:
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 16.
The order of the day is to study the current status of navigation protection of the Canadian waterways, including their governance and use, and the operation of the current Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Just before we get into that, as advice or a heads-up for our committee, Mr. Lewis will be here on Thursday with regard to railway safety, and I'm going to ask that we set aside about 10 minutes at the end of that meeting to have a little further discussion as to where we want to go after we get his report, in regard to meetings. You'll also have received your summary of our rail safety discussions from the committee. They should have been electronically transferred to you this morning.
I had the opportunity to meet with some of the directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities this weekend in Brandon, and they're thrilled that we're doing this study. In fact, I think the participation that we're going to see from that level will be very positive. “Long overdue” was the comment I heard many times. So I share that. I'm talking about the navigable waters.
With that, joining us today, from Infrastructure Canada, we have Shirley Anne Scharf, director general, and Keith Grady, senior adviser on environment review; from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, John Smith and Steve Burgess; and from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ginny Flood and Gilles Belzile.
Welcome. I presume we have some sort of presentation. I don't know if you've had any agreement as to who would like to start, but please begin.
Ms. Scharf.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members. I would like to thank the committee for inviting Infrastructure Canada to present its views on the proposals that have been tabled to modernize the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the NWPA.
With me today, as mentioned, is Keith Grady, our senior adviser on environmental review and approvals at Infrastructure Canada.
We are here today to talk specifically about the implications of this initiative for infrastructure funding programs administered by Infrastructure Canada. I want to emphasize that modernization of the NWPA is an important initiative for us. Infrastructure Canada is in full support of the proposed changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act as these changes will help the department to provide Canadians with modern, sustainable, and efficient public infrastructure in a timely way.
[Translation]
In my opening remarks, I will talk briefly to programs for which my department is responsible and how the NWPA can affect the delivery of these programs—in particular, how the NWPA can sometimes delay the approval and implementation of both community and major infrastructure projects.
I will also speak to the specific amendments that Transport Canada has tabled for consideration by the committee that will, in our view, improve the efficiency and timeliness of federal funding for public infrastructure projects under these programs. Our two departments work together closely in response to provincial and municipal requests for funding for major transportation infrastructure.
[English]
Through Building Canada, the Government of Canada has committed $33 billion in funding over seven years—2007-08 to 2013-14—for public infrastructure projects that promote a growing economy, a cleaner environment, and stronger and safer communities. Building Canada includes base funding for municipalities and provinces, as well as program funding initiatives, including the Building Canada Fund.
A broad range of projects and activities that are eligible for support under Building Canada have implications for navigable waters and thus would require consideration under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. To illustrate, under the Building Canada Fund, projects in the following categories are especially likely to be subject to the NWPA: water and waste water infrastructure, such as water intake pipes and waste water effluent pipes; public transit, the national highway system, local roads, short rail line, and short sea shipping; green energy, such as hydro-electric dams; and disaster mitigation, such as flood control.
[Translation]
The Building Canada Fund is in the process of being implemented across the country. It will generate a large number of community and major infrastructure projects across the country in a broader range of project categories than have been supported under previous federal infrastructure funding programs. Consequently, we anticipate an overall increase in the number of funded projects with NWPA implications in future. It is therefore important to amend the NWPA to reduce and avoid issues that have been encountered in respect of Infrastructure Canada's existing programs.
[English]
For example, under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund for 2004-11, approximately 20% of the 1,760 projects approved to date have involved implications for navigation. Similarly, the NWPA has been a consideration for about 25% of non-transport-related projects approved to date under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. As you can imagine, given Canada's geography, a large percentage of major highway projects in Canada also require NWPA approval due to minor water crossings.
I will now describe some of the challenges the NWPA poses for the approval and implementation of these types of infrastructure projects.
Our experience today indicates that NWPA-related considerations can result in both regulatory uncertainty and delays in the approval and implementation of public infrastructure projects. It is important that amendments to the NWPA proceed expeditiously so that these same issues do no adversely affect the efficient and timely provision of funding to projects under Building Canada.
A number of specific problems have been encountered to date. The first is that proponents cannot determine whether their projects are subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act until NWPA officials visit the site and confirm that the impacted water body is navigable. Depending on the season, site access, and availability of NWPA staff, this can take considerable time.
Detailed project and site plans necessary to confirm application of the act are often unavailable in the early stages of project planning, so the status of Transport Canada, as a responsible authority in the review of the project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, can be unclear until late in the assessment.
There are also delays in getting input from NWPA officials during the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review and in issuing an NWPA authorization following the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review and approval.
[Translation]
In turn, this regulatory uncertainty and process delays can add to project costs if construction cannot proceed as scheduled. As well, there can be added pressure for Infrastructure Canada to work with the parties to resolve issues and ensure that project approvals are timely.
