Transport Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think, for our witnesses, it's important to understand perhaps why we, on this side of the table, continue to push back on our colleagues when it comes to the purpose of this study. What needs to be noted is that there is a mandate letter from the Minister of Transport to this committee asking us to review this act with a view to restoring what was removed from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It was also made clear by the minister himself when he said that there will be definite changes made to this act.

In order to provide the context to you, typically if the minister has a desire to change the act, that would happen prior to the study coming to committee. He would indicate what areas of the act he would like to see amended. It would be debated in the House, and then referred to committee if the bill passed at second reading, at which time the committee would then launch into a study.

My concern is that we are doing this without knowing what changes the minister wants to see made to this act. Therefore, your being here, while it is important for us to hear the testimony, may become moot depending on what the minister chooses to do with the act anyway. You may be called back. Your time, I believe, is valuable. This is why we have actually continued to push back on our colleagues across the way, and the minister, who has chosen to ask us to do a study knowing full well what he already wants to change in the act. It's putting the cart before the horse, quite frankly.

With that, Madam Chair, I'd just like to give the rest of my time to my colleague.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Much to the surprise of my colleagues across the way, I am going to give the rest of my speaking time to my colleague Mr. Aubin. He had a lot of questions to ask. I would like to give him the opportunity to ask them since I used a lot a time before. I want to give him the opportunity to ask one last question.

And so I yield the floor to Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I thank you for your generosity Mr. Berthold, but it won't change anything in the motion I tabled.

I want to take the opportunity to speak with all of the witnesses about the right communities have to say “no”. I will begin with Ms. Lui, since she has had less speaking time than the others.

Does it seem normal to you that citizens have to go to court to put forward their points of view with regard to works or the construction of works on a body of water that is not on the list of designated waters?

[Emma Lui]

Thank you for the question. I heard that being asked in the earlier session before I joined about whether there were any legal challenges, and I was a little bit puzzled by that because legal challenges are costly and so not all community members, citizens, residents or indigenous communities have access to funds to bring forward legal challenges, and so it does seem strange that it would be the only avenue by which people are able to raise concerns.

Definitely what I was saying earlier about giving people the opportunity to raise concerns about the project...and it's not just to raise concerns. I and other people I have worked with in communities have been through consultation processes with projects and they're often one-sided. That raises concerns about this process and what's been happening today and the ability to have a discussion about the concerns that I've raised.

It's not just about consultation. It's about actually listening to what people say and the concerns they have raised and actually seeing that reflected in the final decision.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Ms. Lui, you spoke about Mountain Equipment Co-op, which published a list of 40 navigable waterways that are important for leisure activities but are not protected anymore. I am trying to understand why.

Of course it is always possible to add a river to the current list, but it seems that no one has done so. And so I am putting the question to all the witnesses. Why has this never happened since 2012? Is it because of the complexity of the process or because of the realities of life?

Is it because, if people are not facing a construction project involving a navigable waterway, they do not necessarily feel the need to have that lake or river added immediately to the list? However, they think of it when a problem arises.

Do you know anyone who went through the necessary process to have a lake or a river added to the list? Otherwise, what do you propose to improve the system?

[Emma Lui]

That would be clarity in what the process is, because actually, I'm not even clear myself what the process is with regard to adding a lake or a river. I would just want to know more about that. If it's to contact their members of Parliament, we've had chapter members and supporters contact their members of Parliament and haven't seen lakes and rivers added again.

There's also just raising the concerns about protection of waterways. I know this act deals with navigation specifically, but again, it goes back to the broader vision of protecting waterways. We know that lakes and rivers and water in general are really under threat in Canada and in indigenous communities, and really we want to have good legislation that protects waterways not just for people. Maybe it's under different pieces of legislation, but I also just want to raise the point as well that waterways need to be protected whether or not they're being used by people, just because they are part of the water cycle and it impacts on climate change and the availability of water in general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lui.

[Emma Lui]

If I could clarify that the process—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Sorry, Ms. Lui, but maybe you could add your comment in response to Mr. Iacono's question.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On behalf on the government and myself, I want to apologize to the witnesses, because your right to express yourself was curtailed by what occurred in committee this morning.

I would like to begin my remarks by deploring the tactics of my Conservative colleague. They show a great lack of respect toward the witnesses who are before us, one of whom had to get up at 6 a.m. to be here with us.

