In June 2017, the Government of Canada released a Discussion Paper asking Canadians to submit comments that will improve federal protections for the environment. The Paper marks the one-year mark in an ongoing review of environmental assessment, energy, nuclear, fisheries, and navigation laws in Canada. Detailed comments on each topic were submitted by Swim Drink Fish Canada or our Lake Ontario Waterkeeper program at each stage of the consultation process. This submission focuses on our high-level response to the Discussion Paper. In particular, we share our concerns about the lack of progress being made to protect navigation rights in Canada.

1.
Re:​ ​Environmental​ ​and​ ​Regulatory​ ​Reviews
Discussion​ ​Paper
SUBMISSION​ ​FROM:
Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada
SUBMITTED​ ​TO:
Government​ ​of​ ​Canada
via​ ​www.discussionpaper.ca
CONTACT:
Mark​ ​Mattson
President
℅​ ​admin@swimdrinkfish.ca
(416)​ ​861-1237
August​ ​28,​ ​2017
Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​|​ ​​ ​Charity,​ ​no.​ ​86262​ ​27231​ ​RR0001
Home​ ​of​ ​Lake​ ​Ontario​ ​Waterkeeper,​ ​Swim​ ​Guide,​ ​and​ ​Watermark​ ​Project
379​ ​Adelaide​ ​Street​ ​West,​ ​Toronto,​ ​ON,​ ​M5V​ ​1S4​ ​|​ ​416.861.1237
Page​ ​1​ ​of​ ​7

2.
BACKGROUND
In​ ​June​ ​2017,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​released​ ​a​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​asking​ ​Canadians​ ​to
submit​ ​comments​ ​that​ ​will​ ​improve​ ​federal​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​the​ ​environment.​ ​The​ ​Paper​ ​marks
the​ ​one-year​ ​mark​ ​in​ ​an​ ​ongoing​ ​review​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​assessment,​ ​energy,​ ​nuclear,
fisheries,​ ​and​ ​navigation​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​Canada.
Canada’s​ ​environmental​ ​protections​ ​are​ ​flawed.​ ​The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​makes​ ​it​ ​clear​ ​from​ ​the
start​ ​that​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​fisheries​ ​and​ ​water​ ​are​ ​insufficient,​ ​that​ ​there​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​be​ ​more
transparency​ ​around​ ​the​ ​information,​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​science​ ​used​ ​to​ ​make​ ​decisions,​ ​and
that​ ​public​ ​participation​ ​opportunities​ ​are​ ​limited​ ​and​ ​do​ ​not​ ​always​ ​fall​ ​at​ ​the​ ​appropriate
time​ ​in​ ​the​ ​decision-making​ ​process.​ ​The​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​improve​ ​consultation​ ​with​ ​Indigenous
communities​ ​and​ ​to​ ​include​ ​Indigenous​ ​knowledge​ ​in​ ​decision-making​ ​are​ ​also​ ​referenced
throughout​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper.
While​ ​Canada’s​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​have​ ​never​ ​been​ ​perfect,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​direct​ ​connection
between​ ​many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​key​ ​problems​ ​identified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​and​ ​changes​ ​made​ ​to
federal​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​recent​ ​years.​ ​Between​ ​2009​ ​and​ ​2012,​ ​every​ ​major​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​law
was​ ​changed.​ ​Key​ ​environment​ ​and​ ​fisheries​ ​programs​ ​were​ ​cut.​ ​Most​ ​of​ ​the​ ​legislative​ ​and
budget​ ​decisions​ ​were​ ​made​ ​without​ ​warning,​ ​consultation,​ ​or​ ​support​ ​from​ ​experts​ ​or​ ​the
public.​ ​Trust​ ​in​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​process,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​notes,​ ​has​ ​been​ ​lost.
The​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​review​ ​process​ ​is​ ​not​ ​just​ ​about​ ​updating​ ​laws.​ ​The​ ​review​ ​process
is​ ​about​ ​rebuilding​ ​trust.​ ​Many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​“considers”​ ​improve​ ​the
current​ ​situation.​ ​A​ ​few,​ ​however,​ ​fall​ ​far​ ​short.
