Transport Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

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

Yes, absolutely.

[Greg Farrant]

Any follow-up comments will go to all members of the committee, quite clearly, through the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Farrant, thank you kindly for your intelligent comments throughout this meeting. I think this is an issue that can be dealt with in a measured way. Despite what some have claimed, I don't think the legislation enacted in 2012 was all that detrimental. That is the conclusion I have come to after listening to all the witnesses who have appeared prior and spoken about the advantages the legislation affords them in their respective spheres of activity.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Rayes.

I thank the witnesses who are here with us today.

Madam Chair, I think it would be time to talk about the motion I mentioned at the last meeting. I want to ask for your opinion to ensure that I can at this time discuss the content of my motion and table it officially.

Also, I know my colleague, Mr. Vance Badawey, asked for an opinion from the clerk concerning the adjournment motion. I would simply like to have the chair's point of view on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If I could make the suggestion, we have three important witnesses giving us valuable testimony. Would you agree to leave your motion until 10:30 and we'll deal with it at the end of the meeting?

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

No, Madam Chair. I would like it to be discussed immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Then are you calling for a vote on your motion?

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

I would first like to talk about the content of my motion to inform my colleagues correctly about its nature and about the reason why I want to table it. That is all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It is rightfully before us.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, I echo your concerns. We have witnesses who have taken the trouble to be here. I'm finding their testimony very valuable and helpful to inform the process.

It seems there's an attitude that we're afraid to embrace the opinions of Canadians on this, as I think is the same opinion that we sensed when the amendments went through several years ago. I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.

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

Madam Chair, first I have to have the opportunity to talk about the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

As sympathetic as I may be to your request, a motion to adjourn the debate has been moved by Mr. Fraser, and we had clarification with the clerk following the last meeting that when a motion has been moved to end the debate, that is to be voted on.

Excuse me for one second.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On a point of order then, Madam Chair. I won't seek to move the adjournment improperly.

I know the committee has dedicated six meetings of witnesses, or up to six meetings. In view of the level of obstructionism that we continue to see throughout the process, I will contemplate moving that we extend the scope of the study and invite further witnesses, and potentially invite the same witnesses back because quite frankly, I'm very frustrated with the lack of willingness to hear people who may have an opinion on this important issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I would like some clarification. When we have a process where each member is given a certain amount of time to speak, members are allowed to use their minutes as they so choose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes.

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

Mr. Berthold was not taking up anybody's speaking time. He had been given the floor. It was his time to speak. Can he not then use his time to move the motion that was duly put on the agenda during that time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, he can.

You have the floor, Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I know that my colleagues across the way are a little bothered by the way we table motions simply for the purpose of having a clear process. My motion says, “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.”

I think that is a very reasonable motion. When we have the amendments from the minister, we can decide whether to hold six, seven, eight or nine meetings on this topic. I think it would be quite legitimate for our committee to do this, because then we will have something on which to base our work. We will know the intentions of the Minister of Transport with regard to the Navigation Protection Act. That is what concerns me. And that is why we have in the course of this study regularly tabled motions to ask that we have the details of the amendments to be proposed by the minister on the Navigation Protection Act.

Our colleagues seem to believe that the Minister of Transport is only going to propose minor amendments. It is true that from the beginning all of the witnesses have expressed their satisfaction regarding the amendments that could be made to the Navigation Protection Act, with the exception of those we are hearing this morning. I feel that the minister's amendments are absolutely necessary to the conduct of a proper study. At that point, the Council of Canadians and your organizations, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Farrant, would have ample information to be able to formulate a clear proposal and assess what the government intends to do.

My colleagues on the government side have on several occasions mentioned that relevant changes have been made to the act. Several of them feel that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some amendments will stay, and in light of what we have heard in the past from your organizations, you will surely have things to say about them.

So, we would have to begin this study again in the course of the normal legislative process. That is why I consider that these amendments should be submitted to the committee before we do our work. Tuesday, we adopted a budget of more than $10,000 for this study, to hear witnesses and to pay for their travel costs. That sum of money will have to be spent again when we have to study the amendments submitted by the Minister of Transport. I think that repeating this exercise twice is a poor use of taxpayers' money.

I think it is important that Canadians listening to us know that we are not against studying an act again if it can be improved. We deplore the fact that the minister has already decided that the act is not adequate and that we have to start all over from the beginning. I will read the expressed intention again, and it is even included in the minister's mandate letter, “... restore lost protections and introduce modern safeguards.”

If that is what the minister intends to do, why does he not submit the amendments to our committee to give us a chance to debate them. You may come back before us. I am convinced that if the government submits amendments to the Navigation Protection Act, both the Council of Canadians and your organizations will ask to be heard again.

