Transport Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[David Marshall]

Absolutely. The part that really strikes me is that we would not have this document if there weren't that one-stop shop. For example, not one of these 43 funding partners could assume this responsibility on their own. It was broader than the provincial government, the federal government, or the first nations. You needed that organization to bring all that together. Without the Fraser Basin Council, there would not be a flood strategy for the Lower Mainland.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

The reason we are here today and calling you as a witness is to establish it at the federal level. With your participation, and the participation of the different partners, that would streamline the process and, at the end of the day, get the job done with respect to the recommendations that you have outlined in your strategic plan.

[David Marshall]

Thank you.

To add to that, there used to be a Fraser River estuary management plan for the lower Fraser, which brought together all the key authorities in that part of the Fraser. It included the port of Vancouver, the province, the feds, and metro Vancouver, and they were working together to manage the lower Fraser. That included looking at navigation, recreation, and fishing. It went kaput about four or five years ago. That particular organization no longer exists. We are away now from the one-stop shop and back to the old unilateral process.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Once again, hence the reason we are here today.... I thank you for that input.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We're going to try to give you an opportunity here, even though we are going to get tight for time. You have your five minutes to go forward.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do appreciate it.

I echo my colleagues' comments here this morning in terms of really appreciating the fact that you are here and that you are providing your testimony. We do appreciate the opportunity to add that to the conversation we are having, notwithstanding the fact that we believe there are perhaps some foregone conclusions to the conversation.

I want to speak to the notion that, when the act was changed back in 2012, and even before that, when we started to contemplate changes in 2009, there wasn't enough consultation. I find it passing strange that on June 16, ministers Garneau, LeBlanc, Duncan, McKenna, and Bennett announced that they would begin consultations on the Navigation Protection Act, yet in his appearance in front of the committee three weeks ago, the Minister of Transport stated, “We are currently not holding formal consultations.”

This is perhaps supposed to be the broad consultation that the minister or the government would have said was lacking when the changes were made by the previous government, yet we find that there is very little appetite by many witnesses who have been contacted to come and participate in this consultation. What we have actually heard from those who have taken the time to come is that the act is working, that it is doing what it was intended to do.

I think even your own testimony would confirm this, when you said that there are better processes in place and that the act is acting as a catalyst, bringing the various parties together to have the conversations much earlier in the process.

I guess what I want to speak to, then, is something that my colleague across the way raised in terms of the complaint process. We know that there is a mechanism for individuals. First, we know that the minister has the authority to add waterways back under the protections, should a community ask him to do that. We also know there is a mechanism for the complaint process, as my colleague pointed out.

Are you aware of any complaints that have come forward that had to go through the process that has been embedded in the legislation since 2012, since the act was changed? If not, would you agree that a process that is acting as a catalyst, bringing people together much earlier in the process, means that there are fewer complaints?

[David Marshall]

No, I don't know of any specific complaints. I'd agree with you that it is acting as a bit of a catalyst, and if there is a community that has a particular waterway that is not on the list, there is a process in place for them to make the request.

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

I have to leave so I'm going to give the rest of my time to my colleague, if there is any left.

There's a minute and 20 seconds. Okay, thank you.

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

Madam Chair, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr. Marshall again for his very enlightening remarks confirming what the official opposition has been trying to make the government understand from the outset, namely that the study is premature as long as we don't know whether the changes made in 2012 are functional and whether they provide stakeholders with the latitude they need to take action.

In closing, Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate that we have heard from only one witness today. Given the organizations' lack of enthusiasm to appear before the committee as part of the study on the Navigation Protection Act, I move the following motion:

That the Committee invite no further witnesses to appear as part of this study, and that it wait for the upcoming amendments from the Minister of Transport before continuing its work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Does the committee wish to deal with that motion now or at our next meeting? We'll deal with it at our next meeting. It's a delay tactic, but we'll deal with that at the next meeting.

Mr. Marshall, thank you very much for coming. I apologize for the delay at the beginning, but we appreciate your time, your effort, and your comments very much as we move forward.

We will now move in camera, so would those who are not supposed to be at the in camera meeting please exit so that we can deal with some committee business.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[David Marshall]

Madam Chair, I just want to thank you for the invitation and the opportunity, and for the excellent questions that were raised with me this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Badawey, you have a point of order before we close this part of the meeting.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Yes, before we close and go into a confidential session.

Earlier I had put a motion forward to adjourn debate, and I'm of the understanding, through you, Madam Chair, to the clerk, that once you put a motion forward to adjourn debate, it takes precedence. It is without debate, and being a dilatory motion, it has to be addressed once it has been placed on the floor.

Quite frankly, to the member across, I was trying to give him an opportunity to have more debate and proper consideration of his motion. With that said, the reason I put that motion forward was out of respect to the witness that was here, and out of respect for the limited time we had, because votes were being called at 10 o'clock.

I have a question through you, Madam Chair, to the clerk. Is that not the case? Once a motion is put forward to adjourn debate, one, it takes precedence, and two, it being a dilatory motion, it is without debate and must be addressed immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Can you address that today, or would you prefer to have some time to address it at the meeting on Thursday?

[The Clerk]

I would prefer to put it off. I'd like to see the transcript.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We will deal with that issue as soon as we get back on Thursday.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you for raising it. I think it's important to make sure that.... From my perspective it's about respect for everyone and giving people a chance to get their points in.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That was my intent, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, thank you.

We will now move to the in camera session.

[Proceedings continue in camera]