can study those amendments immediately.

The amendments seem justifiable only by the will to change what the previous government had set up. However, those things are working well according to this morning's testimony. Everything is going well. The delays have been reduced and the municipalities can proceed more quickly.

Those requests for amendments were made by Transport Canada at the time. Once again, I don't understand why we are using up so much time and so many resources from the House, when this consultation could have been held by the department alone. The two ministers misled us. I think that's serious. The letter to us clearly states that the department will be consulting the public. However, we have learned that it will consult only the indigenous peoples. That's good, but that's not what we were told.

There's a serious lack of respect for the committee. I urge my colleagues to talk about the department's or the minister's insensitivity toward the committee.

Madam Chair, why ask our committee to do the work that is normally done by the department? Why add another consultation when the department already has the means to act and to respond to all the requests and when it seems that it has no issues or complaints? It is able to take action. There is no current request for amendments. What is so urgent? What are the changes expected? What is the problem? I have no idea, and no one here this morning has been able to tell me what the problem is with the Navigation Protection Act. No one was able to say.

Madam Chair, that is why it will come as no surprise to you that I move the following motion to be studied by the committee:

That the Committee, after noting that the Minister of Transport has reached his own conclusions on the necessary amendments to the Navigation Protection Act, immediately cease its study of the Navigation Protection Act.

Why take more time to study things that are working well? That's what we have heard this morning. It makes no sense. There will be no consultation. So we have been misled. The minister has already made a decision. The groundwork has been laid by the mandate letter that he received from the Prime Minister. I think the committee has much more important things to do than to serve solely as a pawn in the government's PR campaign to the various interest groups it wants to serve.

I will provide a copy of the motion to the clerk. We can probably talk about it, if the members of the committee unanimously agree to do so.