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.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Okay.
We did not remove the responsibility for an environmental assessment. It is covered in Bill C-69 through the impact assessment act.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
—you would be incorrect to think that we have removed it. That is not the case. We have changed the previous act, but environmental assessments will be triggered through the impact assessment act.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Let me ask you a second question.
You spoke in your remarks about how highly you value impacts upon indigenous peoples. One of the greatest harms brought by the Harper changes was excluding the trigger of navigable waters for assessments of all the oil sands activities in northern Alberta, because of the interaction of all the streams, the marshes, and so forth.
The federal government also, in its wisdom—both the Conservatives and the Liberals—failed to look at the transboundary impact of the Site C dam upon the rights of indigenous peoples in northern Alberta to traverse.
There actually is a court case. Mr. Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada found that any reasonable person would expect that the reduction of the number of protected waterways carries the potential risk of harm to the fishing and trapping rights of the Mikisew, thereby triggering the duty to consult. The area in which the indigenous people want to consult is the overall impact assessment, not a narrow process of simply looking at whether it is a minor or major impact.
One of the big issues is cumulative impact, and that's a significant issue that's been raised by a number of people. I wonder whether you can tell us how this new act, under Bill C-69, adequately addresses potential cumulative impacts, even of minor works upon minor waterways.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Yes, the intent is also to cover cumulative effects to navigation.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
How does the act do that? Where in the act do you find addressing cumulative impacts?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Do you mean section 7 of the navigable waters act, the navigation act?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
Let me first of all say that yes, because of the previous government's Navigation Protection Act, there were certain protections that were removed.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
You're right about that. That's why we have this new act, because we are going to be addressing through Bill C-69, through the impact assessment act, the issues that you have brought up specifically today. The importance of indigenous rights, environmental effects, health effects, cumulative effects—all of those things—will be part of the considerations with respect to impact assessment.
I recommend that—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Hang on, Linda. I'm sorry, but you're out of time. My apologies; there's never enough time for questioning.
Mr. Rogers.
4:25 p.m.
Central Nova, Lib.
Sorry, Madam Chair, I think I'm going to start with one quick question and share my time.
Thank you, Minister, for being here.
I was part of the transport committee that studied this—not at your direction, but perhaps at your invitation—and one of the things that I felt very strongly about during the last campaign was some of the changes that were made without sufficient parliamentary oversight in 2012, and 2008 before that.
One of the things we learned when we exercised some kind of a parliamentary function on this specific issue was that in fact the move towards a scheduled waterway had some benefits, but also some significant drawbacks in my opinion.
For example, drainage ditches that were filled seasonally could perhaps be captured when they may not need to be, but on the flip side many lakes and rivers that previously had protection were no longer protected, although there was a common-law right to navigation. There was no effective way for a citizen to have that right protected.
In particular, to go back to the example that one of my Conservative colleagues was seeking, I remember distinctly a witness from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters complaining that certain companies trying to build zip lines across rivers were preventing members of their association from enjoying the benefits of nature that they so frequently use.
I'm curious how this legislation is going to ensure that those seasonal drainage ditches don't attract scrutiny, but that the lakes and rivers that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters were seeking to have protected still remain protected.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
It probably helps if I read the broader definition of navigable waters that we put in place under this new act. It includes a body of water that is used, or likely to be used, as a means for vessel travel or transport—including as a means of travel or transport for indigenous peoples to exercise their rights—and where there is public access, two or more waterfront owners, or where the crown is the sole waterfront owner.
I think, probably, the defining of what constitutes a navigable waters act frames it properly.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
In the interests of time, I won't get into a long preamble, but obviously Canadians across the entire country have concerns when they see changes to this kind of legislation.
I just have a couple of very brief questions.
The first is, are navigational issues, like speed restrictions, addressed?
What resources would be available to a community, group, or individual, if proposed work could impact someone's public right of navigation?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
If you're talking about issues such as speed, that actually comes under a different act. That comes under the Canada Shipping Act, so it's not covered in the Canadian navigable waters act.
We recognize the fact, and I think the process we are putting in place will be a very straightforward process: if a particular individual or a particular group feels it's very important to have certain navigation protection measures put in place on any navigable waterway, then there will be a process for them to apply to have this river, waterway, or lake put on that special schedule.
We're going to make the process straightforward. We're going to make it clear, so that somebody, for example, who has very strong recreational priorities with respect to paddling or kayaking, and that kind of thing, is going to be able to make an application to say, this should be covered in a special way because it's a special one. Of course, indigenous rights are a very special category.
There will be certain heritage rivers, which, because of their value, we want to make sure are given a special scrutiny. When this bill becomes law, there will be the opportunity to add waterways to it, and that was very clearly indicated from the beginning. Perhaps citizens in your constituency may feel that they want to address a particular waterway in that manner, and we'll be open to that.