We want to consult Canadians so that the amendments we are going to propose meet their needs and assuage their concerns. I want Canadians to know that our government wants a transparent process, contrary to what the former government did with its omnibus bill. I want all Canadians to know that the Conservatives are doing everything they can to prevent them from having a say on this issue.

What do you fear?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to share my time with my colleague Mr. Ken Hardie.

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

Did you want me to answer that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I have a quick question for our witnesses.

The time that you had to speak to us today, do you consider it to have been wasted?

[Jay Morrison]

No. My assumption is that there are Ministry of Transport officials in the room, and even though it might be the normal process to propose legislation first and then hear from the public, I assume they're taking input from this process.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay.

Can I have a quick show of hands from the others? Mr. Farrant and Ms. Lui, are you okay with the opportunity today?

I appreciate Mr. Aubin's motion that we get you back, because it does give us an opportunity to hear more from you. We all know now that we are entitled to the Conservative view on things, which we've received, and now, with that out of the way, maybe we can coax a little more out of the people we actually need to hear from, who weren't heard from when this all happened.

I would ask that, in advance of coming back, you think about the following things. If you can bring material back with you, that would be perfect.

Again, what would be the essential element of a process to protect rights, the rights of people who use the waters, plus the rights of people who need to build things? What would be good in that mix?

There have been a few references to “modernizing” the act, but what does that look like? That suggests that, as it was, the old act was deficient in certain ways. Rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater, to quote my friend across the way, what do we do to elevate this whole thing to something that's really going to work?

What does “restore protection” look like? Mr. Farrant, I appreciated your point that a ditch that might have water in it for six days a year isn't necessarily something that needs to receive the same attention as a major waterway.

Finally, one thing that hasn't come up is that the Navigation Protection Act gave a lot of discretion to the minister to make decisions, particularly on adding waterways, rivers, or lakes to the list of protected rivers. Is there a different mechanism that you might propose in the interests of, again, having a streamlined, fair, and transparent process to ensure that the right thing is being done in the right way?

That's really my ask of you. Again, I look forward to the opportunity to have you back, and hopefully we'll have the time to actually hear from you on those issues.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Who would like to go first to try to respond to Mr. Hardie's comments?

[Greg Farrant]

I'll be happy to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Hardie, for your comments.

I'll put aside the political gymnastics in my response.

Look, there are always two sides to every equation, as there are in this case. Are we here suggesting that the entire NPA be thrown out? Absolutely not. There are probably measures within the legislation that should be retained. Are there measures that need to be changed? Most definitely.

Do I think this is a waste of time coming here today? Absolutely not. Any time that the public, an organization, a stakeholder, or an NGO has an opportunity to come before a committee—and I've had the good fortune to do this numerous times over the last 16 years where I work—I think it's an exercise in democracy and I think it's an exercise in usefulness. I can quite unequivocally say that if indeed I have the privilege to be invited back to testify before this committee again, I'll be happy to do so.

I appreciate your questions. I also appreciate Mr. Berthold's suggestion that if there is something to comment upon more substantially, that would be useful, but you've also posed to us some very interesting questions. I have promised to follow up on some of those already today and will be happy to respond to those questions, whether in written form or before this committee again. I thank you for that.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Written form would be absolutely ideal.

I'll cede the rest of my time to Mr. Fraser.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You don't have any extra time to give to anybody. We have 15 seconds.

Maybe Ms. Lui would like to comment briefly on Mr. Hardie's comments.

[Emma Lui]

Sure. Thank you for that. I don't feel that this was a waste of time. I am very grateful to be invited here. I would love to come back and talk more, though I do raise concerns about being able to talk freely, and not just me but other Canadians, other organizations, first nations as well. If there is debate or saying that this is part of the process, if there are disagreements among committee members that are going to take up people's time, and not just ours but in the future, then I think that's important to work out before the speakers come.

I'd just say that I appreciate the time but would definitely like more time to raise other concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. That now draws our meeting to a close.

Mr. Morrison, you want to add something. Go ahead.

[Jay Morrison]

I didn't really have an opportunity to say whether I'd come back or not. I was just agreeing with Mr. Hardie.

I'd certainly come back, and it won't cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. I live in Wakefield, and I'm not even charging for parking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to all our witnesses and to the committee members.

I will move adjournment. Thank you.