[English]
Transport Canada has identified seven key concepts relating to potential changes to the NWPA. Of the seven, three will be particularly important in addressing the above-noted problems: amending the definition of “navigable waters” to allow for the exclusion of minor waters from application of the NWPA; amending the definition of “work” to allow for the exclusion of minor works from application of the NWPA; and removing the reference to the four named works—bridge, dam, causeway, and boom—in the act to allow for exemption of those works from the requirement to obtain approval pursuant to the NWPA.
[Translation]
Specifically, the proposal to exempt minor waterways and minor works will benefit infrastructure projects such as pipelines (water and sewers) and overhead power lines as they will no longer be required to apply for approval if they meet specified criteria. This will speed up the project approval process.
[English]
In addition, the proposal to remove the named works from the NWPA would also allow for quicker approval of those named works that are not a significant interference to navigation, such as small bridges, causeways, and micro-hydroelectric projects. The approval process would be quicker, because the projects would not be subject to the requirements of the full approval process as defined in the act.
The time required to complete federal environmental assessments of these projects would also be shortened in some circumstances. This would be especially beneficial for infrastructure projects that are subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act only as a result of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Infrastructure Canada would also suggest that the committee consider another amendment to the NWPA that would benefit the timely review and approval of public infrastructure projects. This additional amendment would be to remove the current requirements in the NWPA to deposit plans in a land titles office and to advertise in the Canada Gazette. We are in agreement with Transport Canada that these are antiquated provisions that no longer serve to provide adequate notification of a proposed project. A more flexible notification scheme is required.
To conclude, modernization of the NWPA is long overdue, and Infrastructure Canada fully supports the proposed amendments in the legislation. It is our department's belief that these changes will allow Infrastructure Canada and our public and private funding partners to implement both the small-scale community projects and the major infrastructure projects in a timelier manner without negatively affecting navigation in Canada or significantly impacting the environment.
[Translation]
Finally, it is our hope that these legislative changes will be accomplished expeditiously so that Building Canada can realize the benefits of a modernized NWPA as soon as possible.
[English]
We look forward to your questions and comments.
Merci.
To start with slide three of the deck, at its simplest, environmental assessment, or EA for short, is a process that's used to predict and evaluate possible environmental effects of proposed projects and to propose measures to mitigate any adverse effects that are identified. By considering environmental effects early in the planning process and developing mitigation measures, EA can contribute to reduced risk and reduced liability for both government decision-makers and proponents of those projects.
The EA process also provides a meaningful opportunity for the public to become aware of projects in their communities, to provide their views and provide information, and to influence decisions about those projects. In factoring environmental considerations into the planning and decision-making process at an early stage, EA is an important tool for promoting sustainable development.
We'll move on to a couple of slides about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The EA process for the federal government is set out in this piece of legislation, which has been in force since 1995, although federal EA processes date back to the 1970s through various other instruments.
Basically, what the act requires is an examination of environmental effects of proposed projects before a federal authority makes a decision that enables that project to proceed. The decisions they make are often referred to as the triggers of the federal EA process.
Specifically, there are four types of triggers. They are decisions by a federal authority to either proceed with a project as a proponent; to provide financial assistance to the proponent of a project; to sell, lease, or transfer control of federal land for the project; or to issue certain licences, permits, or other regulatory approvals. For example, as we'll see later, certain approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act trigger the requirement for an environmental assessment.
Federal EA is what we call a self-assessment process. What this means is that the federal authority that has a decision to make about the project is also responsible for ensuring that the environmental assessment is conducted. Under this system there are approximately 8,000 environmental assessments conducted each year by over 30 federal departments, boards, agencies, and 41 parent crown corporations. There is a wide range of projects, from hiking trail construction in national parks to large natural resource developments, such as mines and hydroelectric dams.
Under the act there are three different types of assessment, which correspond to the risk of significant adverse environmental effects. The vast majority, over 99%, of those assessments are conducted as screening assessments.
Another level of assessment is a comprehensive study; they are conducted for a smaller number of projects. They consider some additional factors in the assessment, they have more opportunity for public participation, and the process involves decisions at some key stages by the Minister of the Environment.
Finally, review panels provide an independent review and public hearings for those projects that are likely to have significant adverse environmental effects or for projects with significant public concern.
On slide six we talk a little bit about federal, provincial, and territorial cooperation. There are provincial and territorial requirements for environmental assessments as well. We have bilateral agreements and project-specific arrangements in place to coordinate those processes. The aim is, when both provincial and federal environmental assessments are triggered, to have a coordinated process so that we can have a single environmental assessment that meets the needs of both governments. These types of arrangements affect about 150 to 300 projects per year. Some examples of recently completed cooperative review are shown on the slide, but there are others.