Detailed​ ​comments​ ​on​ ​each​ ​topic​ ​were​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​or​ ​our​ ​Lake
Ontario​ ​Waterkeeper​ ​program​ ​at​ ​each​ ​stage​ ​of​ ​the​ ​consultation​ ​process.​ ​This​ ​submission
focuses​ ​on​ ​our​ ​high-level​ ​response​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper.​ ​In​ ​particular,​ ​we​ ​share​ ​our
concerns​ ​about​ ​the​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​progress​ ​being​ ​made​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​in​ ​Canada.
Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​is​ ​a​ ​registered​ ​charity​ ​that​ ​uses​ ​law,​ ​science,​ ​culture,​ ​and​ ​digital
media​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​a​ ​swimmable,​ ​drinkable,​ ​fishable​ ​future.
Page​ ​2​ ​of​ ​7

3.
COMMENTARY
The​ ​changes​ ​being​ ​considered​ ​will​ ​not​ ​restore​ ​lost​ ​protections​ ​to​ ​the
Navigation​ ​Protection​ ​Act​.
The​ ​biggest​ ​disappointment​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​is​ ​the​ ​section​ ​on​ ​changes​ ​being
considered​ ​to​ ​the​ ​​Navigation​ ​Protection​ ​Act​.​ ​The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​proposes​ ​minor​ ​changes
that​ ​will​ ​do​ ​little​ ​more​ ​than​ ​make​ ​it​ ​simpler​ ​to​ ​add​ ​the​ ​names​ ​of​ ​navigable​ ​waters​ ​to​ ​a​ ​list.
These​ ​minor​ ​changes​ ​are​ ​shockingly​ ​inadequate.​ ​They​ ​are​ ​so​ ​meaningless,​ ​in​ ​fact,​ ​that​ ​the
we​ ​can​ ​only​ ​conclude​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​stands​ ​by​ ​changes​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the
Navigable​ ​Waters​ ​Protection​ ​Act​ ​​in​ ​2009-2012.
To​ ​be​ ​clear:​ ​the​ ​heading​ ​of​ ​this​ ​section​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​is​ ​misleading.​ ​No​ ​lost
protections​ ​are​ ​being​ ​“restored”.​ ​No​ ​progress​ ​is​ ​being​ ​made.
In​ ​2009,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​eliminated​ ​universal​ ​navigation​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​people​ ​in
Canada.​ ​Under​ ​the​ ​old​ ​system,​ ​the​ ​mere​ ​act​ ​of​ ​navigating​ ​(e.g.,​ ​boating)​ ​on​ ​water​ ​made​ ​a
body​ ​of​ ​water​ ​“navigable”.​ ​This​ ​“in​ ​until​ ​it’s​ ​out”​ ​approach​ ​protected​ ​navigation​ ​by​ ​default​ ​and
put​ ​the​ ​onus​ ​on​ ​proponents​ ​and​ ​government​ ​to​ ​consult​ ​affected​ ​people.
Under​ ​the​ ​new​ ​system,​ ​only​ ​bodies​ ​of​ ​water​ ​listed​ ​in​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​Schedule​ ​are​ ​considered
navigable.​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​it​ ​assumes​ ​no​ ​waterbody​ ​is​ ​navigable​ ​and​ ​then​ ​puts​ ​the​ ​onus​ ​on
the​ ​public​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​otherwise.​ ​This​ ​“out​ ​until​ ​it’s​ ​in”​ ​approach​ ​ultimately​ ​means​ ​that​ ​some
people​ ​in​ ​Canada​ ​enjoy​ ​more​ ​protections​ ​than​ ​others.
The​ ​new​ ​system​ ​is​ ​ridiculous,​ ​unfair,​ ​and​ ​unworkable.​ ​It​ ​places​ ​an​ ​enormous​ ​burden​ ​on​ ​the
public​ ​to​ ​learn​ ​about​ ​the​ ​law,​ ​to​ ​identify​ ​waterbodies​ ​they​ ​consider​ ​“navigable”,​ ​and​ ​to
pre-register​ ​those​ ​waterbodies​ ​​just​ ​in​ ​case​​ ​a​ ​future​ ​project​ ​might​ ​affect​ ​navigation.
Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​new​ ​system​ ​relies​ ​so​ ​heavily​ ​on​ ​self-regulation​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​practical​ ​way
to​ ​ensure​ ​people​ ​even​ ​hear​ ​about​ ​projects​ ​that​ ​might​ ​affect​ ​their​ ​waterbody​ ​in​ ​advance.​ ​As
the​ ​written​ ​submissions​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Standing​ ​Committee​ ​on​ ​Transport​ ​make​ ​clear,​ ​this​ ​unfair
approach​ ​will​ ​disproportionately​ ​affect​ ​Indigenous​ ​communities.
The​ ​old​ ​system​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​restored.​ ​It​ ​depended​ ​heavily​ ​on​ ​the​ ​public​ ​consultation​ ​and
decision-making​ ​processes​ ​triggered​ ​under​ ​the​ ​old​ ​​Canadian​ ​Environmental​ ​Assessment​ ​Act​.
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​makes​ ​it​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EA​ ​process​ ​is​ ​moving​ ​in​ ​a​ ​different​ ​direction,​ ​so
a​ ​new​ ​way​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​must​ ​be​ ​found.
Since​ ​the​ ​launch​ ​of​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​review​ ​process,​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​have​ ​received
less​ ​government​ ​attention​ ​than​ ​other​ ​topics.​ ​There​ ​were​ ​fewer​ ​meetings,​ ​fewer​ ​discussion
Page​ ​3​ ​of​ ​7

4.
resources,​ ​and​ ​less​ ​public​ ​outreach​ ​than​ ​environmental​ ​assessment,​ ​energy,​ ​and​ ​fisheries
topics​ ​received.​ ​The​ ​Committee​ ​process​ ​was​ ​riddled​ ​with​ ​partisan​ ​bickering​ ​and​ ​the​ ​final
report​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​adequately​ ​reflect​ ​public​ ​knowledge​ ​and​ ​perspectives.​ ​The​ ​official
Government​ ​response​ ​expressed​ ​a​ ​desire​ ​to​ ​go​ ​“beyond”​ ​the​ ​Committee​ ​recommendations,
but​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​is​ ​uninspiring.
Trust​ ​is​ ​not​ ​yet​ ​there.​ ​The​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​has​ ​yet​ ​to​ ​demonstrate​ ​a​ ​true​ ​desire​ ​to​ ​listen​ ​to
the​ ​public​ ​and​ ​Indigenous​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​what​ ​navigation​ ​really​ ​means​ ​to
them.​ ​As​ ​a​ ​result,​ ​the​ ​regulatory​ ​proposals​ ​and​ ​the​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​“lists”​ ​of​ ​waterbodies​ ​are​ ​-​ ​and
will​ ​remain​ ​-​ ​deeply​ ​flawed.
Navigation​ ​rights​ ​cut​ ​to​ ​the​ ​heart​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​protection​ ​in​ ​Canada.​ ​They​ ​are​ ​deeply
connected​ ​to​ ​notions​ ​of​ ​freedom​ ​and​ ​identity.​ ​Any​ ​system​ ​that​ ​ties​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​to​ ​a​ ​list​ ​of
specific​ ​bodies​ ​of​ ​water,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​act​ ​of​ ​navigation,​ ​is​ ​a​ ​failure.​ ​Any​ ​system​ ​that
gives​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​the​ ​power​ ​to​ ​decide​ ​where​ ​people​ ​can​ ​travel​ ​encroaches​ ​on
public​ ​freedoms.
If​ ​every​ ​body​ ​of​ ​water​ ​that​ ​is​ ​navigable​ ​could​ ​be​ ​listed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Schedule,​ ​then​ ​there​ ​would​ ​be
no​ ​need​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Schedule;​ ​the​ ​old​ ​system​ ​is​ ​simpler.​ ​The​ ​only​ ​reason​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Schedule​ ​is​ ​to
restrict​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​of​ ​waterbodies​ ​where​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​apply.​ ​It​ ​represents​ ​a​ ​​de​ ​facto
privatization​ ​of​ ​public​ ​waters​ ​and​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​two-tier​ ​environmental​ ​protection.
