Transport Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

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

Madam Chair, I believe that in order for a member to be able to be given time to ask questions there has to be unanimous consent if that member is not a member of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Let's ask the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin]

The Standing Orders say that non-members may participate in public proceedings to the extent that the committee allows. That, to me, means it's a question that's decided by a majority vote, not by unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right, I'm going to ask the question.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I move that we bring this to a vote to allow Mr. Tootoo to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the question on allowing Mr. Tootoo to have the last minute of the questioning.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Tootoo, you have just over a minute.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members.

I won't use all the time. I have just a quick question for the minister.

Thank you for coming this morning.

On this issue of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the cuts that were made, it's something that a lot of aboriginal groups across the country were rather upset about, to put it mildly. Unlike some people who say a stream is just a stream, that stream feeds aboriginal people and sustains them.

My quick question for the minister is, since being in, I wonder if he can highlight any concerns that he has heard from different aboriginal groups across the country from coast to coast to coast with regard to the changes that were made.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

There is no question about this. I can confirm to you that certain first nations have said, “Hey, you've removed from the schedule what in our minds is a navigable water. Therefore, we would like it to be put back in.” There are a number of first nations that have applied to have their waterways considered as navigable waters under the schedule, and of course we look at that. We are in the process of looking at some.

I will also point out that there have been some—I think—40 private members' bills that have come from within the Parliament of Canada, most of them from the NDP, that have indicated that they would like us to reconsider certain waters that they consider to be navigable. I think the impetus in the case of some of these came from first nations. Yes, first nations have reacted to the current schedule of 162 and said, “You've left out an important waterway, our waterway.” So we look at those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Minister Garneau, thank you very much for coming.

I believe your time is up, according to my clock. You're certainly welcome to stay if you can skip a cabinet meeting.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I'll get in trouble with the Prime Minister, Madam Chair, if I don't leave right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

I understand we have the departmental officials who will be here to answer the questions of the committee. Thank you very much.

We have with us from the Department of Transport, Catherine Higgins, the assistant deputy minister of programs.

Thank you very much for being here this morning. We appreciate the information I'm sure.

It is now Ms. Block's turn for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I know that at the beginning of the meeting you expressed some disappointment that the minister could only stay with us for 40 minutes. In his absence, would the parliamentary secretary be willing to answer some of the questions that we have about the amendments that are being considered for the Navigation Protection Act?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I don't know since she's not terribly welcome at this committee sometimes. I'm not sure if she would or not.

Mr. Clerk, is it in order for me to ask that question of the parliamentary secretary? Is it appropriate, since we now have departmental officials who are here to give us the answers from the department's perspective?

[The Clerk]

These are public proceedings and Ms. Young is free to participate in any way she sees fit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's up to Ms. Young if she chooses to answer.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Certainly, I will attempt to answer but I will refer to staff as well. They are here to answer your questions so I'm sure they'll have the answers that you need.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

Reflecting back on what the minister said about several private member's bills that have been put forward. He cited, in particular, members of the New Democratic Party, in regard to adding waterways back into the Navigation Protection Act.

Could the parliamentary secretary or any of the officials comment on the fact that subsection 29(2) of the act gives the minister the authority to amend the schedule and add lakes and rivers to it as requested by any community? I know that there have been two added in the last 11 months.

Is the parliamentary secretary aware of that authority the the minister already has? Perhaps the officials could speak to what has transpired in order to add the two waterways that have been added. Have any other communities come forward and asked for waterways to be included?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes, I am aware of the two that have been added. Possibly Catherine Higgens or Nancy Harris can express how they actually made it to the list.

[Catherine Higgens, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Department of Transport]

I would be pleased to speak about the two rivers and where they are in the process of being added to the schedule of the Navigation Protection Act.

There are two rivers that were brought to the department, one in northern Ontario and one in the Nisga'a nation territory in British Columbia. These rivers were brought to our attention because it was felt that they met the criteria for being included in the schedule of waters. An analysis was done by the department, and the regulatory process is now under way to complete the process and add them to the schedule, on the basis that they did meet the criteria that were originally applied for the schedule of waters.

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

Given that there are criteria within the legislation that are in place for communities, should they wish to have a navigable waterway added back into the act, and given that it's happened twice before, why would the minister not just continue adding waterways as communities raise them with him? Again, my question to the parliamentary secretary would be this. On June 20, 2016, the Minister of Transport said the following, concerning the Navigation Protection Act, “some of them [meaning measures] we definitely will change”.

Given the fact that we've launched into this study.... He stated quite eloquently that he was looking forward to the work of this committee and the recommendations that would be made, yet, already on June 20, he knew there were some measures that were definitely going to change. What measures was he referring to? Why is there the need for a study like this, if he already has the ability to add back in waterways that meet the criteria outlined in the legislation?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

I think one of the concerns would be that to be put in a position to just add rivers, streams, or whatever on an ad hoc basis probably isn't the best way to handle such an important act. Certainly, that would be one of the reasons that I think it is necessary for this committee to take another look at the act and decide which areas should be changed, if at all.

[Catherine Higgens]

The two rivers that have come forward are rivers that meet the current criteria for the schedule of waters. The minister has posed the question more broadly: Do we have the right, appropriate waters in the schedule, including the criteria that were established to put those waters on the schedule? It's a broader question. Have we broadly got it right, in terms of the waters that should be afforded the protection under the Navigation Protection Act?

We have heard from groups that have raised concerns with their waterways not being on the schedule, and that's a broader conversation about the particular concerns, the nature of the concerns, and the nature of the approach that could be followed to respond to those concerns.

There would be a number of ways in which you could approach covering additional waterways, and those are the broader questions that the minister has asked the committee to hear from Canadians and provide advice on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Now we are on to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question to Mrs. Higgens would be with respect to the process and some of the concerns that were raised about how the previous omnibus legislation was implemented. How will this process address some of those concerns? That was included within the previous omnibus legislation, which was implemented by the previous government.

[Catherine Higgens]

The previous legislation was put in place with consultation with provinces and territories, particularly on the waterways: which waterways it would make sense to include and which waterways it would make sense to leave outside of the schedule. There were some technical briefings to inform of the approach of moving to a risk-based framework, but there was not a deep discussion with indigenous people on which waterways and what concerns were raised in terms of protection under the act. There was less conversation about the recreational, non-commercial users of the waterways.

There were some areas in which there wasn't a full airing of views in the protections afforded under the act, and this committee provides an opportunity to broaden that discussion and allow those users—particularly the recreational users, indigenous communities, and some of the smaller commercial users—to come forward with their views.