Evidence of meeting #27 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 navigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
You mean the opt-in or opt-out?
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
I think the scheduling piece provides the opportunity to be able to identify, if a water body does come up...to be either opting into the process or opting out. That's a decision that can be brought forward at the time, and the legislation accommodates for that.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to make a clarification for my colleagues opposite.
We often hear that we Liberals want to change and destroy what was done by the previous government, but that is not the case. On a number of occasions, we have said that we just wanted to make sure that the changes that were made without prior consultation—let me stress that—are effective and meet the needs of Canadians. I don’t understand what is so difficult to grasp about that.
This is a transparent and honest process to gather the views of different organizations. You can see that we have asked questions and the organizations responded today. We are here to hear from witnesses, not to introduce partisan motions that slow down our work.
I’m sorry, but I just had to say that.
Let’s now move to my question. In your opinion, would it be possible to improve the process of adding waterways to a schedule without undermining the certainty you have mentioned and without affecting the speed of the approval process?
10:35 a.m.
President, Canadian Construction Association
Again, from my perspective, that's a question that's more appropriately put to the proponents of the projects. I have seen some reports that suggest to me that in cases in which some projects have some sensitivity, some provinces or some proponents are looking at perhaps opting in simply because of that aspect. Again, that's a question more appropriate for the proponents.
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
I think the provision to add water bodies is again in the legislation. I think that provision can be enacted to add water bodies, if it's deemed necessary, and there's a process and there will be principles that apply to that. I think it's on a case-by-case basis, and I think that's probably the best way to deal with it.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you very much.
We heard the word “conflate” brought into this conversation, and it's very difficult not to do that in some cases. Because I'm also on the fisheries and oceans committee, the whole issue of environmental protection obviously comes into my thinking. But I guess the question is, has anybody actually ever done a graphic that layers the federal, provincial, and municipal requirements so as to give anybody a really clear picture of the hoops that either a proponent or the builder has to clear, even under today's more open standards?
10:40 a.m.
President, Canadian Construction Association
I'm not aware of one. I would be deathly scared of one, in that we wouldn't get any building done if people saw all the different hoops, etc., that we had to go through.
No, I'm not aware of anybody doing that. I can tell you, though, that contractors generally have a very good understanding of local requirements and of what's required in their local municipal jurisdiction, regional municipality, etc., and how provincial and federal legislation may well impact those requirements. The building community become very aware of that and of what needs to be done. The more proactive a regulatory authority is in saying, “Here's the standard you have to meet; here's what you have to do” and—my earlier example with DFO—in providing a guideline that says, “If it's a fish habitat, your culvert had better look like this”.... That is extremely helpful.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Perhaps I could interject right now.
If you had to choose between dealing with the current regime of regulatory frameworks between municipalities, between provinces, versus having a standard Canada-wide framework administered by the federal government, would the latter improve things? Do you see, for instance, marked differences between jurisdictions?
10:40 a.m.
President, Canadian Construction Association
That's a tough question to answer with one straightforward answer. In general application, it changes. I guess the more uniform regulation and legislation is, the easier it should be, you would think, but 99% of our members are SMEs and often don't work much beyond their local jurisdiction or area and so would not necessarily run up against the differing or varying jurisdictions.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Well, the pipelines that CEPA represents are all NEB-regulated, so there is regulation across the country. The provinces have their own regulatory framework, and it's pretty straightforward. Within the provinces, if there's a designated body, it would trigger a review. Having the designated water through the Navigable Waters Protection Act would trigger that. I think it's pretty clear, and the way the process is now is fairly direct. It's easy to examine, and I think that the provincial regulations and the federal regulations overall are similar, and the way the process is structured now is fairly efficient.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I actually want to close with a comment. One of the things we look at on the fisheries and oceans committee is something that the DFO operates under. It's called the precautionary principle: basically, use caution when approaching something, or as we used to say in the communications business, “When in doubt, leave it out”.
My comment to you is that you probably do this as a result of the influence of the old regime and the old legislation, but as you go forward, use that precautionary principle. If you have an option not to obstruct a waterway, even though you may be allowed to, don't, because one of the things you'll be continuously challenged to do is to trade minds with the people who are very suspicious of what you're up to or don't trust your motives or trust your processes. To the degree to which you can say we operate according to this principle, everybody will be better off, and the heavy hand of government will be avoided.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Hardie.
To our witnesses, thank you very much for participating today. We look forward to staying in touch with you as we complete this review.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.
