Amendment Weakens Navigable Waters Protection Act

[Oscar]

Amendment Weakens Navigable Waters Protection Act

From: Meera Karunananthan, Council of Canadians
Sent: ACTION ALERT:Demand that the amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act be pulled out of the budget bill!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:13 PM

Dear chapter activists,

The Federal government is using the economic crisis as an excuse to severely weaken a policy that protects historic public navigation rights and the environment.

The amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act being proposed under C-10, the Harper government’s Budget Implementation Act, will give the Transport Minister the power to push through a number of projects including some run of the river and micro hydro-dams projects from environmental oversight.

The federal government will be relinquishing its constitutional jurisdiction over navigation. As pointed out by the Canadian Rivers Network, there are no laws or regulations, other than the NWPA, in place to protect the public right of navigation. The provinces have no jurisdiction over navigation and no ability to protect navigable waters.

Natural resources Minister Lisa Raitt told the media in January: "I am here looking for feedback and perspectives on the best way to stimulate the economy. This is no time for red tape. We need to be pushing through on projects and not letting man-made interventions happen (that would delay) getting shovels into the ground and moving projects along that have been studied enough."

Let the government know that environmental protection is not an administrative burden. Email your MP (see sample letter below) and demand that the amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act be pulled out of the Budget Implementation Act!

Find your elected representative at: http://www.canadians.org/action/contact_reps.html

In solidarity,
Meera Karunananthan,
National water campaigner, Council of Canadians
613.233.4487 ext 234; meera@canadians.org
www.canadians.org/water

´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯><(((º>

SAMPLE EMAIL TO MP

Find your elected representative at: http://www.canadians.org/action/contact_reps.html

Dear Member of Parliament,

I am writing to request that amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act be removed from the Budget Implementation Act.
I am concerned that the Conservative government views a bill that has protected the navigation rights of people living in Canada, the traditional rights of Indigenous peoples and the environment as administrative red tape.
I am outraged that Indigenous peoples and the Canadian public have not been consulted on the sweeping changes to the Act being proposed by the Conservative government.
Environmental protection is not a regulatory burden, and the Canadian public and affected communities have a right to be consulted on amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Sincerely,

Your name

---------------------------

Baird plans changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Patterson
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:16 PM

Dear chapter activists,

The National Post reported on January 12 that, "Among the laws earmarked for revision (by the Harper government) is the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was enacted in 1882 to regulate the construction of dams and bridges and guard marine routes from intrusions by the logging industry."

BAIRD SAYS THE NWPA SLOWS THINGS DOWN

"The law has been revised over the years, but (Transport Minister John) Baird said its antiquated guidelines fail to distinguish between 'the tiniest creek and the bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.' 'It's a piece of legislation brought in the 1800s with, frankly, little benefit but huge regulatory burden that can really slow things down,' he said."

HE RIDICULES THE ACT

The Canadian Press reported the same day that, "Baird criticized the Navigable Waters Act, which dates to the 1870s. The act, he said, requires government officials to 'put a canoe in a creek or large puddle' to find out whether it is navigable."

HE SAYS THE ACT SHOULD BE AMENDED

The Canadian Press additionally reported that Baird, "points to the 139-year-old Navigable Waters Act as one piece of federal legislation he’d like to see amended. The act requires that every creek or stream altered by a project must first be checked for navigability using a water craft."

HE SAYS THE NWPA IS OUTDATED AND SHOULD BE STREAMLINED

The Globe and Mail reported on January 13 that, "Mr. Baird said streamlining environmental assessments is one of several changes Ottawa is mulling, adding that rewriting laws is another. He said, for example, that the Navigable Waters Protection Act as currently written is an example of outdated legislation that can hamper public works. 'We got an earful wherever we went from British Columbia to Nova Scotia on that,' he said."

PROVINCIAL LEADERS SAY THE ACT NEEDS TO BE REVISED
The National Post added, "Rodney MacDonald, the Premier of Nova Scotia, and other provincial leaders have raised the need to reassess the act."

NGOS AND PARTIES CONCERNED

The National Post reported, "potential revisions -- which would streamline the approval process for smaller projects -- have caused concern for environmentalists and boaters."

NEW DEMOCRATS

The Ottawa Sun reported on July 12, 2008 that NDP MP Paul Dewar, "suggests there had been significant lobbying by industry stakeholders to cut through the act's red tape and to dilute the environmental regulations that impede their corporate enterprises along waterways.

'They are trying to please a certain sector of industry and hope no one is paying attention,' he says."

GREEN PARTY

"The legislation applies equally to ocean projects, major rivers or pastoral streams. 'It puts a huge delay on projects,' (says Baird). The suggestion didn't go over well with the Green party. 'Mr. Baird should realize that small waterways are a crucial piece of habitat for many wild creatures and are deserving of protection,' Adriane Carr, the party's deputy leader, said in a release."

