Evidence of meeting #29 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 waterways.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I wanted to make this 10-minute presentation at the previous meeting. I gave notice that I wanted to use 10 minutes to make this presentation.
Liberal
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I believe Ms. Block justified giving Mr. Berthold his time to make his statement on the basis that he had his six minutes. Has his six minutes expired?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Oh, it has more than expired. But Mr. Berthold had two and a half minutes left from Mr. Rayes, and in that two and a half minutes he reintroduced his motion and started speaking directly to his motion. When a member is speaking to a motion that is before us, he has the right to speak to it, and if he chooses to speak to it for 35 minutes or 40 minutes, or two minutes, he has the right to do that.
My apologies to the witnesses, but Mr. Berthold has indicated that he will not be too much longer. I thank you for your patience.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, I am a bit upset that you apologized to the witnesses. This is part of the current consultation process. I find your apology to the witnesses on behalf of the committee lacks respect for the comments I am making. Honestly, I would like you to withdraw that apology. It is part of the normal democratic process in committee to be able to discuss a motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I will not withdraw my apologies, because I do think that we have valuable witness time. We could have held off with Mr. Berthold until closer to the end, and as the chair I have that obligation to apologize to you when there's an interruption.
Mr. Berthold, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Out of respect for my colleagues and the witnesses, I will try to get to the heart of the issue, with these two brief remarks.
Mr. Chris Bloomer made the following statement before this committee:
I think that provision can be enacted if, in adding water bodies, it's deemed necessary, and there's a process and 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.
We hear from witnesses who would like to see amendments and would like to go back to the way things were, but for having been mayor and for having heard what many associations had to say about this, I can tell you that the old process caused a lot of problems in municipalities regarding the development of our regions and the development of access to those regions. Something needed to be done.
I heard it said today that Canada has been protecting its navigable waters since 1906. But today's Canada is not the Canada of 1906. Technology, and the use made of bodies of water, have changed a great deal. In the past, rivers were used everywhere for trade, but that has almost disappeared now.
I think that the changes made to the Navigation Protection Act were appropriate and needed to be made. That is why, in the interest of transparency, since we are talking here about the government of transparency—
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Since I want to respect my colleague's speaking time as well as the witnesses who are here with us this morning, I move the following motion:
That we hear the witnesses at an additional meeting once the committee has made a decision on Mr. Berthold's motion.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Mr. Aubin was not entitled to speak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Mr. Berthold has the floor.
Please complete your presentation.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I mentioned, the transparency of this government at this time is rather opaque, since it is refusing to submit the amendments it wants to make to the Navigation Protection Act.
I think it is absolutely essential that it do so. I will continue to insist that we not spend taxpayers' money uselessly and that we put an end to our current study until the government's amendments are available. Afterwards, we can discuss all of the points the witnesses raised.
Madam Chair, in closing, I would like to read the following paragraph, which supports the reason why I believe the Minister of Transport has used our committee for government ends, whereas that is not the normal role for committees.
The minister's mandate letter, which he received from the prime minister himself, clearly discusses his responsibility to work with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. I will quote what it says in this regard:
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.
Madam Chair, I am asking the Minister of Transport—if he really wants the committee to do its work properly—to tell us what he means by “restore lost protections”, and what it is that is not working in the act that required the inclusion of such a clear mission in the minister's mandate letter, one that directly sets out the conclusions this committee should come to?
I see that you are anxious, Madam Chair, for me to conclude my intervention. I am going to stop here because I don't want to use all of the time we have left, since there are probably still questions people want to put to the witnesses.
However, and it is good to remind my colleagues of this, at the previous meeting I mentioned my intention to present my arguments over a ten-minute period before we heard the witnesses. I had referred to that possibility. Unfortunately, I was interrupted at the time. And so I was forced to use the time I had when I could, that is to say while the witnesses were here before us. It is important to point that out. For this reason, I will invite any colleagues who would like to speak to the motion to do so. I remind you that it reads as follows:
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.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Chair, thank you for your apology. It was appropriate. I'd like to call this motion to question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We've heard Mr. Berthold's motion. It has been duly tabled before us.
(Motion negatived)
Mr. Aubin has introduced another motion of respect for the witnesses. Do we have unanimous consent to deal with Mr. Aubin's motion to give the witnesses an opportunity to come back to another meeting?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We do not have unanimous consent.
Mr. Aubin, we will deal with that motion at Tuesday's meeting.
We'll get back to the work.
Again, my apologies to the witnesses, and thank you for your patience.
Monsieur Aubin, the floor is yours.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is for Ms. Lui. I thank you for being here with us and I am sorry about this interruption.
I had the opportunity of hearing your preliminary remarks and of reading the document Every Lake, Every River: Restoring the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I have many questions for you. I will go to the most pressing ones, those that seem most important to me.
In the context of your study, do you think the National Energy Board is the appropriate organization to evaluate the impact of pipelines on navigable waters? Otherwise, should that process be returned to the Department of Transport?
Water Campaigner, Council of Canadians
Thank you for that question.
How many minutes do I have?
Water Campaigner, Council of Canadians
Okay.
I am a bit disappointed about what just happened and what this means to be able to voice the concerns of our chapters and our supporters, and the time taken up by Mr. Berthold, so I just want to note that.
But I'll address your question now, Mr. Aubin.
We, including our chapters and many of our supporters, do have concerns about the ability of the National Energy Board to make these reviews. We do feel it is the federal government's responsibility to be looking at impacts on navigable waters. We understand there are staff who have been with the department for a long time who have the expertise to look at this, and really, it is the federal government's responsibility.
I mentioned there are many navigable waters that would be impacted by projects like the energy east pipeline. Kinder Morgan is a really big issue here in British Columbia as well, and crosses over 1,000 waterways from where it starts in Alberta to where it arrives in the Vancouver area.
There are some big concerns about the National Energy Board. There have been concerns raised about the legitimacy of the board. I know the Trudeau government has committed to reviewing the National Energy Board Act and revamping it and so forth, but it needs a huge and major overhaul to regain the trust of people in Canada, and of indigenous communities, as well.
The federal government must take responsibility to protect waterways. We're looking at very specific pieces of legislation, but I think it's particularly important to be thinking about the broader vision for Canada and indigenous communities.
During the election campaign, Justin Trudeau made some really big promises that the people really liked and really wanted to see implemented. I do have concerns about whether those promises are going to be implemented, and this remains to be seen. Part of the changes to this piece of legislation and also other pieces of legislation, whether the Trudeau government will fulfill those promises remains to be seen.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I have no more time.
I have a few seconds left to say that I still had a few dozen questions to ask you. I will do everything in my power so that we can have another meeting where we would have time to speak with you again.