Transport Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[Jay Morrison]

I wouldn't think that any paddlers would look to Paddle Canada to make complaints or to provide information on that. That's not our mission. The answer is no, I'm not aware personally of any complaints or litigation from paddlers.

Anecdotally, I know that paddlers talk about dams or weirs that appear across rivers and can be quite dangerous. There's no signage and it can present what is technically a “hydraulic”, which does not look like a very threatening body of water but can in fact trap boats and swimmers, and people do drown in them. There are problems, but we don't receive complaints.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

I haven't been on the committee long, but I can say that all the organizations have been unable to state how many complaints had been filed in the past four years, be it two, three or more. I would say to my fellow member who is a lawyer that that isn't very good news for lawyers, since this issue isn't generating much business for them right now. If you want to know what I think, the Liberals will have to find another way to create jobs for themselves.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jay Morrison]

Could I add—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I'm going to go even further.

Earlier you mentioned aboriginal communities. On Tuesday, a witness told us that they were relatively satisfied with the consultations held prior to 2012, and that the same was true for aboriginal communities. I can't recall the witness's name, but the analysts no doubt have it in their files.

Regardless, the legislation isn't perfect. When a government introduces a bill and adopts measures—and the same applies to the Liberal government—it's a step forward. Then, efforts are made over the years to improve it.

Even though I believe that the government has already decided what it is going to do, what measures would you suggest the government take? The government really doesn't want to tell us what we are allowed to work on, and that's truly unfortunate. If you were to make a recommendation, however, please take this opportunity to tell us what it would be.

[Jay Morrison]

What was your question, Mr. Rayes?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

If you were to trade places with the minister and you were going to amend the Navigation Protection Act because you weren't pleased with it, what steps would you take tomorrow? What would you recommend the government do?

[Jay Morrison]

As I said in my opening remarks, I would do away with the schedules and have the provisions of the act apply to all bodies of water in Canada, and resource the Department of Transport accordingly to undertake those responsibilities.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I can tell you that the witnesses who appeared previously didn't say that.

Mr. Farrant, what would you recommend?

[Greg Farrant]

What would be the one thing? Certainly restoration of the protection of the water bodies that were covered in the previous legislation would be a good step forward, but again I must stress, I know some of the motivation behind the changes, and have to concede that in some cases there were difficulties. For instance, my colleagues in Saskatchewan, farmers or ranchers who have a drainage ditch that quite clearly is not navigable water should not have to jump through hoops or wait for somebody from Fisheries and Oceans Canada—the nearest office may be in Regina and they're 200 miles away—to show up and say to go ahead and put a fence in that drainage ditch.

Again, I stress that while the protection for navigation needs to be there, and you can't separate commerce and navigable waters for individuals, a balance needs to be struck to ensure that we're also not engaging in so much minutiae that the average landowner or individual is frustrated in their ability to manage their own properties in circumstances like that. It's a fine line. I think what we've seen is it's gone from perhaps overprotection to no protection, and we need to bring the pendulum back to the middle somewhere and bring it back.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Farrant, do—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Rayes, your time is up.

I'm going to welcome Emma Lui, water campaigner, from the Council of Canadians. We realize that it's six o'clock in the morning in British Columbia, and so we appreciate the fact that you are joining us here today. Thank you very much. Please go ahead with your opening remarks.

[Emma Lui, Water Campaigner, Council of Canadians]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, everyone. It is early here, but I am happy to be heard. I want to thank the standing committee for inviting the Council of Canadians to present today.

The Council of Canadians is a social action organization, and we advocate for clean water, fair trade, green energy, public health care, and a vibrant democracy. We have roughly 60 chapters and 100,000 supporters across Canada, many of whom have lakes and rivers in their communities that are unprotected under the current Navigation Protection Act. Many have expressed concerns about the projects that are threatening navigable waters in their communities. Industrial projects, such as pipelines, dams, mines, and fish farms are moving forward with little or no scrutiny of their impacts on navigable waters.

