Transport Committee on Nov. 15th, 2016

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

Thank you, everybody, for being here.

One thing I'll mention off the top is that things will occur to you that you may not have a chance to say in an answer or subsequently. I would invite you to submit ideas, thoughts, or recommendations in writing to us. That's the way we get it on the record, and that's the way we can consider it when it's time for us to do our recommendations on this study.

One of the key things we've been considering here and on another committee is the fact that the changes were made for a reason. They were made primarily to assist in public works proceeding in a more reliable and less time-consuming and costly way. With many of the things we've heard so far, the concerns seem to be framed more around what could happen as a result of the changes.

Do any of you have any specific examples where as a result of the changes something has happened that you would rather have not seen happen or you felt powerless to deal with? Have you had any specific examples of impediments to navigation on a waterway as a result of its no longer being protected?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Hoyt.

[Andrea Hoyt]

In northern Labrador, where I live and the Nunatsiavut Government is, we have relatively little development going on in our traditional territory right now. However, there is a proposed mine, which is actually on the Quebec side of the Quebec-Labrador border, and it has been registered for environmental review in Nunavik but not in Newfoundland and Labrador or with CEAA. That proposed mine is proposing to put a road across Nunatsiavut, from the Labrador-Quebec border to the Atlantic Ocean, and it's going to cross several hundred waterways. Under the current Navigation Protection Act, none of those waterways have protection or would require review.

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

Thank you for that.

I have a question for you, Mr. Beaudin. Obviously, you didn't have an opportunity to comment on this when the changes were made, but it would appear that we've gone from a regime where everything, as noted, was protected by default, and therefore you had an opportunity to comment before something happened, to now, where it's only after the fact. Is that your understanding as well?

[Kim Beaudin]

Yes, it is. It is our understanding. Our organization certainly wants to be actively engaged in the process and in terms of ensuring that our voice is heard from coast to coast, and yes, for sure, what you're saying is the case.

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

This is a question for you and Mr. Vermette.

The concept of a nation-to-nation relationship would suggest that it has to happen not only on a day-to-day basis as individual projects come up, but also in the macro sense as to how we put a framework together for consultation off into the future.

As you've noted, this session is not consultation per se, but what would a good consultation system look like to you? You can keep your answer brief, but again, I do encourage you to follow up with a document to us to set that framework in place.

Mr. Vermette.

[Kyle Vermette]

As we mentioned in our comments, the challenge is just as you mentioned to Mr. Beaudin. The opportunity to comment doesn't occur before something happens, but after the fact. I would go further and say that sometimes it doesn't happen at all. An important part of what consultation would look like would be early notification of and access to information about what's being proposed with respect to a particular waterway, and again, even prior to that, as I mentioned, it would be ensuring that all waterways are subject to the act.

As you said, it's not about dealing with the matter on a project-by-project basis. There's the important aspect of ensuring that there's a broader focus. The CEAA process is considering that concept, as I mentioned, and I think it would make sense to be consistent in this process and to look at both the specific and the broader pictures.

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

Mr. Beaudin, one of the things we've heard from proponents, the people who want to build things and get things done, such as municipalities and others, is that they would like to have some sense of consistency and reliability. How do we mesh that? How do we overlay that requirement or feeling that they have versus your requirement to be acknowledged, engaged, and consulted?

[Kim Beaudin]

We believe that community engagement is number one. If the federal government shares that information prior to setting any policy issues on the table, that's really important, and at least people will have an opportunity to voice their concerns. Sometimes there will be a lot of positive things that will come out of it as well. These are very important things that need to happen.

A number of other organizations have stated that the consultation process tends to come after the fact, or even just during the process, when the decisions have already been made. Yes, with these kinds of things that happen, it curtails a lot of things that we're trying to do. Even for our organization itself, when we establish policy issues with respect to the environment, those are the kinds of things that we want to ensure the government is hearing in terms of what our constituencies are saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Beaudin.

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to all our guests. Thank you for joining us today.

