Evidence of meeting #101 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC
I have asked the minister a question, and he has said he is not going to answer my question, but he is going to comment on my comments.
I would ask that the minister answer the question that I have posed to him.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Okay, I'll give you an example.
The Nass River was removed from the schedule. We put the Nass River back in the special schedule we're talking about today. We did this well over a year ago, because we felt that it was incorrect on the part of the previous government to remove the Nass River because of its importance, in this particular case, to the Nisga'a.
To finish, if I may, Madam Chair—
4:20 p.m.
Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC
I have two minutes left.
You made a decision to add something back onto the schedule without any concrete examples of navigation being impeded on that body of water. Is that correct?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
We listened to the indigenous peoples who live and have lived there for 10,000 years, and we decided that—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Yes, I am telling you that the Nisga'a had made representation to us that the Nass River, which is in the very north of British Columbia, should be in the schedule. We said yes, it should be, because it is in that category of rivers that are important for indigenous rights.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You may not like the answers, but the answers are coming.
You have a few more minutes if you want to ask another question that's not completely repetitive.
4:20 p.m.
Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would just make one observation. We studied the Navigation Protection Act, at the direction of the minister, from October 2016 to February 2017. We heard from many, many witnesses. Not one witness could give us an example of where navigation had been impeded on a body of water due to the changes to the Navigation Protection Act.
The fact that you decided to make a change a year or so into your term was your own decision, but when asked, no witness could provide us with any examples, and that's the testimony that's available to the public today.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
I am concerned about future generations as well, as we go forward, and that is why I am making the changes that are necessary.
In order to just complete, if I may, you said this bill should be split. I believe your party made that request to the Speaker, and the Speaker ruled that this bill did not have to be split because it was a bill that dealt with impact assessment. That was ruled on by the Speaker, and that is why this part, the Canadian navigable waters, constitutes a part of a very important bill, C-69, dealing with impact assessments on the environment.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Minister, I know you're fully aware that you have a great power. You have the unilateral power over navigation. It's a unilateral federal power, so unless you make a decision to protect a navigable river, there is no other recourse.
Your government also committed to strengthening this act, as well as other environmental laws.
There are definitely a lot of concerns that have been raised about the changes made by the Conservatives to this act, but there are equally a lot of concerns about this bill. One is that this Bill C-69 in its entirety has 800 clauses. One of the concerns that is being raised is that the impact assessment law does not include potential impacts to navigable waters as a trigger.
Prior to the changes made by the Harper government, there were two major triggers for federal environmental assessment: one was potential impacts under the Fisheries Act, and the second was under navigable waters. The third, but always confusing, was impacts to the rights of indigenous peoples.
Why has a decision been made not to include in the proposed impact assessment act, under clause 7, a trigger of a potential impact to navigable waters? Why is there a completely separate impact assessment process for navigable waters?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
As you know, the Navigation Protection Act, or now the Canadian navigable waters act, and before that the Navigable Waters Protection Act, is one of the oldest acts in the country.
I just want to make the point that, as you said, I have a great deal of power. I take that job extremely seriously because of the importance of the common right of Canadians to have access to navigation on our waterways.
As I said, we have added further dimensions to it. It was intended as an act to cover the issue of navigation when it was originally created.
Now, to address your point about an environmental trigger, there is, through Bill C-69 and through the impact assessment process, the possibility of triggering environmental—and not just environmental, but as well other—concerns that may be expressed, whether with respect to health, whether with respect to community—
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
I'm sorry; maybe I didn't understand your point.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Your question is why we removed the environmental assessment trigger. Is that correct?