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.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I also thank our guests for being here this morning.
You are our eyes and ears on the ground. In the span of a few minutes, we are going to be able to cover more municipalities than anything we would be able to do during the hours devoted to the study.
My first question has two parts and is for all of you. For the first part, I would ask that you provide a yes or no answer. If the answer is yes, an explanation will be required.
When the minister appeared at the very beginning of our study, he said that no less than 40 bills, most of which I suspect were private members’ bills, have been introduced to add a waterway to the list set out in the legislation. Have the members you are representing asked that a body of water be added to that list, yes or no?
If the answer is yes, what was the process to add that body of water, river or lake to the list set out in the legislation?
Perhaps you could answer in the same order in which you made your presentations this morning.
Let’s start with Alberta.
9:20 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
To my knowledge, we have not had any requests to have additions or appeals to any projects that way. I am not aware of any.
9:20 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
No, we haven't had any requests from our members.
9:20 a.m.
Administrator, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
So far, there have been none.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, that answers my first question.
My second question is about the reverse onus. We know that Transport Canada no longer accepts complaints. Consequently, a citizen, a group of citizens or an association wanting to object must now obtain a legal recourse. In any of the municipalities you are representing, have you received those types of complaints? Have you had to deal with that?
Please answer in the same order, starting with Alberta.
9:20 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
Presently, to my knowledge, we have not received any complaints. Be aware that we don't have a direct link into every municipal decision-making body, but to my knowledge, we have not had any.
October 20th, 2016 / 9:20 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
None that I know about up to this point.
9:20 a.m.
Administrator, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
We basically receive one complaint a day, but not about projects. The complaints have more to do with the size of the boats that have the right to navigate our waterways. They are often very large and cause environmental damage. That’s more the type of complaint that we receive pretty much every day.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Pearce. Let me take this opportunity to ask you another question directly, because your environmental concerns in particular caught my attention during your presentation.
As we know, under this navigation protection act, all the pipeline assessments were removed and redirected to the National Energy Board.
Do you think the situation is the same, better or worse as a result of this transfer of expertise from Transport Canada to the National Energy Board?
9:20 a.m.
Administrator, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
The way the legislation is worded imposes no limit on the size of the boats allowed to use navigable waterways. As a result, boats that are too big and that create five- to six-foot waves and major damage to the shoreline are found on small recreational lakes in Quebec, Ontario or Alberta.
Municipalities would like the Government of Canada to at least implement the rules. It is not normal that a 100-foot boat, weighing 100,000 pounds, has the right to sail on a small navigable lake. There is not much we can do to repair the damage once it is caused. It is already too late.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
Have the amendments to the former Navigable Waters Act and to the current Navigation Protection Act changed your relationships or your consultations with other levels of government?
In other words, have provincial or municipal authorities changed their ways as a result of those amendments?
9:20 a.m.
Administrator, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
Would you first like to hear the answer of the folks from Alberta and Saskatchewan?
9:20 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
From the Alberta point of view, I think it's only helped enhance our relationships with the various levels of government as the processes have been able to be expedited. We know that there are still eyes on the important items, but I believe that in all three levels of government, we've been able to see processes being expedited and as a result, the relationships I think have been enhanced.
9:20 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
I don't think it's changed the relationship with our senior levels of government. In the case of projects that are approved, that receive grants, they could be, for instance, Building Canada, that could be a project that's approved to install a bridge or a culvert. The necessary permits are still in order. Are there aquatic permits as the case may be? There are permits from Environment that still have to be approved. Those people are still out there. They're still looking at the projects.
As my colleague from Alberta has stated, it simply expedites the process and that's what we're pleased with. We're pleased with the regulations in their current state.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I'd like to kick things off by saying that I think I sensed a little hesitancy at the outset of some of your testimony about the potential of there being serious changes made to the legislation that might run counter to what your wishes are.
If I could reflect the comments of my colleague, Mr. Hardie, we've learned in some of the testimony that there are actually some good changes that have been made. To the extent that there are positive developments, we don't want to further drive up the expenses to municipalities for the sake of making projects more expensive. I'd like to put your minds at ease there. At the same time, we do want to make sure that the legislation operates as it was intended to.
By way of background, I think we may have wildly different experiences. I'm from out in Nova Scotia where I'm surrounded by coast five minutes from my house at any given point in time. A lot of local businesses in fact use lakes or rivers to get their products to market as well. So it's sometimes a business-friendly approach that we take to making sure that there's a free right of navigation in their relationship with municipal works.
I'd like to give you an opportunity to explain if there are projects that you have been able to take on as a result of the changes to the legislation we're dealing with that weren't possible before .
Maybe respond in the order that you testified.
9:25 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
In terms of projects that we have taken on, I can't say that there are extra projects that we have taken on. I believe we've been trying to respond to the needs that have been on the landscape for many years.
You make an interesting point with the roles they play in Nova Scotia compared to Alberta, because there is not a lot of trade on our rivers and streams, only because we are landlocked and so we don't have access to the major bodies of water that you would need to do trade on.
Many of the items that we ran into problems with on this, as Ray Orb pointed out, are streams that are barely navigable for one month of the year because they're intermittent streams that only happen at runoff time, and they are truly not navigable year-round. Those are the ones where we ran into as many issues with our process as reasonable....
There are streams, major streams, that could be navigable waters for trade that are still protected under the act in Alberta and they are listed in the schedule. If there are new ones to be identified that are necessary to enhance trade or to enhance the oversight, then they can be added to that list. That's one of the great things about this. The minister has that discretion through an application process. I think that addresses any future trade needs that could come forward.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Before we move on to the other witnesses, I think you hit on something that's important to me in my region of the country.
The application process, as far as I understand it, is limited to municipalities or potentially provincial governments, I would argue, under the wording of the legislation, not that it matters greatly for present purposes. Is there a mechanism in place that allows users of the waterway, whether for recreational purposes, traditional purposes, or economic purposes, let's say a local business that wants to get their product onto a river for trade, to bring it to a municipality? If they don't have the power to apply, is there a mechanism to allow them to ask you to do it on their behalf? Has that ever happened? Do you see a mechanism there?
9:25 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
I don't see that it has happened, but I think as a municipal government if we have a local businessperson or local residents who are looking for exactly what you're speaking about, that would be council's role, to work through that request and then decide to move it forward that way.
