Evidence of meeting #28 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 river.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin
David Marshall  Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

8:55 a.m.

David Marshall Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

No problem.

Thanks very much, Chair Sgro and committee members, for the invitation to be with you this morning. It's an honour to appear before you and participate in a discussion on the Navigation Protection Act.

I am David Marshall, as introduced, the founding executive director of the Fraser Basin Council. It is a not-for-profit organization established in 1997, with a mandate to advance sustainability in the Fraser River basin and throughout British Columbia.

Earlier in my career as a young professional engineer, I was doing water quality work for the International Joint Commission on the St. Lawrence River. That was when I was first introduced to the then navigable waters protection act. I became more familiar with the act when I was involved with the Canadian environmental assessment process from 1978 to 1990. This act was one of the oldest in Canada, as you know, designed to ensure that Canada's commercial and recreational navigable waterways were protected from any works that might affect navigation.

The amendments that came into force in 2014 concentrated the application of the act on 162 of Canada's busiest commercial and recreational navigable waterways. There are good reasons in this review process to discuss the scope of the legislation and whether it should apply more broadly to navigable rivers, lakes, and waterways in Canada.

I am pleased to see this opportunity for public input, and will leave it to others to bring forward perspectives on this important issue. I would flag the importance of respecting aboriginal title and rights in this process in any proposed legislative changes.

My remarks today are focused on the Fraser River, one of the rivers on your inclusion list, and a pressing challenge ahead. The Fraser River is one of the 62 rivers included on the current schedule to the act. It is a critical waterway that supports busy commercial and recreation-related navigation. The Fraser is nearly 1,400 kilometres long, from its headwaters high in the Rocky Mountains to its mouth at the Strait of Georgia. First nations communities have travelled and settled along this river for over 10,000 years, a testament to its enduring attributes.

Today the Fraser remains a living, working river, as well as being designated as one of Canada's heritage rivers. It supports globally significant Pacific salmon and sturgeon populations, B.C.'s aboriginal commercial and recreational fishery sectors, the transport of timber and forest products and other natural resources, as well as operations at the port of Vancouver, which connects Canada to its Pacific Rim trading partners. As noted in a 2014 report from the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, the port of Vancouver is the largest port in Canada, and largest port by export tonnage in North America. The port operations on the Fraser River rival those of the St. Lawrence Seaway, both in terms of tonnage and jobs.

Consider the entire Fraser River basin, which is the fifth-largest river basin in Canada, spanning an area of 238,000 square kilometres, comparable in size to the State of California. It is home to two out of three British Columbians, with over 50% of all British Columbians living in communities of the Lower Mainland and the lower Fraser River.

The threat to this region, which would include major impacts on navigation, and that I wish to draw to your attention today, is flood. B.C.'s Lower Mainland faces two major flood issues and threats: Fraser River spring freshet flooding, and coastal flooding during winter storm surges.

Nine years ago, in the spring of 2007, I remember being very concerned about regular news items on the quickly rising Fraser River. The snowpack that year was unusually high and there was significantly warm weather, a rapid snowmelt, and a forecast of rain. Everyone was concerned about the dikes being breached.

There was significant investment in urgent flood mitigation work to avoid suffering major economic and social consequences. Fortunately, we dodged a bullet, as the waters of this mighty river came within a metre of overtopping the dikes. That was truly a major wake-up call for all of us. A lesson to be learned is to plan well ahead and to invest wisely rather than reacting in the days and weeks prior to the rise, in the crisis.

Then came, as we all know, the huge Alberta floods in 2013. The province of Alberta has incurred huge economic losses, with uninsurable claims totalling over $4 billion, and total losses of about $6 billion.

In B.C.'s Lower Mainland, the threat of a major flood is significant. The region has been subject to major floods twice before in recorded history, in 1894 and 1948, when the population was small. Today, 300,000 people live in the Lower Mainland flood plain areas and there is extensive infrastructure at risk, much of which supports navigation on the river, that would impact the whole region, the province, and the country.

Over the past two years, the Fraser Basin Council has facilitated the first phase of a collaborative Lower Mainland flood management strategy. The process brings together 43 government and private sector funding partners, which is unprecedented, including the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, and every single municipality in the region.

The phase one work was completed this past spring. I've brought you some reports of that work.

We know now there is a growing risk of flood in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, both in terms of flood frequency and size, because of sea level rise and other projected impacts of climate change. If a major Fraser River or coastal flood were to occur between now and the year 2100, it would trigger losses estimated at $20 billion to $30 billion, which could be the largest economic disaster in Canadian history. A greater level of protection is needed.

A recent assessment carried out in phase one by the provincial inspector of dikes showed that 71% of the assessed Lower Mainland dikes are vulnerable to failure from overtopping during a major Fraser River or coastal flood scenario. Only 4% of assessed dike segments meet current provincial standards for dike crest height, which includes 0.6 metres of freeboard above the water surface elevation of the design flood event.

We know the problem and the seriousness of the consequences. Now we are working on the solution.

