I Speak for Canadian Rivers

ACTION ALERT: Who Wants to Speak at the Senate NWPA Hearings

Scott MacGregor — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:17:00 +0000

As you know, in spite of our efforts, the Senate passed bill C-10 last week, with the undesirable amendments to the NWPA intact.

You may also know that many Senators were not entirely comfortable with passing this legislation without giving it proper consideration, but in the end pressure was applied to speed it through so that the financial package could be delivered.

The Senate is planning to continue with hearings on the NWPA amendments, even though the bill has passed.

We don't know what may be achieved by this but we think this is important. It will at least provide a public forum for the review of the NWPA changes.

We also don't know what systems might be available to allow someone to participate from a remote location or whether hearings might be held in different parts of the country.

Action Required

If you represent an organization or business interest or association of any kind, anywhere in Canada, that has an interest in or is concerned about the impacts of the amendments to the NWPA, EMAIL US YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION

Organization Name:
Organization Details (location, interest, number of members, brief description of business
interest)
Your Name (and position in the organization if applicable):
Contact Information (email, phone)

Deadline: Please respond to canrivers@sympatico.ca by 8 pm Monday March 23.

WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE

We are trying to get a sense of how many organizations or people across the country might want an opportunity to be heard at the Senate hearings.

Your organization or business interest can be national, provincial, regional, or local.

In fact you do not need to represent an organization. You can express an interest to be
heard as an individual.

Please respond to canrivers@sympatico.ca by 8 pm Monday March 23.

_______________________________
Canadian Rivers Network
www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca

UPDATE: Bill C-10 and the NWPA from Canadian Rivers Network

Scott MacGregor — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:37:00 +0000

A quick update on Bill C-10 and the proposed amendments to the NWPA:

The NDP lead the opposition to C-10 in the house and pushed for the removal the NWPA amendments and all of the non-budget elements of the bill, the Bloc also very strongly opposed the amendments.
The Liberals fully supported C-10 in the House and spoke loudly and strongly in defense of the bill, dismissing the importance of the public right of navigation in relation to economic conditions.
The House of Commons has passed third reading to the bill with the NWPA amendments intact.
Michael Ignatieff last week announced that he was going to encourage the Senate to pass it quickly with no amendments.
The bill has passed 2nd reading in the Senate and is now before the Senate National Finance committee for review.

Our efforts to connect with members of the Senate and express our concerns about the impact of the NWPA amendments on the ancient right of public navigation in Canada have met with some success.

Joseph Day, Chair of the Senate National Finance committee spoke on the CBC Radio program The House Saturday about the need to remove the NWPA amendments and all of the non-budget items from C-10.

You can listen to the transcript of Senator Day's interview through this link: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/thehouse_20090307_12792.mp3

OUR NEXT STEPS

We need to encourage members of the Senate National Finance committee to put the brakes on the NWPA amendments and other non-budget items in C-10 and remove them from the bill so that proper public consultation can take place.

We will be distributing an action alert explaining how you can help us in this very important next phase of the campaign.

THANKS

Thank you for all your efforts. This is a very difficult issue. The is huge momentum built up in the move to make these monumental changes to the NWPA and the remove the ancient public right of navigation in Canada.

In our view, it is unconscionable that the Liberals and Conservatives, the two senior national political parties in this country, seem to be collaborating so fully and so completely in this effort to eliminate a historic public right. In our view this is an extreme breach of public trust.

Fundamental democratic principles are being undermined here.

A modern democracy simply do not erase the ancient public rights of its citizens with such brazen disregard, and with zero consultation or consideration of the impacts.

_______________________________
Canadian Rivers Network
www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca

Link to CBC Radio show, The House. Interview with Senator Joseph Day, Chairman of the National ...

Scott MacGregor — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:34:00 +0000

Here's a link to CBC Radio show, The House. The interview with Senator Joseph Day, Chairman of the National Finance Committee aired on Saturday March 7, 2009.

The link to the original CBC podcast of this show is: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/thehouse_20090307_12792.mp3

Link to Bill C-10 and NWPA Discussion in House.

Scott MacGregor — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:21:00 +0000

A Bill C-10 and the NWPA discussion in the House can be can viewed through this link, http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=3877

Copy of Letter from Bill Allen to TRAN Committee Chair

Scott MacGregor — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:08:00 +0000

[The following is a letter sent from Bill Allen to the TRAN committee chair. Bill Allen is a cultural heritage researcher, archaeological surveyor and a writer. He has worked extensively with First Nations People on Aboriginal heritage research for many years. Printed here with his permission.]

