Transport Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the complaints process, since that's where we dropped off, I was a litigator previously, and I think maybe the phenomenon you discussed would be good for people in that profession but bad for virtually everyone else. In my experience, litigation is rarely resolved short of a couple of years and short of a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. Farrant, if you could perhaps express the difficulty a user of a waterway for recreational purposes might have in prosecuting that kind of a complaint through the courts, I think that would be helpful.

[Greg Farrant]

Again, I'm not a litigator. Unlike you, I'm not a lawyer, but for instance, I'll use the Skootamatta River, or the Black River, or any of the rivers in Ontario that people frequently use for both recreational fishing and also for recreational canoeing and paddling. If a farmer—and I don't want to be pejorative to the agricultural community, because we work very closely with them, and they are our friends and our colleagues—on his own land decides he needs to fence in his cattle and puts up a fence, and there's a smaller river, or a stream, or whatever that crosses through that acreage, you're then forced into a very adversarial position.

It could be with a neighbour or it could be with somebody in the local community whom you know, but it becomes very much an us-against-them situation, an individual against an individual. Obviously, on one hand you have a farmer who's trying to engage in a business, a commerce, and protect his livelihood. On the other hand, he has basically stopped the use of that particular waterway.

Individuals then have to file a private complaint and go to court, which not only is expensive, but it's also time consuming. As you have noted, given the backlogs we have in court, especially at the lower levels of court, it could take two years before anything is remedied.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It seems to me that, if we have a public right to navigation under the common law, this is an issue of access to justice, as much as anything, for the users of the waterway.

I like the suggestion Monsieur Aubin made with regard to a different complaints process. Would you agree? It seemed as if your mindset was more on an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure, if we can implement some kind of a mandatory consultation or discussion between the proponent of a project and the users of a waterway.

Do you think that belongs in the statute?

[Greg Farrant]

I'm not sure if this particular act is where it belongs, but I do think that federal oversight is lacking here because of the changes that were made. I think it's important not just because of the jurisdictional issues, but also because of the lead the federal government provides to other levels of government in terms of their decision-making processes. It's very much a trickle-down.

What the federal statute says is what the province looks at is what the municipalities look at, and so I think that oversight needs to be restored somehow. It's probably left to greater minds than mine about whether this is the appropriate legislation, but it certainly could be, given that oversight was previously there. But I do recognize that, in all that, you as legislators always have to try to strike a balance to ensure that the smallest of projects is not being held up unduly on that side by obstreperousness, or court challenges, or regulatory hoops they have to jump through while still at the same time protecting people's right to navigate on those waters.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have just a couple of minutes remaining, so I'll shift gears to the recreational economic impact. I know, Mr. Farrant, you mentioned it was a $15.2-billion industry. What strikes me as odd, Mr. Morrison, is your comment that we don't know even in the boating industry how many paddlers there are. This is step for step with what we heard from the witnesses from Transport Canada, who said they tried to examine the major waterways in terms of their commercial and recreational use, but when questioned about how they got there on recreational use, they said they don't really have data.

Would it be a useful exercise, before we say we're not dealing with 99% of these waterways, to get that data about the economic impact on the recreational industry?

[Jay Morrison]

Before I cut down the length of my speech, I put in a little joke about maybe adding to the long-form census a question about how many people own or paddle canoes or kayaks.

I did have an estimate from the executive director of Paddle Canada that it might be 15 million. I think that's high. I know Mountain Equipment Co-op, for example, a few years ago had two million or three million members, of which more than a million paddle canoes. It's certainly many millions of people who paddle canoes recreationally.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I like to get out in the kayak once in a while as well.

Could you make a recommendation to us, or give us something for a point of discussion later on, as to how we can better protect the recreational industry, which has a big economic impact in Nova Scotia, my home province, when it comes to these waterways? Could you suggest something this committee might recommend to the government to ensure we provide adequate protection to the recreational industry?

I'll end with that.

[Jay Morrison]

I'd certainly like to undertake that rather than try to fulfill that at the moment, if I could respond.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'd be happy to have your thoughts at a later time.

Mr. Farrant, do you have any suggestions?

[Greg Farrant]

Like my colleague here, I think I'd prefer to reflect on that, and certainly I would be happy to get back to you with any suggestions. I would say, going back to Mr. Hardie's statements earlier and those of the first questioner as well, it's interesting that there's nothing before the committee as a piece of legislation to comment on or a regulation to comment on. If you have that sitting before you, it's much easier to make suggestions about what would work, wouldn't work, might work, etc. We'd be more than happy to make some suggestions in a little more concrete fashion.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I appreciate that.

I know I'm out of time, but I'd like to say that I relish the opportunity to take part in this process before the legislation comes before us. I find it's helpful to parliamentarians and useful for the public, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

[Jay Morrison]

I would add that, in 2009, it was obvious that Transport Canada had a huge backlog of applications and complaints, enforcement actions, and so forth. At the time, when I was at the Treasury Board and we used to do these things, I estimated that they would need somewhere between six and 10 full-time equivalents in order to take care of that. Whether that's true or relevant today, I have no idea, but I would assume that you could speak to Transport Canada officials about what it would take to undertake those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

I'm sure the committee and the witnesses are aware that there are three other standing committees that are doing a similar review at the same time. We will hear a lot about all of these various issues as we proceed.

Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Chair, I'll be sharing my time with my colleague.

Mr. Morrison, you'll be happy to know I have a great J-stroke.

My question is for Mr. Farrant.

I've been asking a lot of the witnesses about the opting in mechanism, which allows a project proponent on an unlisted waterway to request Transport Canada's approval, even though they don't need it. I believe that's because it highlights that we're recognizing the uncertainties around deregulation. I heard in your opening statement that you and your members have concerns with unlisted waterways, but also with public safety.

Could you please elaborate a bit on that? I know you were talking about the zip lines, but I would like to know if you have any other specific examples of concerns around unlisted waterways and public safety.

[Greg Farrant]

The only other pertinent example that I could cite for you, and it is one that is.... Zip lines are an occasional thing that pop up. What we do find quite often on smaller waterways—and there are two or three that I passed driving between our head office in Peterborough and here—is where cables have been strung across the rivers. Going back to the fencing issue, fences are built right through the waterway. If you don't know they're there, they can be a public safety hazard if you're on that particular waterway.

It also goes to the restricted access and the public's right to access. The riparian rights of that particular waterway are not owned by that particular land owner, but they seek to cordon off that particular waterway. They may own the land on both sides of the river, but they don't own the bed of the river, the water itself, or the navigation rights on it. When putting up those fences, which is a very common occurrence in some places more than others, but it happens quite frequently, not only is it a public safety issue, but it's an access issue. That would be the most common example I could cite for you.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Okay.

Do you want to...?

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

Mr. Farrant, thank you for mentioning your positive remark before with respect to conducting these consultations that are being undertaken by this government.

You mentioned that legislative gaps exist in the NPA. Gaps are precisely why we are conducting this consultation. Can you offer some additional examples of gaps that need to be addressed? If possible, please elaborate on the statement you made with respect to the economic implications of failing to address these problems properly.

[Greg Farrant]

In terms of the economic implications, I'll speak to our members' immediate concerns, which are hunting and fishing. Obviously, recreational fishing quite clearly requires waterways for the most part, unless you're shore fishing. There's also a huge number of duck hunters in this country.

We see a trickle-down effect here. For instance, we see it every time there are changes at the provincial level when the licences and tag allocations are changed. We see it when people feel that it's not worth going out anymore because they can't access a waterway, and when they are concerned that they can no longer get to where they used to get. There's a problem there in terms of people saying that they're just not going to do that anymore.

For instance, in Ontario for people who fish and hunt, the revenues from licences and the tags they buy provide the funding through the special purpose account for two-thirds of all the funding for fish and wildlife management for all Ontarians, not just for people who fish and hunt. When you see changes that restrict people's ability to engage in those activities, they stop buying licences. They stop buying boats. They stop buying gas. They don't use hotels. They don't use restaurants. They don't go on trips.

You can look at something like the Canadian Tourism Commission's 2012 study on the economic impacts of fishing and hunting for Canada, and the billions of dollars just from U.S. visitors alone that come into this country for those two particular activities. If you cannot be guaranteed access to the lakes or the rivers that you normally use or that you traditionally used, why bother coming? Why bother taking those trips? Why bother going to the hunt camp? Why bother going on the fishing trip, etc?

All of that has an economic spillover effect that means people are going to spend less and not engage in those activities. Economically, it affects the bottom line.

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

Thank you.

I have one question for Mr. Morrison.

You said that only three rivers in Quebec were listed.

Don't you find it surprising that only three are listed considering how many rivers are in Quebec?

[Jay Morrison]

Yes, of course it's surprising. I think there are three lakes: Lac Memphrémagog, Lac Saint-Jean, and Lac des Deux-Montagnes. There are only a few rivers: the Richelieu, the Saint-Maurice, the Ottawa, and of course, the St. Lawrence. Yes, it's surprising.

Did you want to know why I think that is? Frankly, it seemed that if you were to overlay a map of the protected waters and a political map of Canada, you would get your answer, which is that at the time there were not very many MPs to stand up and fight for their constituents.

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

Well, we're going to do our best, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our two witnesses for being with us today.

I have no doubt that, like us, you are very busy. It will probably seem as though I am asking the same questions you have already been asked, but I am really trying to get confirmation of certain facts.

Transport Canada's navigation program no longer accepts complaints about works that impede navigation on unlisted waterways. Individuals who believe that a work on an unlisted waterway has an impact on the public right to navigation need to seek a court order to resolve the issue.

Witnesses who are having problems have talked a lot about the environment and fishing. I believe a department or another authority is responsible for that part of the problem. For the moment, I would prefer that we stick to navigation.

Within your respective organizations, have any legal complaints been filed since 2002, the year the legislation was amended?

Mr. Farrant, please go ahead.

[Greg Farrant]

For our part, I'm not aware of any litigation that has occurred because of that. I can't speak to that. I'm sorry.