Proposed changes to The Navigable Waterways Protection Act

[kentooley]

Found this on the Grey/Bruce site.

 

Reply With Quote Report Post to Administrator

proposed amendments to the Navigable Waterways Protection Act - make your voice heard

 

 

 

The Navigable Waterways Protection Act (Canada) is one of the oldest pieces of federal legislation. It first became law on May 17, 1882, and was originally intended to protect marine navigation routes by controlling the logging industry and the construction of bridges and dams. The Act has been subject to a number of amendments over the years and its application now involves all works in, over, under through or across any navigable waterway in Canada. The Act is the enabling legislation for the Navigable Waters Protection Program, which is implemented in order to protect the public right to marine navigation, to ensure the safety of mariners and to protect the marine environment by enforcing the Environmental Assessment Act (Canada) with respect to any public or private work or development which may impact a navigable waterway.

 

For several months now, the House Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has been quietly studying proposed changes to the Act, without notifying most environmental, paddling, recreation and sporting groups or soliciting public consultation. The proposed changes would limit the application of the Act and threaten Canada’s waterways, by exempting certain waterway developments from the environmental assessment and approval process. The significant amendments being considered include: (a) a change in the definition of “navigable” to exempt “minor waters” (i.e. those that cannot support a vessel with a draw of 1 meter), and; ( a change to the definition of “work” to explicitly exclude “minor works”. One of the expressed intents of the amendments is to facilitate small scale hydroelectric development on Canadian waters. The effects of the amendments could have significant impacts on recreational anglers as access to waterways is governed by “navigability” and flow diversions and reductions resulting from “minor works” (i.e. small dams associated with micro-hydroelectric developments) would be exempt from environmental assessment and public input. The amendments proposed would seem to run counter to the efforts being made across the province to remove existing dams/diversions and limit new dams/diversions on waterways that are used by migratory fish species.

 

It is important that the House Committee and our local MPs receive feedback regarding the proposed amendments. There may also be some utility in involving you local Green Party candidates as well, as that Party has officially denounced the proposed amendments and is opposing the consultation process regarding same.

 

For a more detailed examination of the issues, you might want to take a look at the following link, which will provide you with access to the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper organization's submissions to the House committee.

 

http://waterkeeper.ca/documents/2008-05-12...ter.comment.pdf

Edited June 24, 2008 by verminator

[Reef Runner]

Thanks for the info verminator. An absolute national disgrace that news of this or even consultations are being kept in the shadows.

[kentooley]

More on the subject!!

 

posted on 7-8-2008 at 18:06 Reply With Quote Report Post to Administrator

Navigable waters protection act...It's about more than big boats!

 

 

 

Thanks for the earlier posting here on your site, that was how I was able to find you through a search.

Navigable waters Protection Act and it's amendments will effect all hunters/fishermen/canoeists (place outdoor group here)

I will be brief in this prologue and you can decide for yourself.

 

Here is a link to some earlier court cases and you can figure out for yourself what will happen when this act becomes just about big boats.

http://pages.interlog.com/~erhard/pruling.htm

 

Here is a link to the Government changes

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committ...t04_Pg01-e.html

 

If you can, moderators a statement on your main page would be great!

If you would like to use any of my poster pics for your site, there is no charge. We need to get the word out and time is short, either for a rammed through fall session or to make it a visable election issue.

 

Poster Pics

http://nwpa.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!...5DCA8C!122/

 

If You want the readers digest version and are ready for action now, go here

http://www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca/

and sign the petition.

 

We are outdoor groups and individuals who are looking to help get the word out and protect our Canadian wilderness areas and watersheds and were hoping you could introduce this cause

to your fellow outdoor enthusiasts.

We are neither looking for money or memberships lists,

We are looking to protect the areas we love.

And we are looking for you to present your views to the Canadian government.

 

The long and short of it is we need help to reach out to all those who enjoy our remote areas and to bring awareness to the blight that the Canadian Water sheds and wilderness are now under.

Changes that have been forwarded on the "Navigable Waters Protection Act" (NWPA) will enable big business to "rape" much of Canada's wilderness of it's resources

with out suffering the consequences of proper environmental protection.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/...mned-lakes.html

In the last couple of years the public has learned to use this legislation for the benefit of watersheds, because under the present rules companies and gov't had to notify the public of any

work they would be performing, giving at least a chance for those trying to protect their areas.

This won't be the case if the changes go through and it is bad news for anyone trying to preserve the wilderness areas.

Here is one forum on what is going on in the Nahanni National park.

http://www.myccr.com/SectionForums/viewtop...66&start=15

And this is going on all across the country!

 

I could go on, so I will just post some links for you to follow up with if you want.

 

I was one of the first outdoors people that sounded the alarm when it was first noticed the outdoor community was not invited to take place in the NWPA committee hearings.

At the 11th hour we managed to get a few regional and Provincial groups to respond but sadly their thoughts were dismissed in the report to parliament.