These coordination processes generally work well, but we are participating in work under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to develop both short- and long-term initiatives to further improve timeliness and coordination of our cooperative processes.
I'd like to turn now to a few brief words about our organization, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
We are part of the environment portfolio, but we are a distinct and separate agency from Environment Canada. Among our roles, we provide advice and support to the Minister of the Environment on his responsibilities under the act; for example, on the adequacy of comprehensive study reports prepared by responsible authorities.
We have some key administrative functions under the act, such as managing and providing administrative support to the independent review panels and administering a participant funding program.
We have an important role as the federal environmental assessment coordinator for comprehensive studies and those assessments that involve provincial jurisdictions. It's not infrequent that a number of departments have a decision whereby they're involved with the environmental assessment of a specific project, and the coordination role is very important.
Until recently we did not have responsibility for actually managing or conducting the environmental assessments. There is a new initiative called the major natural resource projects initiative, which is aimed at improving the overall regulatory process for major natural resource projects. Under this effort, our agency is actually taking on a role of managing the EAs of those major natural resource projects, amounting to about 200 environmental assessments per year.
Now I'd like to turn to the links of this process to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Potential decisions under the NWPA for approval of physical work trigger the requirement for doing an environmental assessment. Our act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, links to the NWPA in a few ways.
First, the environmental assessment legislation establishes the duty to consider environmental effects before decisions are made on projects. Second, it links by allowing conditions to be attached to NWPA approvals to ensure mitigation of environmental effects where necessary. Finally, it links Transport Canada's approval to the results of the environmental assessment. Specifically, as a result of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Transport Canada can issue an approval where the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Or alternatively, if it is likely to cause significant adverse effects but those effects can be justified in the circumstances, they can issue the approval. That latter circumstance requires approval by the Governor in Council.
Slide nine lists the approvals that can be granted under the NWPA that trigger the requirement for an environmental assessment. They include sections 5 and 6, relating to work to be built on, over, or near a navigable waterway, and sections 16 and 20, relating to removing vessels from a navigable water body.
It should be noted--I mentioned that very often there's more than one department involved--that often the NWPA applies to project components that are associated with a larger development proposal. For example, a bridge leading to a mine, highway construction, or marine terminal can have a navigable waters component as well as much larger issues around the project.
Finally, in terms of the proposed changes, I mentioned near the beginning of my presentation that some 8,000 federal EAs are triggered every year. In 2003 there were amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as the implementation of other initiatives that were designed with the goal of better focusing our efforts on those projects with a greater potential for environmental effects. The proposed changes to the NWPA would mean that minor works and projects in minor waters would not require NWPA approval; consequently, they would not trigger an environmental assessment.
Based on past experience, it's reasonable to expect that those types of projects would not result in significant environmental effects. So the proposed initiative with respect to the NWPA would be consistent with our efforts to focus environmental assessments on those projects that have greater potential to result in significant effects and to reducing the number of environmental assessments for smaller projects.
I would note that some consideration could be given to whether the proposed changes could lead to a situation where a larger project would not become subject to environmental assessment because it's considered a minor work with respect to its effect on navigation. Having some mechanism in place to allow for discretion in dealing with such projects could eliminate this eventuality. However, we think this would occur in exceptional cases. It's not something that we anticipate happening often. Generally where there's a larger project, the environmental assessment process is triggered by something other than the NWPA. But as the initiative moves forward, this is one issue we'd suggest giving some attention to.
Finally, I also note that the proposed modern enforcement provisions of the NWPA would benefit environmental assessment, because the Environmental Assessment Act relies on instruments in other laws to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks.
Thank you.
:
Perhaps I can respond to that by prefacing my remarks a little bit.
From our perspective, from an environmental assessment perspective, there are two aspects of the process that we see as being important. One is that the quality of the assessments are there, that an appropriate quality of assessment is done, and to ensure that projects that could have adverse environment effects are assessed. From the other perspective, we look for an efficient and effective environmental assessment process.
I guess what we see with respect to this proposed approach is the opportunity to address that in some way. Concerns we've seen with respect to how the NWPA acts as a trigger for environmental assessment have to do with, in part, defining which waterways are navigable. There are a great number of waterways in Canada, as we all know. Many of them—very small ones, in fact—have been seen as navigable at times.
The other aspect is that it's difficult to know, starting out, before you do an assessment, whether or not there might be interference with navigation as a result of a particular project.
So to the extent that this initiative, these legislative amendments, can address those concerns, I think we'd be quite satisfied.
:
In Fisheries and Oceans I can't give you a specific number because I don't have that off the top of my head, but I can certainly provide that to you.
The way we're structured right now, we have a centre of expertise for environmental assessments for major projects, which are natural resource major projects, infrastructure projects, or projects that have significant economic development impacts, aboriginal issues, federal-provincial considerations, and those types of aspects.