Recommendation:​ ​Transport​ ​Canada,​ ​Environment​ ​Canada,​ ​Heritage​ ​Canada,​ ​and
Indigenous​ ​and​ ​Northern​ ​Affairs​ ​should​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​a​ ​joint,​ ​public,​ ​national​ ​consultation
process​ ​to​ ​better​ ​understand​ ​and​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​traditions.
The​ ​Canadian​ ​Nuclear​ ​Safety​ ​Commission​ ​should​ ​not​ ​conduct​ ​its​ ​own
environmental​ ​assessments
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​proposes​ ​to​ ​create​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agency​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​environmental
assessments​ ​but​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​“joint”​ ​assessments​ ​for​ ​major​ ​energy​ ​projects.​ ​The​ ​Canadian
Nuclear​ ​Safety​ ​Commission​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​separate​ ​or​ ​different
environmental​ ​assessments.​ ​Assessment​ ​for​ ​nuclear-related​ ​projects​ ​should​ ​follow​ ​the​ ​same
rules​ ​and​ ​be​ ​conducted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​agency​ ​as​ ​all​ ​other
environmental​ ​assessments.​ ​Nuclear​ ​projects​ ​are​ ​typically​ ​accompanied​ ​by​ ​a​ ​number​ ​of
traditional​ ​development​ ​activities​ ​and​ ​emissions​ ​that​ ​require​ ​expertise​ ​not​ ​available​ ​within​ ​the
CNSC​ ​(e.g.,​ ​site​ ​preparation,​ ​road​ ​construction,​ ​air​ ​emissions,​ ​wastewater​ ​emissions).​ ​The
most​ ​efficient,​ ​transparent,​ ​fair,​ ​and​ ​effective​ ​way​ ​to​ ​review​ ​nuclear​ ​projects​ ​is​ ​via​ ​the​ ​same
robust​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​process​ ​other​ ​projects​ ​enjoy.
Page​ ​4​ ​of​ ​7

5.
Recommendation:​ ​Ensure​ ​nuclear​ ​projects​ ​are​ ​assessed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​agency​ ​as​ ​all​ ​other
projects.
Environmental​ ​assessments​ ​should​ ​contribute​ ​to​ ​a​ ​growing​ ​body​ ​of
knowledge​ ​about​ ​Canadians​ ​and​ ​their​ ​environment
One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​reasons​ ​Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​supports​ ​the​ ​proposal​ ​to​ ​consolidate
environmental​ ​assessment​ ​under​ ​one​ ​single​ ​government​ ​agency​ ​is​ ​the​ ​opportunity​ ​this
creates​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​a​ ​robust,​ ​accessible,​ ​ever-growing​ ​body​ ​of​ ​knowledge.​ ​Too​ ​often,
environmental​ ​assessments​ ​are​ ​described​ ​as​ ​if​ ​they​ ​are​ ​approvals​ ​or​ ​permits,​ ​rather​ ​than
processes​​ ​for​ ​planning​ ​and​ ​decision-making.​ ​When​ ​one​ ​assessment​ ​ends,​ ​it​ ​tends​ ​to​ ​collect
dust​ ​on​ ​a​ ​shelf​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​inform​ ​and​ ​improve​ ​subsequent​ ​assessments.​ ​To​ ​protect​ ​the
environment,​ ​stimulate​ ​innovation,​ ​and​ ​be​ ​a​ ​world-leading​ ​sustainable​ ​economy,​ ​we​ ​need​ ​to
become​ ​better​ ​at​ ​understanding​ ​environmental​ ​impacts​ ​and​ ​developing​ ​effective​ ​solutions.