Download a copy of this letter, 2009_02_22__allen_to_tran_committee.doc_compatibility_mode.pdf 207.64 Kb 24/02/2009, 21:12

W. A. Allen
9 First Ave.
Burk’s Falls
Ontario P0A 1C0

February 22, 2009

The Honourable Mervin Tweed, Chairperson
House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
House of Commons, Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Ref: TweedM@parl.gc.ca

Re: CONCERN ABOUT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NAVIGABLE WATERS
PROTECTION ACT (NWPA) AND REQUEST TO HAVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
NWPA WITHDRAWN FROM THE BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT
(HTTP://LAWS.JUSTICE.GC.CA/EN/SHOWFULLDOC/CS/N-22///EN)

Dear Mr. Tweed,
Congratulations on your re-election earlier this month as Chairperson of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (TRAN).

I request that TRAN recommend to the House of Commons that proposed amendments to the
Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) be withdrawn from C-10, the Budget Implementation
Act (BIA) currently before the House.

I write as a concerned Canadian taxpayer and a person involved in shaping public policy through
my sharing with public officials of the results of certain cultural heritage research which I have
undertaken, through my writing and public presentations and through my involvement in the
public input phase of the development of public policy. My research has been influenced by long
term personal relationships with many Aboriginal leaders and by the nature of dialogue which I
have observed between Aboriginal leaders and government officials looking to integrate
Aboriginal perspectives into developing instruments of public policy. Respect for Aboriginal
consultation and perspectives also have been embedded into various recent federal and
provincial legislation. As a result of my background it is clear to me that Aboriginal people have
particular cause for concern about the proposed NWPA amendments and that TRAN has not
ensured sufficient, if any, input from Aboriginal people and has not assessed adequately, if at all,
the negative implications that implementation of the proposed amendments would have on
Aboriginal people.

In the interests of transparency and consistency with other legislation I believe that any
amendments to NWPA need to be considered separately and with comprehensive public input,
including Aboriginal input.

I have many concerns about the proposed NWPA amendments but let me highlight a few.

1. The proposed amendments to NWPA interfere with progress that in recent years has
characterized much of the positive dialogue between Aboriginal people and authorities in
provincial and federal governments. Aboriginal people with constitutional fishing rights are
impacted negatively by the proposed NWPA amendments more than most other Canadians since
free navigable access to all fish harvest areas guaranteed in treaties is essential if the treaties are
to be honoured. The notion of “minor waters” as proposed contravenes Canada’s commitments to
Aboriginal people under treaty obligations and under consultation and accommodation
requirements. Aboriginal people should not be cast as stakeholders since their relationship with
government is of a higher order than a stakeholder relationship. Implementation of the proposed
NWPA amendments will risk challenges to the Honour of the Crown. Challenges to the Honour of
the Crown would risk enormous taxpayer expenditure to rectify and could cause unnecessary
social disruption due to a “stick-in-the eye” approach from the federal government.

2. The impetus for the proposed amendments seem to flow from recommendations from
Transport Canada officials who appeared before TRAN on February 12, 2008 and relayed
requests for changes from a narrow segment of society represented by those interested in only
some proposed future economic needs (eg. ecotourism business needs so dependent on river
navigability apparently excluded) and in issues related to increases in the volume and variety of
uses of Canada’s waterways. TRAN also heard about a backlog of projects waiting for approval,
a backlog that could be reduced by development of new NWPA legislation.
(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3566517&Language=E&Mod
e=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&File=18). Such an impetus for legislated change to NWPA is ill founded
since it has a narrow focus on economic development, (and only some potential economic
development at that) to the exclusion of other interests in navigable waters. The ill founded
impetus shows a limited reactive stance rather than a stance built on a vision of the future where
economic variables are only one element in a complex web of interconnected issues, not the
least of which is a sustainable environment.

3. Under the proposed NWPA amendments the public right of navigation would change from a
public right that pre-dates Confederation to an activity subject to broad ministerial discretion of
unprecedented scope, allowing definition of classes of projects not requiring government approval
or environmental assessment and not subject to transparent disclosure, parliamentary review or
consultation with the public that the government is entrusted to protect. Such a process would
sidestep generally accepted accountability requirements, including those monitored by the
Auditor General and those espoused by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in
its Consultation on Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes
(http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/consultation_pkg_e.pdf). The proposed amendments reveal an
attitude of repairing harm to public interests after the fact rather than preventing harm in the first
place. I believe that the public interest would not be served by making the proposed NWPA
changes to such a fundamental and historic right of Canadians.

