One of the benefits of it, as you can see, is that it's just webbing. It's very light, very breathable, and there is no excuse not to wear it. I must confess that until I had a daughter, 10 years ago now, I would often not wear my life jacket if I was on warm waters that I could swim across. I'm a whitewater instructor as well, and I wouldn't always wear my life jacket in whitewater. These are extremely light, easy to wear. Wear them. Most people who die are not wearing their life jackets.
There are a number of strengths and potential weaknesses in the proposed amendments to the NPA in Bill C-69. Our general perception is that the proposals in Bill C-69 may, with some caveats, effectively restore an acceptable level of ministerial oversight to the right of public navigation to all navigable waters. Bill C-69 continues the use of a schedule of waters where proposed works would require ministerial permits. Ideally, and I know some of my colleagues have proposed this, abolishing the schedule would go toward restoring full oversight to all navigable waters. However, effective oversight may be realized through the bill's requirements that owners of works on unscheduled waters give notice to those who may be affected and by providing a dispute resolution process.
The caveat here is that the minister provide sufficient program resources to ensure that proponents do give such notice to all potentially affected parties, including paddlers, and that the minister does respond to unresolved disputes in a timely and effective manner. The bill should specify a time limit for the minister to respond.
Whether this new approach works as intended should be closely examined when the five-year review is done.
I should add that I'm a former senior manager with the Treasury Board and I'm very sensitive to the issue of efficiency and the cost to taxpayers. By implementing this new regime, there is a possibility that the long waiting list of projects and the cost to taxpayers can be reduced. My understanding is that is why Transport Canada has proposed this new approach.
Bill C-69 defines “navigable water” as that which “is used or where there is a reasonable likelihood that it will be used by vessels”.
In our view this is sufficiently specific that it would include waters that have been, are currently, or may be used in the future by human-powered craft. Attempts in 2009 at legislating an objective canoe-test definition of navigability—which, by the way, never was in the old NWPA—were, in my view, a failure. This bill's specific definition, therefore, represents an improvement over the old NWPA in securing the right of navigation for paddle craft.
The NWPA contained provisions that certain types of works on navigable waters—notably dams, bridges, booms, and causeways—always would require ministerial permit and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act specified that such works would require an assessment.
The proposed Canadian navigable waters act does not contain any specific triggers for impact assessment, so we urge that the proposed impact assessment act ensure that works that obstruct flows or change water levels require impact assessment and that provision be made for assessing the cumulative effect of lesser works.
Paddle Canada recommends that such works that completely obstruct navigation of unscheduled waters specify a requirement that a ministerial permit be obtained. This is not a matter of only effectively maintaining the right of public navigation, but it is also a matter of safety, especially in the case of power dams and their treacherous cousins, weirs, where in the absence of safe and reasonable portages, paddlers may sometimes take dangerous risks.
When asked by parliamentarians and officials at Transport Canada to name our main concerns with respect to works, our answer has been power dams. We are pleased that officials have responded positively to the need to mitigate the obvious dangers posed by power dams; however, the hazard also posed by weirs, or low-head dams, requires more explanation.
Weirs often involve a relatively gentle drop, sometimes less than a metre, tempting the uninformed to run the weir in a canoe or kayak or even to swim in it. The drop can sometimes set up a recirculating hydraulic that can trap a boat or a person in the foaming water until they tire and drown. For this reason, those of us who are trained whitewater paddlers refer to weirs as drowning machines. As an example, a weir on the Bow River in Calgary took the lives of 14 people over the course of the last 30 years in many different incidents until it was recently re-engineered. A Paddle Canada instructor, a friend of mine actually, recently recounted to me an incident at a day camp during which in spite of the efforts of a large, strong man who risked his life to attempt a rescue, a young boy drowned when trapped in an innocent-looking current below a weir.
Paddle Canada recommends that no dam or weir should be permitted on any waterway without provision for a safe and reasonable portage with appropriate signage.
Paddle Canada also recommends that in the case of works that completely obstruct navigation, such as dams and weirs where permits have already been granted, Transport Canada should consider the feasibility of reviewing the status of the permit with respect to a requirement to provide a safe and reasonable means of bypassing the obstacle. Of all the rivers on the historical fur trade routes from Montreal to the Pacific and Arctic oceans, the power dams on the Ottawa River stand out as exceptionally poor in this regard. Paddle Canada may be able to assist in identifying opportunities for improvement.
Similarly, we recommend that in order to give the right of navigation full meaning, Transport Canada should also examine the general legal status of portages, particularly on historical routes. Specifically, the department should be able to advise those who travel such waterways whether they have the right to walk on private land in order to bypass natural obstacles such as rapids and waterfalls. If not, the department should examine measures that might establish that right.
Many historical portages have been lost to development over the years. One of them is within sight of these Parliament buildings. The first nations portage that is thousands of years old and closest to us right now was also used by every single one of the early European explorers to bypass the Chaudière Falls. These routes are part of our shared history and must be preserved.
Our final recommendation is that because the proposed Canadian navigable waters act deals with a historic public right that is not established by any overarching document such as the charter, consideration should be given by legislators to inserting a short preamble into the Canadian navigable waters act that describes the nature and importance of this right as part of our Canadian heritage.
Madam Chair, I would like to point out to the members of the committee that while I have been involved for a long time with environmental organizations, impact assessment is not at all my area of expertise. As a certified Paddle Canada instructor who has canoed the 8,000 kilometres from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to the Arctic Ocean, my expertise is in the safety and navigational aspects of this bill.
I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you.