Mr. Farrant, you said that you take every possible opportunity to put forward your organization's point of view when it concerns the interests of your hunters and fishers. So you will have to come back to see us and once again we will have to grant an additional budget to the committee to conduct a new study. Basically, the work we are doing today is almost—and I did say “almost”—useless, because we are going to have to start all over again from the beginning.

In previous testimony, we received a lot of information from people who, as opposed to today's witnesses, were of the opinion that the changes to the Navigation Protection Act had had beneficial effects.

The president of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, in fact, Mr. Al Kemmere, made the following statement:

The previous legislation did not utilize local knowledge on how water bodies were being used, and therefore increased the cost to municipalities and to the Government of Canada. The new legislation balances federal oversight with municipal autonomy. The new legislation allows the minister to add more water bodies to the schedule as they see fit and allows owners of works...subject to the NPA, even if it's not on a scheduled water body, by opting into the process.

According to the comments made in the beginning, it is possible to act within the context of the existing law. No witness came to tell us that this process had been used. No one has asked the minister to add bodies of water to the list, although this is possible under the act.

So, once again, I wonder what the problem is with the Navigation Protection Act? Why do we absolutely want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and restore prior safeguards, when the current act specifically makes interventions possible?

The president of the Rural Forum of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, Mr. Ray Orb, also had this to say:

The FCM welcomed changes to the Navigation Protection Act brought about in 2012, which eliminated unnecessary requirements to accommodate non-existent public water travel. The amendments allowed the existing legislation to be brought up to date and into line with the country's current transportation routes. By reducing project delays and higher building costs to municipalities, while at the same time providing protection to these important waterways, the changes to the Navigation Protection Act directly related to municipal concerns aimed at improving the capacity of local governments to build infrastructure and to deliver essential services. To make environmental planning easier, the federal government also recognized the limited capacity of rural municipalities and ensured that these communities have access to rural-specific resources, including tools, expertise, and financial capacity.

When the government wants to keep its election promises and amend a bill, it seems to me it is only fair to put its intentions on the table. At this time the government does not intend to listen to witnesses' recommendations, nor hear what people have to say about the bill. The government's intentions, as expressly set out in the letter sent to us by the two ministers, are to restore lost protections and introduce modern safeguards.

This morning my colleague Mr. Hardie made a few suggestions concerning improvements that could be made to the Navigation Protection Act. Would there be anything in Mr. Hardie's suggestions that the minister could study to make amendments to the act? If that were the case, we could discuss something specific. We could discuss concrete cases and the concrete effects of changes to the legislation on navigable waters for paddlers, for pipeline projects, and for hunters and fishers. Unfortunately, once again, we are in the dark. Society evolves, Madam Chair.

Let's get back to Mr. Farrant's comments concerning hunters and fishers. Personally, as the former mayor of Thetford Mines, I can tell you that hunting and fishing have changed over the past years. These days, in order to get to hunting and fishing grounds, you need four-wheel drive vehicles and snowmobiles. Since hunters and fishers have to cross rivers or streams, structures have to be built over them, and those structures need to be regulated.

If we want hunters to have access to resources, we have to be able to intervene on certain bodies of water, but should we prevent paddlers from using all rivers? Certainly not!

You raised an extremely valid point, Mr. Morrison. You said that there is a lot of activity on rivers and lakes and that Canada is known for its vast bodies of water. I think we need protective measures, but that is not the role of the Navigation Protection Act. There are other laws and other departments that do that work. Some of the comments you made this morning could be addressed to other ministers, departments and committees. You presented arguments that were relevant and concrete enough to back up your viewpoint.

Let me get back to two other statements we heard, to support the motion I am submitting today.

We had the pleasure of receiving Mr. Michael Atkinson, president of the Canadian Construction Association. He said he was satisfied with the changes made in 2012.

He said, “It has been said that the 2012 changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act reduced environmental protections across the country.”

This is what Mr. Atkinson had to say:

We couldn't disagree more. To begin with, the amended act was no longer a trigger for the environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Any change to that would have to be taken into consideration with the changes that were made to CEAA. To do that unilaterally with respect to this act without taking into consideration the changes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Excuse me, Mr. Berthold, may I interrupt for just a moment?

Given the fact that we have three important witnesses here, if it's your intention to go to the end of the meeting with the floor, then we should at least allow our witnesses to leave.

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

Madam Chair, this morning I referred extensively to testimony the committee has heard. I think it is important that the witnesses, only if they wish to, be able to hear the rest of the comments I have to make about the motion.

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

Point of order.

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

I don't think all of my colleagues here want me to take another 30 minutes to talk about the motion. I don't think I will use all my time, but if you let me get to my conclusion, we could finish up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.