LAKE ONTARIO WATERKEEPERS

Lake Ontario Waterkeepers have written that, "The changes to the Navigable Waters Act virtually eliminates the environmental assessment process, allows the Minister of Transportation and/or Cabinet to divide the nation's waterways into those which will be protected and those which will not as well as create sweeping exemptions from government approval or public notice for classes of projects. The rules drafted by Cabinet may not be subject to Access to Information, public consultation, or Parliamentary or judicial review."

ECO-JUSTICE

The Canwest News Service reported on February 11 that, "The government’s proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act removes an automatic trigger for federal environmental assessment for the building of dams, bridges, booms, causeways and other structures that may shorten or ruin the navigability of a waterway."

SIERRA CLUB

The Ottawa Sun reported that, "The Sierra Club of Canada has taken particular objection to amendments proposed by the (House's standing committee on transport, infrastructure and communities) that would see the definition of navigable waters changed to exclude small watercraft, such as canoes, and the amending of infrastructure works to exclude such minor works on a waterway as a micro-hydroelectric project. Celeste Cote, national water campaigner for the organization, notes that it would remove any reference to four types of works, namely dams, bridges, causeways and booms, all of which have an impact on the waterway."

TERMS

If you're not sure, a causeway is 'a raised way across wet ground or water', and a boom is 'a line of floating timbers used to hold logs in a restricted water area'.

WEB-LINKS

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada ... id=1167127

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20090113.wbudget13/BNStory/politics/

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0901 ... d_mayors_3

http://www.lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/
2009/01/13/8012111.html

http://www.waterkeeper.ca/documents/
2009-02-11.NWPASummary.pdf

http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2009/02/11/
research-conclusions-regarding-the-amended-navigable-waters-protection-act-as-included-in-the-budget-implementation-act-bill-c-10

[Oscar]

Remove Navigable Waters Protection Act from the Budget Implementation Act!

----- Original Message -----
From: ernstj@telusplanet.net

To: Sorenson, Kevin - M.P. ; Harper.S@parl.gc.ca ; Dion.S ; Ignatieff M. - Lib. ; leader@greenparty.ca ; Duncan.L@parl.gc.ca ; Duceppe, G. Bloc ; jflaherty@fin.gc.ca

Cc: Kevin Sorenson ; JV Anglin ; Edwin Erickson ; David Swann ; David Swann ; Honourable Ed Stelmach Premier ; meera@canadians.org ; Dorene Rew ; danielle@water-matters.org

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:11 PM

Subject: Remove Navigable Waters Protection Act from the Budget Implementation Act!

Jessica Ernst
Box 753 Rosebud AB
T0J 2T0
1-403-677-2074

Dear Member of Parliament,

Remove Navigable Waters Protection Act from the Budget Implementation Act!
I am writing to request that amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are removed from the Budget Implementation Act.

Which is the first river you plan to deregulate? The Athabasca? Is the government hoping to secretly legalize the dumping of toxic tarsands tailings directly into the Athabasca? And what about dumping toxic waste into other Canadian waterways by other mining industries? These changes to the Act are inappropriate, and must be stopped!

I protest that the Conservative government views a bill that has protected the navigation rights of people living in Canada, the traditional rights of Indigenous peoples and the environment as administrative red tape.

I am outraged at yet more underhanded government sneaking around and that The Canadian People have not been consulted on the sweeping changes to the Act being proposed by the minority Tories. Obviously the Harper government learned nothing after almost losing power and having to run and hide under the Governor General's skirts in cowardly prorogue.

I am also outraged that our opposition is allowing this rape and pillage! Read the fine print! Do the jobs you were elected to do!

Environmental protection is a MUST, not a regulatory or economic burden, notably as industrial pollution in Canada is cumulatively spinning out of control. The people and affected communities have a right to be consulted on amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The Act serves a vital purpose, and must remain intact.

How loathsome of the Tories to attempt to destroy vital Canadian environmental protections under the guise of economic need. Without a healthy environment, we have nothing.

Sincerely,

Jessica Ernst

[Oscar]

ACTION LETTER: Amendments to Navigable Waters Protection Act

From: Elaine Hughes

To: BreitG@parl.gc.ca

Cc: Baird.J@parl.gc.ca ; Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca ; IgnatM@parl.gc.ca ; Layton, J. NDP ; Duceppe, G. Bloc ; leader@greenparty.ca ; inquiries@canadians.org

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:59 PM

Subject: Amendments to Navigable Waters Protection Act

February 25, 2009

Garry Breitkreuz, MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
E-mail: BreitG@parl.gc.ca

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz –

RE: Amendments to Navigable Waters Protection Act

The Conservative government is amending this Act to do what, Mr. Breitkreuz?

I am outraged that Indigenous peoples and the Canadian public have not been consulted on these sweeping changes to the Act being proposed by the Conservative government, and am writing to request that amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act be removed from the Budget Implementation Act.

Maintaining this Act, which has protected the navigation rights of people living in Canada, the traditional rights of Indigenous peoples and the environment for many years, should not be a regulatory burden, Mr. Breitkreuz.

