Transport committee  We will continue to have an obligation to assess every project we consider for funding unless it is defined as an exclusion under CEAA, the exclusion list regulations. The minor works provisions being proposed under the NWPA are not part of the exclusion list regulations. What we will be able to do in the case that you've given is take the information Transport Canada has developed for that type of minor work and the design criteria they've identified as being appropriate to that type of project, and if the proponent meets those design criteria, the project would not be environmentally problematic from a navigational point of view.

Transport committee  That replacement would require a screening under CEAA if we were providing funding for it or considering it for funding. We would have to address all of the factors that CEAA requires that we address as part of the assessment, including implications for fisheries, riparian habitat, erosion, sedimentation, and so on.

Transport committee  Exactly.

Transport committee  Just from a practical perspective, the coordination issue is really key. One of the things—and I think it comes back to Mr. Masse's question as well—is the flow of information. The information that Transport Canada requires for NWPA purposes to determine whether or not they need to issue a licence can be quite detailed, and therefore quite far along in the project planning process.

Transport committee  We've done hundreds and hundreds of environmental assessments of infrastructure projects over the past decade. I've personally done hundreds of them. We have a lot of experience now. We're looking at changes to the definitions of minor works and minor waters in relation to our CEAA responsibilities and our overall approvals.

Transport committee  I think the point here is that through the consultation the committee will be undertaking, they'll add some clarity to exactly which types of projects or waterways should be covered and which can be managed in a different manner, and perhaps more efficiently as a result of that.

Transport committee  I think the point is that in my understanding, the way the act is currently structured, the named works are dealt with in a very specific manner, even though in some cases those very works may not be of concern from a navigation safety point of view. The proposed change, as I understand, involves providing Transport Canada with greater flexibility to decide how the review and approval of particular projects should proceed, and there could be situations where they would not need a review and approval that is as in-depth as they currently receive.

Transport committee  Thank you, Mr. Carrier. Just to be clear, we would only be involved if there is federal funding for that project involving the transmission lines. Then in terms of whether it would be appropriate from a public health or public navigation safety point of view to exclude aerial cables or transmission lines from consideration under the NWPA or the federal Environmental Assessment Act, I would point out that it's Transport Canada's policy not to do a NWPA review of transmission lines in certain instances.

Transport committee  You're correct. It's the water intake for water treatment plants, and it's the discharge pipes into water bodies for wastewater treatment.

Transport committee  Not necessarily; it really depends on the application. In many cases that's not available early in the planning process, which is when environmental assessments are usually undertaken, at least under the federal process. So it may be some time after the assessment is actually started that the NWP has enough information to determine how the act would apply in that particular circumstance.

Transport committee  I guess, in fact, to some extent they are reflected in the criteria and the types of works that Transport Canada has already looked at in its brochures for excluding minor works. I think you're familiar with, for example, pipeline crossings. Water intakes are another example.

Transport committee  I didn't have time to catch your reference.

Transport committee  I think what we were referring to there is that for projects funded federally through the Building Canada Fund or any of our existing programs, there will still be an environmental assessment required irrespective of the NWPA requirements. That will continue. But the same types of projects without federal funding would not necessarily require an NWPA approval, and that would shorten the time for the regulatory approvals prior to project implementation.

Transport committee  Thank you. Perhaps I could elaborate. Transport Canada and the navigable waters protection group are going to have to sort this out. For example, where there are numerous natural existing obstructions in the waterways, where seasonal flows can essentially preclude that water body from being navigable for periods of time, I would certainly consider, from an Infrastructure Canada point of view, the types of minor waterways that might be taken into account in the proposals Transport Canada's putting forward.