Since then I have continued reaching out to other outdoor groups to make them aware of the situation.

We now have approx. 50 various groups with notice of the changes listed on their sites.

The response from the Liberal Party is non-existent and the conservatives believe they don't have to worry as it is not in the news enough and can get the changes through.

 

Scott MacGregor, Rapid Media ­ Founder & Publisher [[email protected]] was the first publisher to get on board,

And my response from John Werring, Salmon Conservation Biologist, Marine Conservation Program, David Suzuki Foundation, Ste. 219 - 2211 West 4th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V6K 4S2

Quote "We are aware of the review that the NWPA is currently undergoing and we too are concerned about the direction things may be going in. That said, we have not yet formulated our response. We are currently in the information gathering mode and will likely be armed with enough info to take a position in the near future. Stay tuned."

 

So I hope you can find someone to help us all out.

Jeff McColl

Milton Ont.

 

One forum on NWPA (where this all started)

I am jedi jeffi on the forums.

http://www.myccr.com/SectionForums/viewtopic.php?t=29875

 

With your earlier posting we now have about 75 groups nation wide posting on thier sites.

If you truly love the outdoors, this is an issue you can't wait for someone else to do the work.

There is a reason why no outdoor groups were invited to the hearings,

Get mad!

[Reef Runner]

Registered and signed the petition.

 

OFC members, please take the time to become knowledgable on the forthcoming assault on our waterways. If you so choose, kindly fill out the petition and/or send a letter to your MP.

 

Thanks for keeping us updated Verminator!

[muskymike]

I think this should be Pinned.

[fish_finder]

I'll second pinning it.

 

These are drastic changes, and most people don't even know of the NWPA to begin with. Pinning would enlighten many anglers!

[JohnF]

Being essentially a lazy sort, and rather slow-witted, could someone who knows what this is really about synopsize it here, showing us how this really impacts us etc.

 

JF

[Raf]

john,

 

proposed changes = bad

 

fighting said changes = good

[Rich]

I've read that the materials/labour required to build these small hydroelectric dams would take about 15 years to make back in hydro revenue due to the relative size and output of them.

 

Why the heck would they be investing time and money into these things?

 

Put freakin' windmills along the shores of the great lakes instead. They harm nothing.

[JohnF]

john,

 

proposed changes = bad

 

fighting said changes = good

 

Usually there's a kneejerk reaction against any kind of legislative changes. Some of the changes over the years have actually been for the better. I was wondering if this might be one of those situations where everyone assumes it's bad without really understanding the facts. I read one version that suggested this change might be to allow easier access to waterways for culverts/crossings which might in turn screw up the fish habitats. Is that a fact or might I just be starting an unfounded rumour?

 

JF

[JohnF]

I've read that the materials/labour required to build these small hydroelectric dams would take about 15 years to make back in hydro revenue due to the relative size and output of them.

 

Why the heck would they be investing time and money into these things?

 

Put freakin' windmills along the shores of the great lakes instead. They harm nothing.

 

Some folks say the blades kill birds.

 

JF

[Rich]

Good. I hate birds. Problem solved. lol

[Reef Runner]

I got a friend in the wind farming industry and, yes, migratory birds are an issue. Tapping into the grid even tougher. Our energy market is run like a cartel. Government contracts and bids for sites go mostly to the big energy companies.

[kentooley]

Being essentially a lazy sort, and rather slow-witted, could someone who knows what this is really about synopsize it here, showing us how this really impacts us etc.

 

JF

 

Here ya go John.

 

 

In the last couple of years the public has learned to use this legislation for the benefit of watersheds, because under the present rules companies and gov't had to notify the public of any

work they would be performing, giving at least a chance for those trying to protect their areas.

This won't be the case if the changes go through and it is bad news for anyone trying to preserve the wilderness areas.

[Guest lundboy]

Here ya go John.

 

 

In the last couple of years the public has learned to use this legislation for the benefit of watersheds, because under the present rules companies and gov't had to notify the public of any

work they would be performing, giving at least a chance for those trying to protect their areas.

This won't be the case if the changes go through and it is bad news for anyone trying to preserve the wilderness areas.

 

 

Once again UN Agenda 21 at work.

[kentooley]

I think I'd like to have a say and not be kept in the dark!

[JohnF]

Here ya go John.

In the last couple of years the public has learned to use this legislation for the benefit of watersheds, because under the present rules companies and gov't had to notify the public of any

work they would be performing, giving at least a chance for those trying to protect their areas.

This won't be the case if the changes go through and it is bad news for anyone trying to preserve the wilderness areas.

 

Thanks V. I thought that might be what it was about. Sometimes govt finds it easier to respond favourably to the more influential lobbyists by applying the mushroom principle to the rest of us who might be affected. They've learned that when they're too transparent they end up with someone upset and making noises that force the govt to justify their actions in front of their constituents. When they can quietly slide it into place and present it as a done deal they can often just ignore the complaints or with luck, the public will shrug and accept it as just another govt shanking. We've come to expect so little ethically or morally from our own govt that they seem to think they're able to get away with murder, and they're right.

