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.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Excuse me for just one moment.
I recognize that, but it was Mr. Iacono's time. He is sharing it with Mr. Graham. If they want to use the other half a minute left to answer it, even though you're very correct that it's starting to go into a different area, I will allow that 35 seconds remaining for the answer.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Administrator, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
Just briefly, yes, it is an environmental issue, but the environmental issue is caused by the Ministry of Transport. This is a transport problem that is having an impact on the environment, so there is a direct link.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, I’ll be sharing my time with Mr. Rayes. We agreed on a small change.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am pleased to join your committee.
I support what my colleague, Mr. Berthold, said about the last topic that was discussed. I think Quebec’s ministry of sustainable development, environment and the fight against climate change and the federal Department of Environment and Climate Change could help a great deal in that area.
I would like to turn to the mandate letter to go back to the crux of the matter. Minister Garneau’s mandate letter states:
Work with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to review the previous government’s changes to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, restore lost protections...
Personally, I think that, if the idea is to restore that, there’s nothing to discuss as the Liberals simply want to reverse all measures put in place and return to the past. But as I listen to you, I don’t feel that you want to backtrack and undo what has been done in the previous amendments.
The quotation continues as follows: “...and incorporate modern safeguards.” If that's the case, perhaps the minister can tell us what he wants to do. The committee could then do its study, consult experts to confirm it, and say whether it’s good or not.
Gentlemen, I would like to hear what you have to say about that. First, those from Alberta and Saskatchewan, followed by the representative from the Fédération québécoise des municipalités.
9:40 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
Our concerns were with going back to an act that was written in days long before the modern world of today. I missed part of your question, but our concerns are still that we have this opportunity to be heard and try to retain what we felt was progressive legislation. That's why we're here.
I know this may not answer your question, so I may have to ask you to repeat the core of it.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I would like to hear from the other witness. I will come back to it later if we have enough time.
October 20th, 2016 / 9:40 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
I think what you're asking is about the process.
When the previous government was looking at making the changes, we already knew what the regulation changes would be and we were onside. I've appeared in front of the transport committee many times on this issue, and my colleagues across Alberta did the same, and I think Manitoba did, too. Although we like to be consulted, we're a little bit concerned. We saw this idea being thrown out during the federal election and we were concerned about it. We're not sure why the government wanted to do it, but nevertheless, we would still get our point across that we would like to leave the regulations in place.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you.
I will have to give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Berthold. I apologize for not allowing you to speak, Mr. Pearce. I just want to say that we are having discussions in many committees right now, but we don’t know what the projects are. I can tell you that it's very frustrating for us as well.
I turn the floor over to Mr. Berthold.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much.
Yes, that’s what’s frustrating. We want to know what the amendments are because the Minister clearly has something in mind.
To my colleagues opposite who are doing the exercise in good faith, this is unfortunately not what the minister has in mind. In question period, on October 6, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard said that the purpose of the consultation on the Navigation Protection Act was—and I will read the quote in English:
...not simply how to cut and paste the protections that were in the previous legislation that was deleted by the Conservatives, but how we could further strengthen them....
You are telling the witnesses that you want to keep what was good. But that is not at all in line with the intent of the bill.
In closing, Madam Chair, in light of the testimony we have heard this morning, I would like to move a motion as follows:
Whereas the municipality associations have confirmed that they have not received complaints and have not requested that bodies of water be added, I ask that the Committee immediately cease its study of the Navigation Protection Act.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin
Unless there is unanimous consent, normally there is a notice period.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
There is a notice period, as you know, Mr. Berthold, of 48 hours. We will deal with that motion, if you like, at the next meeting or the one after that.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Chair, I have a point of order. This side is prepared to waive the 48 hours' notice and have a vote.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
At this point I will thank the witnesses for their participation.
We very much appreciate your taking valuable time to come and help us with this review. At the end of our review, it could end up that we simply say that we think everything is working and functioning well. Part of what we're looking at are interferences to navigation that should be regulated or prohibited and how best to implement these under legislation. We're looking for advice as to where we are today and how to make it better, recognizing that there are certainly some improvements that were very necessary. That's where we are, from our committee's perspective.
Thank you very much for participating.
Would you like to read out that motion again, please.
9:45 a.m.
The Clerk
The motion reads as follows:
Whereas the municipality associations have confirmed that they have not received complaints and have not requested that bodies of water be added, I ask that the Committee immediately cease its study of the Navigation Protection Act.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold.
