Transport Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

[Emma Lui]

If I'm understanding the question correctly, I would say that protecting the public's right to navigation is oftentimes protecting the environment. Oftentimes we see projects.... I'll refer back to the report that we recently released. We saw a very intimate link between protecting water and protecting navigation. I raised the example of the Kalamazoo spill, or even the Husky oil spill, in which people weren't able to navigate the waterways, and there was obviously a link to environmental protection as well.

Currently the act doesn't include any assessment for potential spills, and those can definitely impact waterways. I would ask that a new clause be included in the act, so that when there is an assessment on a project, it looks at what a potential spill could do to navigation and the environment as well.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Ms. Lui, is it your vision that such a clause would apply to every waterway that an energy project crosses, so with a major pipeline project, no matter the size, or just when the review takes place?

[Emma Lui]

Right now the legislation doesn't look at any pipelines. One of our asks is that it also look at pipelines again.

Absolutely. I think we'd want to know the risks. Whether it's a spill or a mining project, it's important to look at how some sort of discharge or water pollution would impact navigation.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Ms. Davidson, perhaps this is a question for you, although I'll open it up.

One of the complaints we heard previously was that although the public's right to navigation is still protected under the common law, going to court to seek a remedy is not a possibility for many of the users of waterways.

Is it your view that an administrative complaints process that is more efficient and cheaper would be a good thing?

[Adrienne Davidson]

It's not something I've looked at, and so I don't feel as though I'm prepared to comment on that specifically.

I think it's a question for the committee. Do we want to create a regulatory framework that is forward-facing or a complaints process that is backwards-facing? That's something I think this committee should be thinking about, moving forward.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

So if we were to have a forward-facing regulatory framework, one of the issues that I see popping up is that it's not necessarily that difficult for a provincial government or municipality to have a waterway added, but the user of a waterway doesn't necessarily have the authority to get a waterway added to the list. Should we be expanding the ability of the actual end-users of waterways to have their waterways added to the list if they can make the case that doing so is sensible?

[Adrienne Davidson]

I think this speaks to how the schedule was initially constructed, which was really around commercial use and heavy navigation use for recreational activities. It would be a time-consuming process to do so, but engaging with communities, engaging with indigenous groups, engaging with perhaps individuals who were not able to participate in the previous process in order to construct a list that was a little bit more comprehensive might be one way forward.

It should also be noted that in the two-step process of the schedule, the initial quantitative assessment came up with a list of, I think, 1,070 potential lists to be included in the schedule. That number was whittled down through the qualitative assessment to around 240. So there's a larger list out there that could also be considered a starting point when we're thinking about the schedule.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

When we are trying to build a list that more adequately protects the traditional use by indigenous communities and those in the north, is there any advice you have to ensure that those voices are heard so we can protect their traditional use of waterways? I'll ask for a quick response. I don't have much time left.

[Adrienne Davidson]

I think in those cases—and maybe you could piggyback onto the current CEAA consultations—you do have to engage in a nation-to-nation consultation with those groups and actually have them at the table while you're preparing that list.

I think it's quite notable that if you look at the territories, there are barely any rivers or lakes being protected, and many of those rivers are used for navigation, for recreation, and for subsistence on a regular basis.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, do I have any time remaining?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We're expired here. It's 6:07.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I want to say thank you to our witnesses, and especially to Ms. Lui for appearing at this early hour and for coming back a second time. It's very much appreciated.

Thank you to the witnesses.

We will now move to complete this session and to—

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

I actually have a point of order. I'm trying to figure out—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Can I just complete it for our witnesses?

Thank you very much for your participation. We appreciate that very much.

Mr. Sikand.

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

I just had a question for the clerk. I'm trying to schedule the next session, and I was wondering when we will have our plane to go up north.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin]

You need authority from the House to travel, so I cannot make any financial commitment that would involve the aircraft.

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

What does that mean?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

So you haven't been able to book the aircraft since we don't yet have approval. We knew that was going to take some time.

[The Clerk]

Yes. The budget is not active, if you will, until the House says we can travel.

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

I thought it was approved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The liaison committee went through that process, but in the end, it still requires House approval from all of the parties. It requires unanimous consent. Evidently at this particular time, it has not been dealt with in that way.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It hasn't been dealt with or it hasn't received unanimous consent?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It hasn't received unanimous consent. I'm not even sure if it's been asked for. It's been talked about maybe within the system, but as the clerk said, we don't have unanimous consent right now. We don't have approval, period. Until we get approval, you're not able to book the flight or do any of the other logistics.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Or look at the concerns of the north. Nice.