The Canadian public and affected communities have a right to be consulted on amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act – environmental protection is not just so much red tape.

I look forward to your early reply, Mr. Breitkreuz, assuring me that your government will indeed remove this Act from the Budget Implementation Act, and govern for the people of this country, not industry!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Elaine Hughes
Box 23,
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0

CC:

John Baird, Minister of Transport - Baird.J@parl.gc.ca
Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources - Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca
Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada – IgnatM@parl.gc.ca
Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP – LaytoJ@parl.gc.ca
Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc – Duceppe.G@parl.gc.
Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada - leader@greenparty.ca
Council of Canadians inquiries@canadians.org

[Oscar]

Bill C10 add-ons

To: Ignatieff Michael <Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca>
From: Jeremy Arney <iamjema@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Mr Ignatieff,

It has been bought to my attention that you have allowed the use of an American type of "pork" legislation to become the norm in Canada.

That is to throw "add ons" to so-called vital legislation to ensure the deceitful passage of the "add-ons" not withstanding that they deserve full debate in the House on their own merit or, more likely with this government, lack therof.

At the request of The IMF, our dysfunctuional government is taking us further into debt to the aforementioned IMF (and why not our own Bank of Canada?) so that all our grandchildren will be slaves to that body.

I do not believe any Canadian who thinks this through believes one word of this Canadian administration that it will be short term; they have shown us that they are untrustworthy and unable to be clear and transparent or even bi-partisan.

Simply watch Question Period and try to find ONE example of a minister or Harper really answering one of those questions as opposed to sneering and deflecting.

I quote an example of this "pork" additive to the so-called emergency budget Bill C10

Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Act was originally passed in 1882 with the intent of recognizing the common right of access to and free passage on public waterways. Bill C-10 makes unacceptable changes to that legislation. The proposed changes will:
1. Eliminate environmental assessments, with few exceptions, for development projects on Canadian waterways.
2. Allow Canada’s rivers to be separated into those that are worth protecting and those that can be exploited.
3. Those classifications can be determined secretly within cabinet with no public consultation, no basis in science and no opportunity for any appeal.
4. Ensure that these decisions will most certainly be made based on political expediency rather than on scientific or long-term social and environmental considerations.
Enabling the government to declare previously protected waterways as non-navigable also has other ramifications for the resource. If a waterway is designated as navigable, the bed of the waterway is considered to be crown property. Designating the waterway as non-navigable will enable the bed to pass to private ownership. From this flows the further concern that private ownership of the waterways bed implies private ownership of the fishery. - BC Wildlife Federation Press Release

This first came to my attention when I was watching the various members of the House of Commons "debating" Bill C10 on CPAC. I watched in amazement at Liberals saying they would pass this "Budget" as it stands, shortcomings and all, because of the urgency of the situation. That seemed to me to be very short sighted and counter productive.

I watched and listened to members from the Bloque and the NPD trying to get the attention of the House of Commons on this issue of the waterways and asking why it was included in this so-called budget without real debate; their appeals had absolutely no effect on the position of either the dysfunctional government or the official opposition.

So who are the real Canadian supporters here?

Based on this, I have to conclude that the real opposition to this dysfunctional government is the Bloque and the NDP, both of whom seem to be more pro-Canadian AND Quebec than your party which appears is now a mere extention of the Harper regime.

I regret that Mr Dion's problem with the English language caused him to be misunderstood, as I cannot help but feel that under his leadership of the Liberal Party, this Bill C10 would have been rejected, with great passion and terrible English, on behalf of all Canadian people. I can think of no excuse for the underhanded way the government (and now the Liberals under you) are bowing to the corporate wishes and ignoring the people who employ and pay you - the Canadian people.

In case you are wondering, we already have enough problems in BC with our Local Premier who wants to make sure that all our rivers and streams are foreign corporate-owned anyway, so he will be a very happy Liberal with what you are doing.

Mr Ignatieff, I recommend that you look again at this Bill C10 and the ramifications of the "add-ons" and realise that we are not going to have any real financial help to the Canadian People from this bill. It is almost all going to things like, GM, Chrysler, Banks, Pharmaceutical, Loan and Insurance companies and major construction companies, not necessarily even Canadian companies and possibly with imported labour from outside of our borders.

You proclaimed in your speech in the House supporting Bill C10 that part of your support was that Canadian People must benefit. I am a semi-retired senior (I have to work a part time job in order to be able to buy food) and I cannot find anywhere in this C10 where I will get any immediate help at all in my efforts to support the Canadian economy.

By the time you see that I am not alone, we will be in even greater trouble, further in needless debt, with the only option being thata of increased borrowing to give to the corporations that are not effecient enough to make it on their own.

You were elected by your party, the Official Opposition, to be the protector of the rights and freedoms and the well being of Canadians in the face of constant attack by the Harper regime; I see you failing in your duty.

I do not consent to what you and Harper are doing.

Jeremy Arney
Victoria BC

cc: BC MLAs, media, Canadian Senators and others