Many of these projects are also happening on the traditional territory of indigenous peoples and will have impacts on their cultures, ways of life, and economies.

Yesterday we launched a report called “Every Lake, Every River: Restoring the Navigable Waters Protection Act”, which looks at four key studies: the energy east pipeline that runs from Alberta to New Brunswick; the Keeyask dam and the Bipole III transmission line in Manitoba, and the Ajax mine in British Columbia. These case studies show that these projects are putting navigable waters and navigation at risk. For example, the energy east pipeline would cross nearly 3,000 waterways, many of which communities rely on for fishing, transportation, tourism, and recreation.

Oil spills like the one that happened on the Kalamazoo River impacted navigation. For example, parts of the river and a nearby lake were closed for two to three years because of the spill. In 2012, Mountain Equipment Co-op presented a list of 40 recreationally important waterways that are no longer protected. They pointed out that the recreation industry creates at least six million jobs in Canada. In comparison, there are roughly only 250,000 jobs in mining, oil and gas, and logging combined, which makes up only 1.6% of the jobs in Canada.

There's a big push for jobs in the extractive industry, but according to Statistics Canada, most of the jobs are actually in non-extractive industries. For example, 12% are in retail trade; 12% are in health care and social assistance; another 12% are in manufacturing; 8% are in accommodation and food services; and 8% are in educational services.

As the Trudeau government reviews the Navigation Protection Act and other water and environmental legislation, it's crucial that it no longer puts our waterways at risk, and modernizes water legislation so that it's a bigger part of a long-term plan to transition away from fossil fuels and other extractive industries, and creates green and sustainable jobs.

Specifically, we're looking for the federal government to restore and enhance the Navigable Waters Protection Act so that all lakes, rivers, and waterways are fully protected. We ask that the schedule of the Navigation Protection Act be eliminated so that the act applies to all lakes, rivers, and navigable waters. We are asking for the federal government to reinstate and strengthen federal scrutiny of large pipelines and powerlines under the act, and assessment of waterways under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We're also asking that a clause be included in the act so that potential spills or discharges of harmful substances are assessed for their impacts on all navigable waters.

We're also asking for public consultations and an independent expert panel, and feedback to be incorporated to strengthen the Navigable Waters Protection Act. We recognize that the standing committee is inviting written comments from the public. I met with Transport Canada last week when I was in Ottawa. I know they're holding some meetings, but we believe that consultations must also be held with the public, in-person meetings, that is.

We also want the federal government to ensure that a consultation process is established in the act that fosters true collaboration between communities and governments, so that regulatory agencies or federal departments implement community recommendations on an ongoing basis. The government must develop a mechanism that establishes a community's right to say no to projects that threaten waterways, and empowers communities to create low-carbon, sustainable jobs that safeguard navigable waters in the long term.

We are also asking that they consult with indigenous peoples and incorporate the obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent into the navigable waters protection act so that indigenous treaty and water rights are respected, and a nation-to-nation relationship is truly established.

Finally, we're asking for the implementation of strict safeguards for waterways within the framework of the United Nations recognized human right to water and sanitation.

Again, I thank you for your time. I urge you to make recommendations that will protect every lake and every river for now and in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lui, for your comments.

We will turn the floor over to Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you for joining us from Vancouver. I think my clock is still on Pacific time, because I'm the member of Parliament for Fleetwood–Port Kells in Surrey.

I want to ask you the same question I asked our earlier witnesses, but then I want to work on furthering some of the discussions that we have had this morning so far.

Was the Council of Canadians invited to comment on the change to the Navigation Protection Act that was first advanced in 2009?