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​talks​ ​about​ ​strategic​ ​and​ ​regional​ ​assessment​ ​processes.​ ​It​ ​does​ ​not
talk​ ​as​ ​much​ ​about​ ​where​ ​and​ ​how​ ​this​ ​information​ ​will​ ​be​ ​stored​ ​or​ ​how​ ​it​ ​will​ ​inform
subsequent​ ​decisions.​ ​Rather​ ​than​ ​viewing​ ​environmental​ ​assessments​ ​as​ ​individual,
independent​ ​review​ ​processes,​ ​each​ ​should​ ​build​ ​on​ ​ones​ ​that​ ​came​ ​before​ ​it.​ ​Over​ ​time,
environmental​ ​assessments​ ​will​ ​become​ ​better​ ​and​ ​more​ ​effective​ ​because​ ​our​ ​knowledge
will​ ​have​ ​grown​ ​and​ ​people​ ​will​ ​have​ ​learned.
Care​ ​must​ ​be​ ​taken,​ ​particularly​ ​with​ ​self-assessment​ ​and​ ​substitution​ ​on​ ​the​ ​rise,​ ​to​ ​ensure
that​ ​the​ ​government​ ​builds​ ​its​ ​body​ ​of​ ​knowledge.​ ​Proponents,​ ​consulting​ ​companies,​ ​and
provinces​ ​should​ ​not​ ​control​ ​what​ ​we​ ​know​ ​about​ ​our​ ​environment,​ ​project​ ​impacts,​ ​or
mitigation​ ​options.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​notes,​ ​“Information​ ​is​ ​currency​ ​in​ ​our​ ​modern
world.”
Recommendation:​ ​The​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agency​ ​should​ ​be​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​the​ ​creation
(or​ ​enhancement)​ ​of​ ​a​ ​robust,​ ​centralized​ ​database​ ​of​ ​information,​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​best
practices​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Canadian​ ​environment,​ ​project​ ​impacts,​ ​and​ ​mitigation
measures.
Page​ ​5​ ​of​ ​7

6.
The​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​cannot​ ​relinquish​ ​authority​ ​over​ ​federal​ ​and
national​ ​matters
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​refers​ ​to​ ​“one​ ​project​ ​-​ ​one​ ​assessment”​ ​as​ ​a​ ​way​ ​of​ ​ensuring​ ​that
there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​duplication​ ​or​ ​inefficiency​ ​when​ ​projects​ ​require​ ​both​ ​federal​ ​and​ ​provincial
approval.​ ​Substitution​ ​and​ ​equivalency​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​in​ ​both​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and
fisheries​ ​legislation,​ ​and​ ​demand​ ​careful​ ​review.
One​ ​assessment​ ​would​ ​streamline​ ​the​ ​process​ ​for​ ​both​ ​proponents​ ​and​ ​the​ ​public​ ​and​ ​we
support​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​in​ ​principle,​ ​but​ ​if​ ​done​ ​wrong,​ ​the​ ​“one​ ​assessment​ ​process”​ ​can​ ​undermine
federal​ ​authority​ ​and​ ​constitutional​ ​obligations.
If​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​single​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​process,​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​​must​​ ​retain
responsibility​ ​for​ ​making​ ​its​ ​own​ ​decisions.​ ​Provinces​ ​or​ ​other​ ​bodies​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​allowed​ ​to
substitute​ ​their​ ​own​ ​decisions​ ​for​ ​federal​ ​decisions.​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​there​ ​may​ ​be​ ​a​ ​single
environmental​ ​assessment​ ​process,​ ​but​ ​there​ ​may​ ​always​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​multiple
decision-makers.​ ​We​ ​look​ ​forward​ ​to​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​weigh​ ​in​ ​on​ ​this​ ​topic​ ​in​ ​greater​ ​detail
when​ ​specific​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and​ ​fisheries​ ​legislative​ ​changes​ ​are​ ​being
discussed.
Recommendation:​ ​Ensure​ ​that​ ​substitution​ ​and​ ​equivalency​ ​are​ ​reviewed​ ​and​ ​that
federal​ ​authority​ ​is​ ​retained​ ​in​ ​future​ ​versions​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and
fisheries​ ​legislation.
