Transport Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Of course you think this process is extremely important.

[Adrienne Davidson]

Yes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's what this side of the table is actually trying to do, as opposed to the other side of the table, who are sitting there signing Christmas cards. At the same time, this is something that's very important. Once again, I want to express my appreciation to you folks for participating.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us this morning.

I'd like to extend special thanks to Ms. Lui, who for the second time has gotten up in the wee small hours to take part in our committee's work. We appreciate it very much. I also want to thank my colleagues, who agreed to this additional meeting so that we may hear all of your testimony.

This act, according to what you tell us, does not appear to be reaching its objectives. In my questions, I'd like to go from the general to the specific. First I'd like to talk about how the situation could be corrected, particularly as regards environmental assessment.

In your opinion, since you are familiar with the previous act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, would it be preferable to start with that act, or go back to the previous act to amend the current one?

[Emma Lui]

Thank you, Monsieur Aubin.

Right now I think it's important to revert back to the old act. We need to restore protections, because a lot of projects are going forward and being approved without assessment of navigable waterways, but we recognize that there is definitely room for improvement of the previous act. I would call for the restoration of the act up to the 2012 standards, putting protections back on all the lakes and rivers, and then holding a full public consultation on new changes to the act.

We're seeing public consultations with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is great, with a lot of cities being visited and a panel going to each of the cities to hear people's concerns, so we would ask that the same happen for this act. I can talk about examples.

We wrote a report recently, “Every Lake, Every River: Restoring the Navigable Waters Protection Act”, in which we looked at four key studies of projects that were going forward that would have impacts on navigable waters. The Ajax mine in B.C., for which the Jacko Lake cofferdam is not being assessed, is one example. Under the old act, normally it would have been assessed. The local community has raised serious concerns about what the project is going to do to Jacko Lake. A lot of fly-fishing happens there. It's actually termed the best fly-fishing in B.C, so there are concrete examples out there that underscore that protections need to be put back on right now, and then a fuller consultation process needs to be implemented, including a review panel.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Davidson, did you want to add something?

[Adrienne Davidson]

I think there are two things to consider. One would be that, by returning to the old legislation, I think a lot of the concerns about the regulatory or red tape burden would not be realized, in part because the Navigation Protection Act in its current form no longer triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, so you would not necessarily get the duplication question around environmental assessment. You could continue forward with a more robust federal oversight on waterways without actually impacting the degree to which you have to do lengthy or duplicate environmental assessments.

Alternatively, one option would be to have a sort of backwards triggering mechanism whereby any environmental assessment that occurs throughout Canada would trigger a review through the Navigation Protection Act specifically regarding navigability. This would probably keep the overall regulatory burden down relative to the previous model.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to talk about infrastructure projects.

I'm sure we can all agree that we don't need a three-year study before building a culvert in a brook.

Major projects have not been approved, however, such as the Kinder Morgan and Energy East pipelines. Does it seem appropriate to you that the environmental assessments were entrusted to another independent organization, the National Energy Board? In the context of amending the act, why not take advantage of the opportunity to bring back the environmental assessments of these major projects to the Department of Transport?

We could begin with Ms. Lui's answer on this.

[Emma Lui]

I would definitely say that Transport Canada has the responsibility, and I would also say a lot of expertise is needed to conduct this type of assessment. It's no secret that there are a lot of concerns about the National Energy Board and its being possibly co-opted by the energy industry, which raises questions and concerns about its actual independence.

I think the federal government really does have the responsibility to do this and really needs to think about how navigable waterways are impacted. I would hate to see the department not have a role or responsibility in protecting these waterways.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Hardie, you're next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thanks to our witnesses, especially those from British Columbia, because I know how early it is out there.

I'll start with you, Ms. Lui. You are aware, of course, that both the Trans Mountain line and Line 3 are following existing corridors, so it's not as though we're blazing a new trail through the wilderness with them.

I'm wondering if your group has any background information on how the existing pipelines have performed in those two places with respect to spills, accidents, etc. If you don't, that's fine.

[Emma Lui]

I don't have that information on hand, though I can certainly get it to you quite quickly.

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

Sorry, ma'am, I'd ask you to keep your answers short. I know the two of you are just brimming with information, but I have a few questions I need to get in.

I want to build on Mr. Aubin's question, because having been involved in the other side of this study, on the fisheries and oceans committee, I asked the same question of the pipeline industry with respect to the National Energy Board versus the DFO being involved in environmental assessments.

Ms. Lui, you mentioned that Transport should do it. Other people believe it should be DFO. There is a compelling reason for the NEB to continue to do what it does. Do you have any preference? I think you signalled one, but I just want to give you an opportunity to say what you think should be in place and why.

[Emma Lui]

If it comes to navigable waters, I would say it should be Transport Canada. I think there needs to be better coordination among the federal departments in that there is obviously overlap in some of the projects. There is an obvious link between navigation and fisheries, and we've raised concerns about some of the projects impacting not just boating or recreational paddling but fishing as well.

I think it's not either/or; in some cases it might need to be both. It would have to be on a case-by-case basis, but we can't do that assessment if the Navigation Protection Act doesn't even look at most of the lakes and rivers in Canada.

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

One thing further on the NEB process—and this was highlighted in another meeting I was in—is that rather than just looking at potential environmental impacts during the construction period, the NEB oversees the environmental performance, if you will, of a pipeline for its whole life, so there is ongoing inspection and ongoing concern with that. It's something to tuck away as a wrinkle that may speak to keeping the NEB as part of that process.

Ms. Davidson, both of you have said that triggering an environmental assessment through the NPA, or the Navigable Waters Protection Act, if we go back there, is still the preferred way you'd go. Are there other trigger mechanisms that you would want us to be thinking about?

Again, I'd ask you to keep your answer fairly short. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Adrienne Davidson]

I'm not sure that the triggering mechanism is necessarily the best way forward. I think the biggest thing to think about is that at the moment we and the public aren't clear on what gaps exist under this framework as compared to the previous framework. It's difficult for us to reach a consensus on what that looks like or on what the Canadian public is comfortable with under the new framework.

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

There was obvious concern by the previous government about the buildup of reviews. There were something like 3,000 in the lineup for review by the DFO alone, and it took a long time to get them through. In the meantime important public works were held back and made more expensive, etc.

Here's a quick open question to both of you. What would you recommend to streamline this so we're not holding people back from things that the public needs?

[Emma Lui]

I would have to ask members of the committee to rethink the way this is being framed. I know there was a lot of talk about red tape, and I recognize that there are infrastructure projects that need to go forward, but I'd ask you to think about what we're trying to protect here, and that's water. It's people's drinking water. It's the source of people's livelihood. If people can't fish...there are a lot of communities that rely on that for their jobs. It's also needed for watersheds and people's drinking water.

I think it's quite important to take our time and to make sure projects aren't going to negatively impact waterways. If we hold up pipelines, a potential spill, such as we saw with the Husky oil spill in Saskatchewan, which directly affected.... We knew people in those communities who weren't able to drink their water for a number of days.

I would ask members of the committee to really rethink that. We need some of these safeguards, and we need to take our time to make sure projects aren't going to be impacting people's drinking water.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lui.

We go now to Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think my colleague has a quick question to begin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to welcome the witnesses who are with us this morning.

In your opinion, what are the possible legislative solutions that could allow us to balance protecting the environment and protecting the public's right to navigation?

[Emma Lui]

Sorry, could you repeat the question?

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

This is my question.

In your opinion, what are the possible legislative solutions that could allow us to balance protecting the environment and protecting the public's right to navigation?