 

JF

[bigfish1965]

On the surface, this does not look good, but I have yet to be able to read the entire proposal and documents. I'll pin it for now for education and discussion and to see where this may take us. The Navigable Waterways legislation does need updating, but should not be done at the cost of the public and certainly not slanted to the favour of reducing access or affecting water levels or quality.

What is needed is a simple update of language and definitions.

[muskymike]

What is needed is a simple update of language and definitions.

 

Well said Rick.

[JFR]

Perhaps, now that this has come to the forefront, we as citizens might be able to influence this goverment. I have signed the petition, and sent a letter to my MP who is also the Government House leader.

 

Let your MP know where you stand.

 

just JOHN

[kentooley]

Hey Guys!!

 

Navigable Waters protection Act, A question for Stephane Dion

 

 

 

A question for Stephane! Town hall meeting Oakville, Ontario, August 20, 2008

 

Well I got my chance, I had to use the readers digest version of my question/statement, but it was well recieved,

I got thrown off a bit when they stopped me part way through my intro, but more or less got my act back together

I have to thank Garth Turner for giving me the chance for the question, when I got there an hour early and reintroduced myself and reminded him that I was the only one that showed up for one of his first town hall meetings when he first got elected to Ottawa in the Mulroney Gov't, and now he is a Liberal since being kicked out of the Harper Government.

 

Point one they are very aware and impressed by the effort of the paddling/outdoors community to get the word out on this act.

Point 2 he is not fully aware of the all the ins and outs of the act, and asked for a full copy of my question so he could answer it. (in front of the audience!)

He then had one of his personal staff approach me right after my question (other questions were still going on) and asked me to contact him

 

So another opportunity begins...

and I will keep you people posted because I will need input to represent us (out door user groups) properly.

 

A question for Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party.

 

Answer will be posted on the I Speak for Canadian Rivers Site and forwarded to the more than 100 various outdoor user groups now aware of this and making statements on their web sites.

 

My question deals with the proposed changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

 

The majority of modern Canadians are completely unaware of the great gifts that this piece of legislation has given us. This legislation is almost as old as the country and was put in place with great foresight by the early Canadian government, a country which was built on the ability of an open canoe to navigate the vast water resources that we so sadly continue to exploit.

 

This act enshrined in law to give all Canadians access to that resource and to protect that water for future generations the ability to canoe, kayak, power boat, to fish and to hunt, much the same as Canadians 100 years ago, except instead of doing it to survive we do it for recreation.

 

In the recent past Canadians have learned to use the act for protection of their water ways because the act required that works be advertised, giving a chance for concerned citizens to voice their concerns over proposed works. If Canadians even 40 years ago showed the same concern for their environment we would not be using huge amounts of tax dollars to rehabilitate the many cement ditches and destroyed urban watersheds.

 

At the 11th. hour, various out door groups became aware for the proposed changes to the act Chaired by Conservative member of Parliament Merv Tweed of the riding Brandon-Souris and what we found very unsettling was the fact that the stakeholders that were made aware of these meetings were very one-sided and no outdoor user groups were properly invited or made aware of the hearings.

 

As a Canadian in what is supposed to be a democratic country I found this treatment and their responses towards the outdoor user groups completely unacceptable and frightening.

 

We can understand the need for changes,

We can also understand the need for a fast track mechanism to build infrastructure projects.

But we also understand that these works need to be done in an environmentally way as to safeguard the health of the watersheds.

There should be approved construction/water treatment processes that evolve with technological advancements.

We also believe that the Canadian public should not have to subsidize industry so that they may profit. A case in point is the 16 lakes/watersheds that have been requested to be made into tailing ponds.

These are just more “Sydney tar ponds” disasters in the making, If the costs of protecting the environment makes the business of mineral or resource extraction unprofitable then the taxpayer shouldn’t make up the difference.

 

How can we protect/preserve National Parks such as Nahanni, let alone the few areas of old growth forests and urban water sheds that are left with the “Gutting” of our environmental laws that has taken place over the last couple of years?

There is defiantly a pattern here where industries cry poor and can not create employment or compete with other international companies, they then lobby, change the laws so that their profit margins increase, and then leave environmental disaster areas, and then claim they do not need to pay for the clean up because it was done under existing laws.

The proposed changes to the Navigable water act are a perfect example of this, and by also denying/removing our heritage rights to access these areas, alarm bells can not be sounded about the desecration of these water sheds.

 

What is your position on the changes to the Navigable waters Protection Act?

Are you going to ensure that the present right to navigate “small waters” be enshrined in new legislation?

Are you going to restore the right of Canadians to be properly notified and be involved in shaping Canada’s future in this and other committee hearings?

 

 

Jeff McColl

264 Sydney St.

Milton, Ontario

ispeakforcanadianrivers.com