Ensure​ ​environmental​ ​study​ ​and​ ​protection​ ​institutions​ ​are​ ​adequately
funded
Effective​ ​environmental​ ​decisions​ ​are​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​best​ ​available​ ​information​ ​and​ ​analysis,
including​ ​Indigenous​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​made​ ​by​ ​people​ ​with​ ​the​ ​time​ ​and​ ​resources​ ​they​ ​need
to​ ​conduct​ ​adequate​ ​reviews.​ ​To​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​improvements​ ​to​ ​federal​ ​environmental
legislation​ ​have​ ​the​ ​desired​ ​benefit,​ ​the​ ​departments​ ​and​ ​agencies​ ​responsible​ ​for
implementing​ ​law​ ​and​ ​policy​ ​must​ ​have​ ​the​ ​resources​ ​they​ ​need.
Recommendation:​ ​Ensure​ ​environmental​ ​study​ ​and​ ​protection​ ​institutions​ ​are
adequately​ ​funded.
Page​ ​6​ ​of​ ​7

7.
Enforce​ ​environmental​ ​laws
Stronger​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​and​ ​well-funded​ ​institutions​ ​also​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​consistent,​ ​effective
enforcement​ ​activities.​ ​No​ ​matter​ ​how​ ​well-constructed​ ​the​ ​new​ ​laws​ ​may​ ​be,​ ​they​ ​will​ ​fail​ ​to
protect​ ​Canadians​ ​or​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​if​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​enforced.
Moreover,​ ​many​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​that​ ​are​ ​still​ ​in​ ​place​ ​are​ ​poorly​ ​and​ ​inconsistently
enforced.​ ​Canadian​ ​waters,​ ​in​ ​particular,​ ​would​ ​be​ ​better​ ​protected​ ​if​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of
Canada​ ​rebuilt​ ​its​ ​enforcement​ ​staff.​ ​No​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​law​ ​are​ ​required.​ ​Benefits​ ​to​ ​the
Canadians​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​would​ ​be​ ​immediate.
It​ ​will​ ​take​ ​more​ ​time​ ​to​ ​draft,​ ​refine,​ ​and​ ​pass​ ​new​ ​environmental​ ​laws.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​meantime,​ ​the
Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​should​ ​make​ ​it​ ​a​ ​priority​ ​to​ ​enforce​ ​existing​ ​laws​ ​and​ ​to​ ​restore​ ​a
culture​ ​of​ ​concern​ ​for​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​within​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government.
Recommendation:​ ​Immediately​ ​restore​ ​enforcement​ ​staff​ ​and​ ​enforcement​ ​programs.
SUMMARY​ ​OF​ ​RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Transport​ ​Canada,​ ​Environment​ ​Canada,​ ​Heritage​ ​Canada,​ ​and​ ​Indigenous​ ​and
Northern​ ​Affairs​ ​should​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​a​ ​joint,​ ​public,​ ​national​ ​consultation​ ​process​ ​to
better​ ​understand​ ​and​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​traditions.
2. Ensure​ ​nuclear​ ​projects​ ​are​ ​assessed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​agency​ ​as​ ​all​ ​other​ ​projects.
3. The​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agency​ ​should​ ​be​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​(or
enhancement)​ ​of​ ​a​ ​robust,​ ​centralized​ ​database​ ​of​ ​information,​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​best
practices​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Canadian​ ​environment,​ ​project​ ​impacts,​ ​and​ ​mitigation
measures.
4. Ensure​ ​that​ ​substitution​ ​and​ ​equivalency​ ​are​ ​reviewed​ ​and​ ​that​ ​federal​ ​authority​ ​is
retained​ ​in​ ​future​ ​versions​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and​ ​fisheries​ ​legislation.
5. Ensure​ ​environmental​ ​study​ ​and​ ​protection​ ​institutions​ ​are​ ​adequately​ ​funded.
6. Immediately​ ​restore​ ​enforcement​ ​staff​ ​and​ ​enforcement​ ​programs.
Page​ ​7​ ​of​ ​7