Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes 3. Navigation Protection Act Page 1 of 11 Brief by the Essipit Innu First Natio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes 3. Navigation Protection Act Brief by the Essipit Innu First Nation and the Nutashkuan Innu First Nation [Logo] Essipit Innu First Nation [Logo] Nutashkuan Innu First Nation Submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities December 23, 2016 Page 1 of 11 Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes 3. Navigation Protection Act Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Interrelations between the four components of the Review ................................................... 4 2. Quality of consultation .......................................................................................................................... 4 3. Essipit Innu and Nutashkuan Innu First Nations ................................................................................... 6 3.1 Essipit Innu First Nation ............................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Nutashkuan Innu First Nation ................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Land claims ................................................................................................................................ 6 4. Water and the Innu Aitun ..................................................................................................................... 7 5. First Nation rights with regard to navigation ........................................................................................ 8 5.1 Innu holders of commercial fishing licences ............................................................................. 8 5.2 Navigation-related rights .......................................................................................................... 8 6. Issues surrounding the Navigation Protection Act ............................................................................... 8 7. Modernization of the Act ...................................................................................................................... 9 8. Conclusion and recommendations ..................................................................................................... 11 Page 2 of 11 Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes 3. Navigation Protection Act Preliminary Note To the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (TRAN) Due to the timing of this consultation and the delay in allocating funding, the Essipit Innu First Nation and the Nutashkuan Innu First Nation did not have time to submit this brief to TRAN. We hope, however, that the efforts and the work we have done will be taken into consideration in the review of the Navigation Protection Act (NPA). It should also be noted that the Mashteuiatsh First Nation did not have sufficient time to submit a request to and seek the approval by resolution of its Council to use the name Pekuakamiulnuatsh Takuhikan in this brief. However, the latter were very much involved in the drafting of this brief and if any changes are to be made following the presentation of the brief to elected representatives, you will be notified and we will send you a copy of the resolution as well as the revised version of the document. 1. Introduction1 1.1 Background The federal government launched the Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes (the Review), one component of which was to review the Navigation Protection Act (NPA), which, in 2012 and 2013 (bills C-38 and C-45) amended the more aptly named (according to the Department2) Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) and resulted in a significant reduction in the protection of countless rivers and lakes. Added to these changes were significant amendments to the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that further endangered fish and fish habitats. The TRAN committee is responsible from reviewing the Navigation Protection Act and for ensuring that the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples is respected and that their rights, Aboriginal title, interests and concerns are taken into consideration. This should be one of the guiding principles of this Review. 1 This brief was prepared in collaboration with the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Sustainable Development Institute, an organization under the auspices of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. 2 To better reflect its intent: protecting navigation. Page 3 of 11 Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes 3. Navigation Protection Act 1.2 Interrelations between the four components of the Review The Review is one of four components studied separately by various committees, according to different timelines. This approach limits the scope of the analyses because it fails to consider the obvious interrelations alluded to in the name of this extensive review. The strong interrelations between the effects of projects pertaining to fisheries, navigation, federal environmental assessments and the activities of the National Energy Board (NEB) cannot be ignored. For example, if the Navigation Protection Act is not revised in a coherent manner and at the same time as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (see our brief3) and the Fisheries Act, certain development projects in or near aquatic environments could be implemented without first considering Indigenous fishing rights or the principles of sustainable development. Furthermore, pursuant to the NPA, certain works (including buried pipelines and Pipelines and cables that are attached to an existing work) are not subject to notification by the Minister and therefore do not require an assessment of their impact on navigation. These are works designated as “minor” in the Minor Works and Waters Order, which also stipulates the conditions that must be respected by the persons responsible for these works. Responsibility for assessing compliance with the Order rests with the project proponent and no intervention by the Minister is required. We have here a clear example of in interrelations between the four statutes currently under review: the National Energy Board Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Navigation Protection Act and the Fisheries Act. The spill into the Chaudière River at Lac Mégantic in July 2013 is another example of these interrelations. As is the case under the Fisheries Act,4 it is no longer necessary to obtain approval from the Minister of Transport in all cases. Instead, the Minister must be advised of the planned work and it is up to the Minister to decide whether approval is necessary. Approval is required only if there is a risk of serious interference with navigation. 2. Quality of consultation Despite the government’s commitment to ensure the full participation of Indigenous peoples in this Review and to integrate their rights and interests in this process—as required under the Constitution— we find it necessary to draw the attention of the TRAN committee and the Minister of Transport to 3 Brief by the Pekuakamiulnuatsh, Essipit Innu and Nutashkuan Innu First Nations: Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes - 1. Environmental Assessment Process, submitted to the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes and dated December 23, 2016, p. 15 (translator’s note: page numbers refer to French document; please verify). 4 Brief by the Pekuakamiulnuatsh, Essipit Innu and Nutashkuan Innu First Nations: Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes - 2. Review of changes to the Fisheries Act, submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on November 30, 2016, p. 12 (translator’s note: page numbers refer to French document; please verify). Page 4 of 11 Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes 3. Navigation Protection Act major shortcomings in this area, especially the fact that we had to deal with very tight deadlines and very restrictive funding. Further to the federal review of environmental and regulatory processes launched on June 20, 2016,5 we wish to express our views on reinstating the protective measures eliminated in 2012–2013 and ask that further protective measures be implemented under the Navigation Protection Act. Furthermore, we would like to point out that any consultation or engagement process conducted by a committee of the House of Commons or of the Senate with limited travel opportunities is not a suitable means of ensuring the full participation of First Nations; it does not meet the Crown’s duty to actively seek to reach First Nations while offering them distinct opportunities to participate in the process. Moreover, we had to deal with significant time and funding constraints in order to participate in the parliamentary committee’s engagement process. It is unrealistic and, in our opinion, disrespectful to have set a November 30, 2016,6 deadline for submitting briefs to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, given that the committee’s study was only launched on October 4. We did not received our funding notice until November 15, 2016—more than two months after we submitted a formal request7 for financial assistance. This notice stated that the funding could not be used