[Emma Lui]

I don't believe so. It was actually before my time. I only started with the council in 2010. I can ask about that, but I don't believe so.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

In the discussions that we've had so far, there has been a great appreciation for some of the reasons the legislation was changed, particularly to enable municipal works to go ahead without undue red tape and delay. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but what we look at when we talk in terms of modernizing the act and restoring protections is really all about the process for determining proactively whether there's potential harm. It would involve proper public notice that something's going to happen, and then an opportunity for people to speak up if they see a problem. What I see as essential elements to a new process would be to somehow maintain a streamlined, efficient, and timely process so that public works or the private landowners aren't unduly lengthened or made more expensive, and then a fair process, one that hears all sides and explains the situation or explains the decision when it comes down, so that everybody understands how their input was reflected in the deliberation. Is there anything else that you can think of, off the top?

To the Council of Canadians, do you have any first-blush reaction to that?

[Emma Lui]

I would agree with a lot of what you are saying. I think what we're also looking for is the public or communities to be able to give input to projects that are happening in their community. As you know, with the changes in 2012, that opportunity was taken out of the legislation. That's a really big concern for us, and our chapters and our supporters.

I know there has been some concern with some municipalities having to pay and the cost of having to expand bridges, for example, or when they're trying to build culverts and the impact this legislation has had on them. I think there's a distinction that needs to be made with that, that it's not our concern, and we certainly don't want to be causing an impact on municipalities and creating greater costs for them. The way the former Harper government made these changes, it has a huge impact on other projects. The ones that I mentioned in my opening remarks, just in terms of the large dams and pipelines, you know that pipelines are exempted from the act, and certain parts of mine projects are as well. Fish farms that do have an impact on navigable waterways are a really big concern.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I would ask you to hold that there as I would like to give Mr. Farrant and Mr. Morrison an opportunity to respond.

If we were to look at a reasonable, fair process for dealing with the issues obviously as they're coming up as opposed to after the fact, which is what the current legislation does, what would you say are the essential elements in what would represent a good process?

[Greg Farrant]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie, for the question.

I'm not a legislator. It's easy for us to sit here and say that all of this stuff should be included, but it's not always necessarily the easiest thing to put into effect.

I go back to the balancing issue again. I agree that without a doubt there needs to be an ability for comment before projects occur, before obstructions occur.

The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act in Ontario deals only with barriers that obstruct the flow of water, so dams per se. If somebody sticks a dam in the middle of a river—and it happens that private landowners build a dam in the middle of a river—that act kicks in and forces them to remove that particular dam.

In this case there is no ability for anybody beforehand to make comment, and there are certain things that have just been raised that are exempt from the act that need to be looked at very carefully in terms of whether they should be included, because they will have an impact on navigation and they will have an impact on navigability of any waterway.

There was a very small list of waterways that were protected, and while you may not want to open the act to cover every waterway in Canada, certainly, as the young lady who was just speaking in reference to Mountain Equipment Co-op's report from a few years ago mentioned, 40 in particular that are no longer protected are extremely important waterways, and there might be consideration. The balance comes into play when we are considering changing or amending the act to include those 40 specific ones as maybe a middle ground, if you will.

I do think that a consultation process, as we're seeing here today, is above all else the most important component of going forward with whatever changes are made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. You're out of time.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to finish my list of questions.

I have a question for you, Mr. Farrant. I don't think it's something I need to ask the other two witnesses because they both expressed the desire to extend protection to all waterways during their remarks.

I'm curious as to whether your organization suggested to the minister that a waterway be added to the list, after the amended legislation was enacted in 2012?

Under the legislation, the minister has the authority to add waterways to the list. There is nothing preventing the minister from extending protection to other waterways. Has your organization made such a request since 2012?

[Greg Farrant]

We have not, but I think that's a very interesting suggestion. As a follow-up to the discussions here today, I will certainly go back to the office and talk to our fish and wildlife management team. We could probably come up with a list of waterways that we would suggest be added back into that list. We would be happy to provide documentation to you as a follow-up. I think that's a very interesting concept.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Very good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Farrant, would you supply that list to the clerk so that all of the committee members would have access to it?