(Motion negatived)
Moving along, our next guests are the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, as well as Michael Atkinson from the Canadian Construction Association.
We will just continue on with our list if that's okay with everyone.
Mr. Atkinson, welcome to our committee.
9:45 a.m.
Michael Atkinson President, Canadian Construction Association
Thank you.
Madam Chair and honourable members, it is a pleasure to be here with you today.
The Canadian Construction Association represents the non-residential sector in the construction industry in Canada. We build Canada's infrastructure: shopping malls, industrial facilities, schools, hospitals, and condominium developments. Essentially, we build everything except single-family homes.
We have an integrated membership structure of some 70 local and provincial associations from coast to coast to coast, with a membership of just over 20,000 firms, more than 95% of which are small and medium-sized businesses.
As a whole, the construction industry employs approximately 1.4 million Canadians and accounts for 7% of Canada's overall gross domestic product, so it's fair to say that we're an essential element of the economic viability of Canada.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to be before you and to share some of our views on the Navigation Protection Act.
Let me start by saying that our members were very pleased with the changes made in 2012 in conjunction with amendments made to both the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It has been said that the 2012 changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act reduced environmental protections across the country. We couldn't disagree more.
To begin with, the amended act was no longer a trigger for the environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Any change to that would have to be taken into consideration with the changes that were made to CEAA. To do that unilaterally with respect to this act without taking into consideration the changes that were made to CEAA to ensure that the triggers were reasonable would be a gross oversight.
Protecting the right to navigate waters in Canada has nothing to do with—nor should it have been, as I've just mentioned—a trigger for environmental assessment and the protection of the environment, which is already within the mandate of the federal government.
The federal government already has the Fisheries Act to protect fisheries and fish habitat; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to protect water rights and land from the dumping of chemicals and other substances; the Species at Risk Act to protect threatened and endangered species; the Migratory Birds Convention Act for the protection of migratory birds; as well as a number of related regulations and policies specific to various industries, such as pulp and paper, mining and petroleum refining, and the protection of wetlands.
Furthermore, it is a little disingenuous on the part of motivated stakeholders to think that only the federal government protects the environment. Provinces, territories, aboriginal governments, and municipalities have a full suite of laws and regulations that also protect the environment.
With all that said, I come back to my basic premise. The Navigation Protection Act is about protecting the common law right to commercial navigation in Canada. It is not about environmental protection. As the minister himself stated in his appearance before you, “The purpose of the act is to balance the right of navigation with a need to construct infrastructure such as bridges and dams.”
Since it is our members who build those infrastructure assets, our work is often regulated under this act. Under the current system, proponents are able to self-assess, and since most of our products are designated works as defined by the minor works order, there is no need for Transport Canada to issue a permit. This clarity, certainty, and predictability is good for our industry.
I'll give you one example under the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act will issue guidelines as to how culverts and other structures need to be built over fish habitats. Knowing that in advance allows us to design and propose designs in construction with respect to those structures. It is a clear process. It can become a very timely process, because we can work that into our own designs.
Under the previous act, there was no ability to self-assess, so all decisions to proceed with construction required Transport Canada approval, and the attendant bureaucratic processes and delays, as you have heard from the other witnesses earlier today, happened in almost every case. They were the rule rather than the exception.
Furthermore, many of these assessments were only carried out after an environmental assessment approval had been completed and the project approved for development. If there's one thing we builders can't stand it's inconsistency; it's a green light turning amber going red. We want certainty, we want schedule, we want timeliness. The more the legislation and regulation can give us that, the better for all parties.
In summary, we would recommend, first, to keep Transport Canada's focus under this legislation on bodies of water most utilized for commercial and important recreational navigation.
Second, enhance the self-enhancement process by expanding the list of projects on the minor works order, providing design performance criteria that are clear. Many of these projects are perfunctory and should be able to proceed without any type of permitting circumstances.
Third, do not recommend the Navigation Protection Act be used as a means to trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act because the protection of commercial navigation has nothing to do with protecting the environment, and the amendments to triggering CEAA 2012 using a list-based approach has massively improved the timeliness and certainty of federal environmental assessments. That goes back to my opening point that anything you were to do in that area with respect to this act must be considered in conjunction with the amendments that were made in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act about the same time.
That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to take questions.