Also, we just received an additional 41 FTEs from the regulatory improvement initiative, better known as the major projects management office. That will help us deal with the major projects.
Over the last few years we've also been taking on a modernization of our whole program, which included putting in some processes to look at risk: what the risk is and the significance of environmental impacts. We try to work very closely with proponents to mitigate impacts and therefore not have proponents seek environmental assessment, because we do not have to issue authorization.
My understanding is that Transport Canada is looking to move more into that risk management approach also. It is, at the same time, respecting and not lowering the bar on environmental concerns or issues, but just looking more at the significance of those impacts and whether they can be mitigated.
To answer your question, we have staff in all regions, but I don't have the numbers. I can certainly provide you with those numbers.
Before I ask a question, I want to clarify something that arose when Mr. Volpe was questioning the witnesses. I don't believe we are working at cross purposes, but he did suggest that ministry staff had indicated a preference for a complete revamping of the bill as opposed to perhaps picking the low-hanging fruit.
At that meeting, Mr. Chair, I did specifically address that. Please note Marc Grégoire is the assistant deputy minister for safety and security, and I don't believe his responsibilities touch directly on the infrastructure program Mr. Grady and Ms. Scharf administer. In a question I posed to him--and I'd like to quote that question--I asked, “Would you agree with me that moving forward with these amendments will significantly speed up the process of getting the needed legislation in place to address some of the infrastructure needs in our country?” And Mr. Grégoire simply said, “Yes.” I think it's unfair to place his testimony against what we're hearing today.
I am a little concerned about Mr. Julian's comments. Of course, whenever he deals with issues like this, the solution is always adding more jobs as opposed to becoming more efficient and streamlined. As I understand it, the purpose of moving forward with some amendments is to ensure that our infrastructure moneys are rolled out in a timely manner and that this infrastructure gets built within the seven years this program requires.
I'd like to move toward a discussion about the environmental assessment process, because I think that's where most of the concerns will be raised: are we somehow gutting the environmental assessment process? If we move forward with the amendments the government is proposing, is there any suggestion that the environmental assessment process will be watered down or weakened?
Perhaps I could address that to Mr. Smith, first of all.
:
Mr. Chair, I hope the intervention by other members doesn't cut into my time.
I want to take off where Mr. Julian left us, because I have some concerns as well. It's good to see you back here, Mr. Julian. We've missed you.
I would like to use an example from my riding. I think I have one of the fastest-developing ridings in the country in northern Alberta, because of the oil sands and other issues.
I'd like to think of myself as a great environmentalist. I've spent a lot of time in the bush. I have a trapline up there that I spend some time on. Indeed, I have some waterways that I think would be considered minor waters, and I'm concerned about that. I don't want to see oil companies, quite frankly...and I don't think anybody in the Conservative government would like to see anything sacrificed to move forward, especially not the environment. I know I wouldn't, and I don't think any members of this committee would.
Although we want to simplify, make things better, and remove duplication, we don't want to sacrifice things. Certainly we don't want to sacrifice our environment or the integrity of our country.
I have this little creek, which is called Gregoire Creek, which runs into the Christina River, which runs into a heritage river called the Clearwater River, and that runs into the Arctic. In the meantime, there are a lot of beaver dams in this. It's navigable, but it's navigable for about five feet at a time because you have to go through a lot of beaver dams. Now, would that be considered a minor water?
I'm not getting very good responses today.
:
Thank you very much. I have two or three questions. I will say that it will take the opposite point of view of Mr. Jean.
When I see government ministries not having the kind of honest debate that should be held around this, because there are serious consequences as well for what is being proposed, I get apprehensive that there seems to be a lockdown within the ministries to avoid the kind of debate that should be taking place on this.
There's no doubt that there may be some advantages to dumping a portion of the environmental assessment...because that is indeed what we're talking about, not modernization but dumping a significant portion of environmental assessment. There are also serious disadvantages to that. I would like to have seen today more of a debate between the ministries around the consequences of this, but that's perhaps something that we can pursue off-line, away from this table, because I certainly understand the pressures that bureaucrats are receiving now from the current government.
I'd like to come back to the issue around the screenings and follow up on Mr. Maloney's comments around removing the reference to the four named works. On the four named works, why are we not looking for a proposal for minor modifications of those named works, as opposed to excluding them from the act?
Secondly, in the environmental screenings that take place today, what is involved? That's a little bit along the lines of Mr. Jean's process question.
Thirdly, coming back to the issue of the minor waters, which is disturbing to me, in British Columbia we have, I think, a lot of waterways that would fit into the definition of minor waterways, but where there are significant repercussions for modifications. So I would like to hear from each of the ministries as to what their discussions have been around minor waters and how that would be defined.
Those are my three questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.