Evidence of meeting #93 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Atcheson.
Ms. Pauzé, you have about one minute.
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mrs. Paquerot, I'd like to talk about the Canada Water Agency.
When I read your chapter, I saw that you had very similar concerns to those expressed earlier by Mr. Behn, meaning that the basic concepts that would allow the agency to make decisions just aren't there. There's no democracy in that regard.
What would be the consequences of doing away with that whole process?
6:25 p.m.
Retired Associate Professor, As an Individual
In my opinion, the main consequence is that already existing divisions on resource management will be reproduced, without considering the impacts on ecosystems. They will be amplified, to some extent, because water-related conflicts will increase. I can no longer remember which stakeholder really pressed that point, but there's no doubt that they will increase.
Simultaneously, if we don't give ourselves the tools with which to set criteria to resolve those conflicts, at some point, those conflicts won't be resolved very democratically.
Our society is heading toward some environmental problems because we've exceeded the capacity of our ecosystems. There will be consequences, because we aren't giving ourselves the tools to deal with both the resulting advantages and disadvantages. We must admit that some regions on the planet will benefit.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Mr. Garrison, you have about one minute to ask a question.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you.
I would like to continue with Ms. Paquerot.
One thing I'm most concerned about is the shared governance as a part of reconciliation with indigenous people. I'm always interested in examples where shared governance helps solve some of these problems.
When it comes to fresh water, what are your experiences of shared governance with indigenous peoples over fresh water?
6:25 p.m.
Retired Associate Professor, As an Individual
With regard to Indigenous peoples, as Mr. Behn said earlier, the situations that led to healing, reconciliation or a capacity to manage conflicts peacefully are ones where there was a political discussion to ensure a shared outcome. Yes, that discussion will be difficult, because there are different visions of how water should be managed in Canada, but once completed, there is a higher chance of success. This is true globally.
Integrated water resource management was the magic formula. However, ultimately, we know that the only successful attempts at integrated water management happened because there was a prior political phase in which objectives were defined.
6:25 p.m.
Retired Associate Professor, As an Individual
That's the base criterion, in my opinion.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to finish with Mr. Atcheson, if I may.
Mr. Atcheson, in your opening statement you suggested that giving legal personhood to lakes and rivers is maybe not a very good idea.
I was wondering if you could elaborate on how the government can ensure the environmental protection of lakes and rivers and ensure an efficient and effective project approval process without granting legal personhood to lakes and rivers.
6:25 p.m.
Partner, Miller Thomson LLP, As an Individual
Thank you.
I'm not certain that it has to be the case that this is a problem. I think it matters much more who the individuals are and the bounds within which we consider these things.
If we were looking to better our processes and avoid an additional venue through the legal personhood concept, I would expect that simply viewing the river from the perspective that first nations have asked us to within our existing approval process could provide some considerable benefits and much less complexity.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Can you speak to the levels of complexity that granting legal personhood to lakes and rivers could add to the process?
6:25 p.m.
Partner, Miller Thomson LLP, As an Individual
I think the concern would be that we would effectively be duplicating our environmental assessment process, but at another venue. At least that could run with a similar time span.
The worst-case scenario would be that we provide legal standing and eventually have a judicial review of each approval once it's granted at the end of a project approval process.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We'll go to Mr. Longfield to bring us home, as they say.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you.
I'm going to continue with Mr. Atcheson.
I would also let you know that Katherine Cavan, your co-author, was in preschool with my youngest daughter, so we go back over 30 years. You can do the math on that.
I'd be very interested in the paper that you've co-written, both from a personal standpoint—I'm sure my wife would love to read it as well; it would be a hit at our house—and for the purpose of our study, and whether there are international comparators.
If Canada has 20% of the global freshwater supply, how critical it is that we look at every avenue of protection that we can, including the legal avenues around personhood?
6:30 p.m.
Partner, Miller Thomson LLP, As an Individual
Like I said earlier, I think there are probably a dozen countries that have experience with this in some way.
The one where they've been to the courts the most often has been in Ecuador, I believe. Unfortunately, the situation in Ecuador has been, as we spoke about in our article, roughly that the first nation or the guardians of the river were objecting to a government approval process. It did not result in a change in approval, simply a delay. Where government was using this to establish the course forward, that's where this was kind of used to ratify things.
Unfortunately, in the case of Ecuador, I don't think they have provided a good example. We should be learning from some of these lessons.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Okay.
Well, I would love to see the paper, so please do share it with us through the clerk, and we'll spend some time on that.
Thank you very much for being here. Say hi to Katherine.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, colleagues.
I thank the witnesses for coming. I must say that it was a very good, highly intellectual discussion. It was quite stimulating.
Thank you for sharing your time with us as witnesses, despite all the delays.
I wish each and every one of you a safe trip home and a wonderful evening.
We will meet again on Thursday at 3:30 p.m.
Meeting adjourned.