Evidence of meeting #29 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waterways.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
Before I go to Mr. Fast, we had set aside one hour for this discussion, but because of the deferred vote...and I have Mr. Volpe's notice of motion on the agenda for the last part of the meeting. Is it acceptable to committee members to continue with our discussion and give our witness the full time that was allotted? I need to have that on the record, because Mr. Volpe's motion would have been debated now.
Mr. Volpe, do you have any comment on that?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Yes. I appreciate your raising it again. I realize we've made a lot of effort to get Ms. Tully here. I'm anxious to have my motion debated and decided upon. We had agreed that Mr. Jean would provide a response from the government to my motion before we actually debated it. However, I realize that circumstances beyond our control have put us here.
If committee colleagues want to carry on with Ms. Tully, I'm prepared to discuss this on Tuesday.
12:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We will discuss Mr. Volpe's motion on Tuesday then.
Sorry, Ms. Tully, but we have a procedure to follow.
Mr. Fast, please.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Tully, for appearing via teleconference.
I'd like to know a little more about your organization. How many paid-up members do you have?
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a registered Canadian charity. We're based in Toronto. Our membership program is not a paid membership program in the way that you would think of an organization. We represent thousands of individuals and grassroots organizations on Lake Ontario. We also work with other Canadian waterkeepers. Our president, Mark Mattson, also sits on the board of directors for Waterkeeper Alliance representing the Canadian waterkeeper programs. He's also the president of Fraser Riverkeeper, which is a newer organization with members in the Vancouver area. We represent thousands of people in the Lake Ontario watershed and we work with these nine programs across the country.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You represent thousands of people, but how? Do they fill out a membership form or are they simply on a mailing list?
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
We do have paid members. We have people who do give us $30 or $50 annually. We host fundraising events that hundreds of people attend.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
How do you know you have thousands of members? Is it because these are people who have signed membership forms or simply people who receive your mailers?
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
These are people who would call themselves members of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper either because they have paid us a $30 annual membership fee or because they work with our staff on a regular basis. We don't do the kind of cold-call direct mail that you may be implying. We would never call a stranger a member.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
What's the key purpose? What's the mission statement for your organization? I'm trying to drill down to what you do. Is it environmental or is to protect navigable waterways?
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
Our mandate is to restore and protect Lake Ontario and the Great Lakes watershed. We work on a legal approach so we are involved with federal and provincial laws, commenting on certificates of approval and teaching law students. We've mentored about 100 law students in the last six years, educating them about how environmental laws work should they choose to pursue that career.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The focus is the environment and the quality of the watersheds that you consider in your work. Is that correct?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Your purpose is not to address the infrastructure needs of Canada. Is that correct?
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
I think it depends on how you define infrastructure. We've seen how important these waterways are. They are fundamentally the natural infrastructure for Canadian communities. You cannot win back waterways across Canada if you don't make sure that environmental laws are respected.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
They're the foundation of the community. Are you talking about man-made infrastructure or are you talking about the wealth and assets our communities are built on?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I just want to make sure we understand what your purposes are.
By the way, I don't want to be adversarial. I just want to understand the focus of your work. I'm assuming it's the protection of the environment and the protection of the quality of the water in waterways within your jurisdiction. Is that correct?
May 29th, 2008 / 12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
That's correct.
If you're trying to figure out the connection between the environmental mandate of the organization and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, those two really do go hand in hand going back 2,000 years, as I tried to articulate but maybe not well enough. The reason we're protecting these waterways is not just for the sake of the waterways themselves, it's that our communities need these to be strong, and that's why we're here today.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
That brings me to the key question, and that has to do with whether the Navigable Waters Protection Act has as a purpose the protection of the environment. I believe most of us here at this committee have made the assumption from reading the act that the purpose is to protect navigation and, yes, as you said, public access to our waterways. It is not the purpose of this act to protect the environment, but there are triggers within the act right now for environmental assessments.
Numerous witnesses have already appeared before us, and we've received numerous submissions. Virtually all of them have taken issue with the antiquity of this act, how antiquated it is, and how incapable it is of meeting the needs of Canada today, because of an inability to get infrastructure in place, because of all these obstacles the act places in the way of getting this work done.
Do you see this act as being an environmental act as well as a navigability act, or is it, as you initially stated, to protect the public's right of access to these waterways as opposed to focusing primarily on the environmental aspects of our waterways?
12:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
First, I don't think I've explicitly said that I think the Navigable Waters Protection Act is an environmental statute. I think it's exactly what it says it is. It's there to protect navigability and navigation and the public's right to navigate.
That said, it triggers the environmental assessment process for a reason. Any time we talk about the public's right to access water, there is an environmental consequence. I hope I've helped in talking about some of that here today.
In particular, I would like to make the point that you can't really separate the environmental impacts from these other things. I'm a little concerned that perhaps you're trying to separate environmental issues from navigation issues. We're not here for any ulterior motive whatsoever. We're here to give you a perspective from the grassroots, to tell you how important this legislation is to individuals and how important this decision-making process has been.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I just want to assure you that's not the case, to separate the two; what we're trying to do is restore some balance. As Mr. Laframboise mentioned, the balance between those various aspects--the environment, navigability, infrastructure--has been lost. We don't want to back 2,000 years. We don't want to deal with an act that's even 100 years old. We want a modern act that addresses today's needs.
There are complaints from communities across this country. There's unanimity from the municipalities, the FCM, provinces, territories, and cities across this country that the current act is a huge hindrance to our ability to build much-needed infrastructure.
You're suggesting we simply back off from restoring that balance and that the primary focus should still be navigability and the environment. We're not saying that those aren't important; we're simply saying we've lost that balance. The timeliness of getting this work in place has been lost for many, many years.
12:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
I can't speak to the administrative burden that I know you have been briefed on, that some people in the transport department, for example, may be experiencing . I would say that I would be extremely hesitant to suggest that such things as the Magna Carta, old as they may be, are not relevant or important. That is one of the bases for what is considered appropriate and respectful of public rights in Canada. Navigation has always been part of that.
The purpose of the act, as I said before, is to protect individuals and citizens and their right to navigate; it is not to protect the interests of those individuals who wish to infringe upon that right. That's the balance the committee may be looking to strike.