Thank you. My name is Aaron Atcheson. I'm a partner at Miller Thomson in London, Ontario, and leader of our firm's projects group. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the committee today.
I write regularly on water issues in Water Canada and recently wrote a piece in respect of legal personhood for waterways with one of my colleagues, Katherine Cavan.
I certainly think that who speaks for nature and in particular for waterways is a question that raises potential conflicts. Certainly, local first nations must be part of the answer, but what happens when there are multiple first nations that seek to speak for a waterway, other communities, other stakeholders? What happens when some manner of impingement on a river is necessary for the greater benefit of the communities in an area?
I would start by saying that I don't think that legal personhood for waterways needs to mean negative consequences for well-considered and planned infrastructure projects. If the relevant right of nature here is legal standing simply to take a party, presumably a government approval authority, to court over a decision, how do we effectively avoid legal personhood for a waterway becoming another source of delays in moving forward with infrastructure projects in our country?
It's our view, mine and my co-author's, that it's critical that we engage problem solvers, solution-minded individuals in the representation of waterways. It would be a failure of those of us involved to allow this concept of legal personhood to become just another way for the not-in-my-backyard elements in our society to delay or kill projects without offering alternatives to achieve the advances that are needed to meet the needs of both humans and nature.
One of the questions that needs to be determined effectively is how we make expertise and knowledge available to the stewards or guardians of a waterway. Should people with such knowledge and expertise be encouraged to become the guardians themselves, or should they be available as resources to ensure that decisions are made with full knowledge of the circumstances, the options, etc.?
In parallel to assisting in determining who speaks for a waterway, I think it would be advantageous for us to allow input from the waterway early in the planning process for infrastructure projects. That said, it would not be beneficial to effectively twin the environmental assessment process for every project with associated delays.
Just for a moment, consider an example of a new waste-water treatment facility planned to ensure that waste water created by humans is treated and does not affect the drinking water sources for various communities. The treated waste water out the far end of the system needs to go somewhere, and traditionally that would be an area waterway. If that waterway runs through traditional territory of multiple first nations, and through other communities, who speaks for the waterway in assessing whether the municipality planning the waste-water treatment plant has sufficiently addressed the health and well-being of the waterway?
It's a complex problem. It requires knowledge of the areas involved and the river, but also knowledge and expertise related to the technologies being considered for the new infrastructure and the associated risks involved, and “no, not here” is just not an acceptable answer given the need for all human beings to have safe drinking water in that case.
I think the most critical question may be how we induce the stewards of a waterway to consider options that minimize the negative effects on the river while allowing infrastructure to proceed and then how this information makes its way into the planning process.
I am certainly not an expert in how other governments have proceeded and sought to include the information provided on behalf of a river, but certainly, we should be looking at other jurisdictions. There are roughly a dozen countries, I believe, that have experience now with rights of nature and so could speak to this.
Thank you.