Evidence of meeting #29 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waterways.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
In fact, I have something here. You may recognize it:
...the committee heard witnesses from just one environmental group, heard from no paddling, hunting and fishing groups; from no outfitters; from no tourism operators or outdoor retail businesses; and, shockingly these days, from not a single Aboriginal peoples' organization.
9:10 a.m.
Director, Quebec Branch, Paddle Canada
That sounds like something I wrote, but I don't think it is.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Well done.
We weren't consulted either. As you know, this came through in a huge omnibus bill and there was no debate. So just like the outcome of the NPA, we're forced to deal with something after the fact instead of having a shot at it before the fact.
In terms of the reasons for the NPA, I am very pleased to see that you have an awareness of the issues that were trying to be addressed in that move by the previous government. The question we have now is what do we keep that was good, but what do we have to improve that represents something that basically has not been working properly? Can you identify what's missing in the current legislation that needs to be restored? I'll give each of you a short time to answer.
9:15 a.m.
Director, Quebec Branch, Paddle Canada
The previous questioner, the member, referred to the environmental protections of the act, which are no longer present. Previously, if a major work—a bridge, a dam, a boom, a causeway—were to be proposed to be constructed over a navigable waterway, it automatically triggered an environmental assessment. That's gone.
I think it would be fair to say that if navigable waterways were to be protected under other pieces of legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and so forth, possibly they would not have to be restored to a navigable waters act. That's debatable, but failing these automatic environmental assessments and failing the fact that a pipeline, for example, would automatically attract an environmental assessment over navigable waters, I think those provisions absolutely need to be restored in some form, or we should ensure that they do exist, possibly, in other complementary pieces of legislation.
Two rivers were added to the list of 164 oceans, lakes, and rivers. Only on those bodies of water does the government exercise its full responsibility to protect that public right.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
If I could, Mr. Morrison, I'd ask you to keep it a little bit shorter. I'd like to give Mr. Farrant a chance, too.
9:15 a.m.
Director, Quebec Branch, Paddle Canada
To be very blunt, I think those are intellectually and morally bankrupt concepts. If it's a right, it's a right that the government should ensure on behalf of all Canadians.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I would note that it's been commented a few times that somehow the parliamentary secretary was quoted as saying that there wouldn't be public consultation as we reviewed this. Well, that's what this is. This is why we are here, to basically extract now, after the fact, what has happened that hasn't worked and needs to be fixed.
Mr. Farrant, do you have anything to add to this?
9:15 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
The only thing I would add to that, perhaps, is to agree with your comment that, at any time we have an opportunity to come before a committee such as this, although the previous member referred to the fact that there is nothing before the committee in terms of a piece of legislation or something to that effect, it is an opportunity for public consultation. It is an opportunity to speak to these issues. We appreciate the fact that the committee would be having these hearings, which at the very least is a start of, perhaps, a broader consultation on this.
I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree with my colleague here that the Navigation Protection Act is intended to be environmental legislation. There are other pieces of legislation in this country and in this province that deal with environmental protection, like the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and certainly the Fisheries Act. I think it's more a case of ensuring the right of access to those waters that has been lost, that needs to be restored, as opposed to looking at it in terms of restoring environmental protection.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
They're definitely not mutually exclusive between navigable waters and environmental protection. In the old days, one would trigger the other. I can tell you that the fisheries committee, on which I also sit, will be looking at the environmental aspects of this. Hopefully, before we're finished today, we can get your thoughts as to what does constitute a fair process that doesn't unduly add cost and time to public works, but at the same time offers the level of protection that used to exist, that obviously is still valued.
As I say, I think my time is just about up here. In time I hope you have an opportunity to comment on that. Thank you.
October 27th, 2016 / 9:15 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Thank you.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us this morning.
I have some fairly specific questions in the same vein as Mr. Hardie's. I'd like to know what could be done to improve the legislation, assuming that's even possible.
Mr. Morrison, you brought up something that strikes me as incredibly important, the link between the construction of potential works and environmental assessments. Under the former government, the Navigation Protection Act and environmental legislation were watered down, let's just say.
In the case of major projects like the Energy East pipeline, which crosses countless unprotected rivers, do your members perceive some disregard for the fundamental environmental assessment process? In your view, would it be more appropriate to put that responsibility back in the hands of Transport Canada, or are you satisfied with the assessment being done by the National Energy Board?
9:20 a.m.
Director, Quebec Branch, Paddle Canada
I would say some of our members are definitely concerned about issues such as the energy east pipeline and going through waters that are not on the schedules and therefore not subject to environmental review. There's no question about that. A couple of weeks ago, I was up at the Friends of Temagami, at a meeting of the board of directors, on which I sit. That is a big issue, but it's an issue that's reflected all across the country.
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. Prior to 2009, I don't think there's any question that environmental protection of waterways was a clear intention of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is not now. What I said was I don't think that necessarily the environmental protection aspect has to be restored to a revised Navigation Protection Act, but it must be reflected somewhere. It could be in other legislation, such as environmental assessment legislation, and so forth.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
We obviously understand the difference between various types of projects, be they pipelines or culverts.
Have you had a chance to take a look at the legislation introduced by the Quebec government, Bill 102?
Under the bill, the environmental assessment process is based on the project's level of risk. Rather than do away with all environmental assessments for projects involving unlisted waterways in the legislation, the government could choose to conduct varying degrees of environmental assessments.
Are you familiar with the bill, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
9:20 a.m.
Director, Quebec Branch, Paddle Canada
I'm not at all familiar with that legislation. As I said, I'm not an expert in environmental assessment—I'm a volunteer on the board—but that sounds like a reasonable approach to me.
When I recommended that Transport Canada could develop a streamlined regime of approving applications and enforcing or monitoring projects, that's precisely the kind of regime you're describing, which I believe, based on risk, would seem to make sense.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Farrant.
During your presentation, you talked about how hard it is for ordinary citizens to seek remedy through the courts in order to express their concerns about projects affecting a river or lake they care about.
First, I'd like to know whether any of your members have taken their complaints to court and gone through the process. If so, I want to hear a bit about it. If not, I'd like to know whether individuals are waiving a right they feel they cannot exercise because, in reality, the process is just too complicated and costly.
Would it not be preferable to go back to a complaint process through Transport Canada, rather than require people to go through the courts?
9:20 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
That's an interesting concept.
To answer the first part of your question, no, I can't give you an example of a court case that has occurred under that circumstance.
To answer the second part of your question, I do believe that in large part it is probably because it is costly. It is burdensome for an individual to get these issues before the courts. Again, I stress the fact that in going to court on an issue like this, you're going to court on something that has already occurred as opposed to trying to have something that might occur be stopped or reviewed or looked at again. The issue has already happened, so you're going to court to try to get something reversed, which may be much more difficult than having an opportunity, through the government or through review, to have it stopped before it happens or at least to have a consultation process or some mechanism triggered that stops it before it happens, so that people don't have to resort to that as their final resort and their final way to deal with it.