Phase two of the strategy is now under way and will build options within a regional flood action plan by 2018, including a cost-sharing proposal. This work is possible only through the collaborative efforts of federal, provincial, local, and first nations governments, together with various private and non-government participants, including Port Metro Vancouver and the wharf operators association.

It is a process we believe is unique in Canada, because it has everyone at the table, working together proactively.

At the Fraser Basin Council, we have long worked in integrated flood management and we are honoured to facilitate and manage a process that will protect this vital transportation and navigation corridor.

The Government of Canada has been a partner in phase one of the work, and INAC informed us last week that it will continue to be a partner throughout phase two. Because we believe in full collaboration and proactive action, we encourage Transport Canada and other federal departments and agencies to have representation in this process to help inform the flood protection options to be explored.

We recognize that any proposals for changes in flood protection infrastructure will be subject to the Navigation Protection Act and must respect its intent.

Proactive leadership in working through issues will be invaluable to coming up with a solid flood action plan.

Thank you for your time, and I welcome your questions.

9 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Berthold.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This morning, I did not have an opportunity to speak to my motion asking that we suspend our work until the Minister of Transport submits his own amendments to the bill. That would make our work much more effective and functional, preventing us from spending taxpayers' money for no reason.

Mr. Marshall, thank you very much for agreeing to appear before the committee. It's very much to your credit.

It must be said that this is the second meeting for which we have tried to have witnesses and that they did not respond to our request. This demonstrates the lack of interest of organizations in appearing for this study, because they cannot find anything to say. There is absolutely nothing to say about the minister's expectations of the committee. There is nothing to say, because the amendments made in 2012 by the previous government suit the people who have to work with the Navigation Protection Act. I think meeting before finding out the intended amendments is a waste of time.

In the last session, I even had the opportunity to hear my colleagues opposite repeatedly say that the amendments were not written in advance, that the minister had no expectations and that the goal was to hear from the witnesses to find out what they had to say. Once again, that's not what the minister's mandate letter says. Instead, it says the following:

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, and incorporate modern safeguards.

On the Department of Transport's own site, it says:

The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, along with the Minister of Transport, asked Parliament's Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to examine recent changes to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act and to hear from Canadians.

So the intent is to change things and turn back the clock.

Furthermore, the letter that we received from the Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is very clear:

As part of our mandate from the Prime Minister, we have been asked to work together to review the previous government's changes ... to restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards.

Madam Chair, if that does not tell the committee what results and conclusions to reach in its work, then what does? I don't see what the minister could have done differently in telling our committee to undo what the previous government had done, to destroy it and to study a way of doing things. All the witnesses we have heard—most of them, to be precise—have confirmed that—

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

On a point of order, please.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Iacono.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Madam Chair, I would like my colleagues to stop inventing falsehoods by claiming that the changes have already been determined. The government has not decided yet what the modern protection mechanisms might be, since the consultation has just started.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Iacono, I'm sorry, but that sounds like it's a debate rather than a point of order that you're attempting to make.

I will go back to Mr. Berthold for his time.

Please keep your focus on why it is we are dealing with this issue before us. It is not that we are to undo anything. The minister has asked us to review it because of the lack of consultation in the previous government.

This committee can make a recommendation, along with three other committees, to strengthen it, to make it better, on behalf of all Canadians. That's exactly what the minister has asked us to do, which is what the committee is attempting to do, in spite of the opposition, which clearly has concerns that maybe we will end up going in a different direction than what I believe is the intent of the minister.

Mr. Berthold.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Chair, with all due respect, I stress that the site of the Government of Canada says:

The Government of Canada has promised to review the recent changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards.

It seems to me that the government has already made up its mind, despite all the fine remarks, all the goodwill and all the excellent questions my colleagues have asked the witnesses who appeared before us. We have actually been able to address some very interesting points, which may assist the minister in making decisions.

However, the minister has already made his choice. The government has already made up its mind. I think it is absolutely essential that we stop and that we take a moment to let the minister do his own work. He should then tell us himself what the changes are.

As I read earlier, the “Government of Canada has promised to review the recent changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act”. As far as I know, the committee is not the government.

It is also talking about “restore lost protections”. For my colleague, that already clearly indicates that the minister intends to direct the work of our committee.

Finally, it says “incorporate modern safeguards”. Two of the groups we received last week, the Canadian Construction Association and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, were quite clear on the issue. They said that the legislation had made it possible to carry out work at a lower cost and to improve the predictability of work schedules.

What do we need when we work in our communities? We want to complete the work within a reasonable time.

Everyone used to complain that anyone, at any stage, could decide that a small stream serving only as a runoff during heavy rains could become a waterway.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

I'm sorry, Mr. Berthold, but your time is up.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Hardie.

If we could just remember that we have a witness, Mr. Marshall, who is here to speak to these very issues.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

I appreciate your attendance, Mr. Marshall. The intention to have you here was to hear what you have to say, so I do have some questions for you.

Part of the issue we're dealing with is that much like today, the members opposite didn't want to hear from a lot of people when the Navigation Protection Act was first brought in. This is part of what we're here to remedy.

Let's have a look at the Fraser Basin Council.