Your expertise is particularly important for us this morning because, despite all the love I may have for nature, I remain a city dweller. Your way of life, which is clearly more in tune with nature, is probably going to provide us with a totally different perspective on this subject.

My first question goes to Mr. Beaudin.

If I understood your opening remarks correctly, you mentioned that the 2002 consultation on threatened species was a success. In what respect was that specific consultation more successful than others that took place later?

[Kim Beaudin]

In 2002, the congress was extensively involved with the Species at Risk Act. Actually, we had representatives on the committee itself. Our voice was at the table on a continual basis. I know they've actually made changes to that, as well. I'm not even sure where it is at this point, but I know that the congress is not involved in that process anymore. That sets us back a little bit. That's a big thing for us, in terms of the congress.

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

Thank you.

Am I interpreting you correctly when I say that the fact that you were present at the table means that you were not only heard during the consultation but you were also understood? If so, the conclusions can be more relevant because you are at the decision-making table. That question is open to all the representatives here.

[Andrea Hoyt]

I think it's very important that—

[A voice]

Mr. Beaudin is speaking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Beaudin, you have the floor. We weren't able to....

[Kim Beaudin]

We got thrown off?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, just give us a second.

Do you want to restate your last comment?

[Kim Beaudin]

I was just saying that when the congress goes about developing policies and when we engage the community, we structure it in such a way that people—we'll call them community experts—get involved in certain policy issues. Certainly, with respect to this issue, these people are important. These are the experts that we draw upon. You don't necessarily have to have a Ph.D., for example, in the environment to have something important to say. These are the kinds of things that we look at.

As I stated earlier, the congress was left off the table before with respect to changes. We're wondering how we're going to address that now because it is important for us to be heard.

[Andrea Hoyt]

When aboriginal groups are at the table for the discussions where the decision is being made, and the experts are at the table together, it's a sharing of equals. I think there's much better input then than when the experts just send down a pro forma request saying that they're doing this and they want our reaction. I think that might be one of the deficiencies of the previous Navigable Waters Protection Act. There were so many approvals that had to happen, and communities and aboriginal groups were being asked for reactions to so many permit processes.

How can that be fixed? I think the main way to fix it would be for local communities and aboriginal groups to be involved earlier on in the process, in the planning process, so that the input can be given before the permit goes out. The input can be given when you're discussing how to build the road, whether that's a good place to build the road, and whether the road is needed.

[Kyle Vermette]

Thank you.

I can share my own personal experience in dealing with the four working groups under the development of the pan-Canadian strategy on combatting climate change.

One of the challenges for the Métis National Council in not sitting on those working groups was that we were always behind. We were attending meetings, but we didn't have full information. We received as full information as we could possibly get, but we were always two to four weeks behind. Particularly when some of these processes are foreshortened in order to meet set timelines and to be responsive in meeting the government's commitments, I think that every opportunity to have as much information as possible to make effective and responsible decisions is important, so that when our Métis government is trying to make decisions, they're in the same place as this government.

It wants to be adequately informed and have an appropriate time to follow its own internal processes to ensure that the decisions and input it's providing are both transparent and supportable and appropriate to addressing the issue being discussed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm going to drill down a bit deeper with respect to some of the conversation we have had and questions that are being asked.

The Navigation Protection Act currently requires that the Governor in Council be satisfied that an addition of a waterway is in the national or regional economic interest, in the public interest, or is requested by a local authority. That's what I want to drill down on, a local authority, so I'll get back to that in a second.

Transport Canada relies on the consultations undertaken by proponents to demonstrate that the addition of a waterway is the greater will of potentially affected parties.

I have three questions, some of which have been answered already, but I want to drill down a bit further on them to come out with a proper recommendation based on our discussion today.

First off, what changes, if any, would you like to see made in this process? I'll ask all three of you that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Who would like to go first? I appreciate the deep thought that you're having to those very deep questions.

Please, Ms. Hoyt.

[Andrea Hoyt]

I think that the Nunatsiavut Government would like to see the schedule removed and have all waterways protected by default. If anything is not going to be protected, then there should be a good reason to not protect it.