We've been told that under the current legislation, the Fraser River and its key tributaries are all fully protected. I guess the question is not looking so much at the flood issue, but at other things that may be going up and down the river. Have you noticed any difference in the approval processes for projects that are taking place along the Fraser River?

9:10 a.m.

Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

David Marshall

As to changes in the approval process, no, we haven't. In fact, I should probably qualify that. We're actually seeing a better approval process taking place due to the collaborative nature of bringing all the parties to the table early. Right now, there are 14 major watersheds in the Fraser system itself, like the Thompson, for example, the Quesnel, the Chilcotin, a number of different major watersheds.

We're encouraging a number of players—users of the watersheds, recreational, forestry, mining, along with the influences of those watersheds, whether it's first nations, the provincial government, the federal government—to come together and manage those watersheds in a much more collaborative fashion.

As a result, these types of issues are coming to the fore much earlier and dealt with quickly. We're seeing that type of approval process to be much more efficient.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

According to your strategic plan now through 2021, you want to improve the sustainability of the watershed through improved planning and management. You want to improve the water quality, the fish and wildlife habitat, and also, of course, as you mentioned, increasing resilience to flood.

Is there anything in or missing from the current Navigation Protection Act that's working against these objectives?

9:10 a.m.

Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

David Marshall

From our perspective, no, there isn't. What we're trying to point out is the fact that we're looking at recreation, as well as commercial, and the act is acting as a catalyst to bring those together to make sure they're having a much more efficient collaboration in the decision-making around those watersheds.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

As you know, the government has introduced three pockets of funding for infrastructure. The first is transit infrastructure; the second is social infrastructure, with things like affordable housing, etc., and the third is what we call green infrastructure, which includes community resiliency.

How familiar are you with the things that can be provided under that umbrella of funding?

9:10 a.m.

Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

David Marshall

We're not to a large degree, other than we're aware the communities that are dealing with particular issues, and not necessarily those along the river or waterways, are able to access that funding, and it's readily available. For example, with the government's announcement on the national disaster mitigation program, we've applied to the government to come up with money that would match the provincial funding. When the province launched phase two, it was $1 million. We feel that in order to put the right process together and to make sure that we define the priorities, we must put in the right mitigation measures, and we need to get the right funding formulas in place to avoid the financial disasters that Alberta experienced in 2013. We need to come up with about $2 million to $2.5 million to put together the blueprint. It will allow us to avoid these types of losses.

The province has put $1 million in, and we're looking at the feds through the national disaster mitigation planning, as well as the INAC funding that I talked about earlier, to match that money. Then the rest of the money would come from the municipalities, and from the transportation sector, etc., in order to be able to do that. It again shows the collaborative nature of the funding formula, but to answer your question directly, we are taking advantage of those particular funding pockets that have been made available by the federal government.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Dealing specifically with flood mitigation and the threat that it poses to navigation, have you developed a rough figure as to the kind of investment that would be necessary along the basin in order to preserve navigation?

9:15 a.m.

Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

David Marshall

Not specifically at this stage, but that's very much a part of phase two, because we're looking at the key groups. The port is going to be involved in that, as well as the wharf operators, the railways, and the airport. The entire transportation sector will be looking at it. We'll include the navigation component.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Very good.

You mentioned that there's a fair bit of collaboration in what's gone on so far. With communities specifically—and we know there are in the order of 21 municipalities in metro Vancouver—do you see a good sense of collaboration and organization synergy between what they're individually trying to do?

9:15 a.m.

Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

David Marshall

Absolutely, and I'd like to say it goes beyond those 21 municipalities. We're looking at the entire lower river from Hope to Richmond and from Squamish to White Rock, and that includes 28 separate municipalities. They are all vulnerable. They would all be exposed to significant risk. It's not just the ones that are on the river, but there are ones like the city of Langley that would have transportation and communication lines cut if we had a flood of any type of proportion to the one that Alberta experienced in 2013.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Thank you.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Aubin.

9:15 a.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Marshall. Thank you for being with us.

My first question is in reference to the opening remarks you made, when you stressed the importance of complying with aboriginal treaties of indigenous nations. I was not in Parliament in 2009, when the entire process started. Perhaps you were already in the association.

Can you tell me whether the consultations held in 2009 and later seemed appropriate to you in terms of the desire of indigenous peoples to be part of amending this act?

9:15 a.m.

Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council

David Marshall

To a certain extent, I do, but there's always room for improvement. We've been dealing with first nations since the inception and establishment of our organization in 1997. They were the founding members of our organization. They still represent close to 25% of our membership on our board of directors.

We have 12 principles in our charter for sustainability. The 11th principle talks about recognizing aboriginal rights and title, so we have a policy within our organization that everything we do must ensure that first nations' rights and title are part of those considerations.

To give you an example, one of my staff was meeting with the first nations leadership yesterday on ensuring that first nations are going to be fully involved in phase two, which I mentioned earlier, as well as all types of work that we're dealing with. Much like in the first question that I answered with respect to collaborative processes, first nations are always at the table when we're making recommendations or decisions with respect to the sustainability and safety of those watersheds.