4. Under Part D, Inter-Departmental Assessment “Triggers”, of TRAN’s “PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE NWPA” TRAN recommended that “the government, in amending the
NWPA, ensure that the “trigger” mechanisms contained in other pieces of relevant legislation for
environmental assessments and fisheries habitat assessments are not done away with or
impeded.
(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3566517&Language=E&Mod
e=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&File=18).
This recommendation is naïve in the extreme. Passage of the NWPA recommendations would
indeed impede environmental assessments and fisheries habitat assessments and introduces the
notion of the legitimacy of compensation for lost fish habitat. The TRAN premise is unfounded if
one examines reality. Private sector hydro-electric works are subject to a much weaker
Environmental Assessment regime than those required by the NWPA. This is because municipal
roads, sewage and water infrastructure have been approved as one of the ten classes subject to
the streamlined “Class Environmental Assessment” (class EA) process rather than the more
comprehensive Individual Environmental Assessment (individual EA) process. At the Ontario
provincial level there are no Ministry of Environment protocols for assessing the cumulative and
synergistic effects of a proposal in a systematic way. Even after the famous 2008 Lafarge
Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) and Divisional Court decisions, more recently confirmed by
the Ontario Court of Appeal, affirmed the need to apply a ministry’s Statements of Environmental
Values in routine environmental decision-making, the Ontario Minister of the Environment still
exercised his sole discretionary power to reject well founded requests for an Individual
Environmental Assessment on a hydro-electric proposal which had no provision for fish passage.
This ministerial decision came forward even though American eel, a species which needs to
migrate back to the sea to spawn and now is listed as endangered in Ontario under the Ontario
Endangered Species Act 2007, was reaching extirpation levels in the watershed where the
proposal was made. Furthermore, despite the fanfare for the Endangered Species Act in Ontario,
an exception regulation, O. Reg. 242/08, was enacted under pressure from industry lobbies that
wish to avoid their responsibilities under the Act. The end result is a lack of protection for the fish
species from the legislation that promises such protection and was designed to provide that
protection.

Protections are no better at the federal level. Here also, the migratory American eel, highly
significant in historic Aboriginal life patterns of eastern Canada, is a lens through which clauses in
Canada’s Fisheries Act are coming under intense scrutiny. That scrutiny started to build in 2004
when the commercial fishery for eels closed on only the Ontario side of the Ottawa River
watershed, as the long Aboriginal history with eels in the Ottawa River Watershed as far north as
Temiskaming District became more widely known, and as it became apparent that Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (FOC) was continuing to drag its feet in addressing the federal Environment
Commissioner's 2001 criticism of FOC's weak protection strategy for American eel. Eight years
later, FOC continues to grapple with implementing protections for fish under the Fisheries Act. On
February 17, 2009 Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Gail Shea, responded to several questions
which I had posed to her last December. She noted that the questions which I raised are complex
and will require some time to prepare.

In short, TRAN should be under no illusion that the trigger mechanisms and protections which it
assumes are in place in environmental assessments and fisheries habitat assessments actually
are in place. Such is not the case.

5. The perceived need for changes to NRPA appears to have been eroded completely by the
federal government announcement that later in 2009 it plans to present a bill to reform the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. TRAN has not shown that it has consulted with a wide
range of environmental groups about this change since it started examining possible changes to
NRPA.

6. Although carefully considered infrastructure projects need to be implemented to stimulate short
term economy gains in Canada, this need should not carelessly remove safeguards that protect
Canada’s environment and that help to protect fish habitats required to meet government
biodiversity and species at risk commitments. TRAN has not shown that facilitation of short term
economic projects is in the best long term overall interests of Canadians.

7. Clearly, navigation is entirely under federal jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction alone. Except for
NWPA there are no laws or regulations in place to protect the public right of navigation in

Canada. The provinces have no jurisdiction over navigation and no ability to protect navigable
waters. It is inaccurate for TRAN to project partnerships with provinces as a means to address
Canadians’ navigation rights.
Given the seven points raised I request that TRAN recommend to the House of Commons that
proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) be withdrawn from C-10,
the Budget Implementation Act (BIA) currently before the House.

Thank you for considering this request.

William A. (Bill) Allen

Ecojustice Memorandum 2: The erosion of the public right to navigate on Canadian waterways by ...

Scott MacGregor — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:41:00 +0000

The erosion of the public right to navigate on Canadian waterways by the proposed
amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act

Date: February 19, 2009

Author: Will Amos, Staff Lawyer and Part-time Professor, uOttawa-Ecojustice
Environmental Law Clinic, with research assistance from Sam Sonshine, Yolanda Saito
and Ali Clarkson.

Download full document, memorandum_-_nwpa_amendments_-_ecojustice_2.pdf bytes 31/12/1969, 19:00

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) threaten the longstanding public right to navigation, including the right to recreational navigation. If the Budget Implementation Act is passed by the Government of Canada, these changes will grant the Transport Minister an unprecedented discretion to define “classes” of projects on waterways that do not require government approval or environmental assessment (EA). Furthermore, this discretion would not be checked or balanced by any public consultation, transparent disclosure or Parliamentary review.

Although the Government invokes the language of “red tape” and “duplication” with provincial processes, the simple fact is that navigation is a purely federal responsibility under the Constitution. Even when projects trigger provincial EA processes, these do not specifically require that the public right to navigation be considered. In short, both navigation and environmental rights are being sacrificed for short-term economic gain. The result will be less federal protection for the rivers, creeks, lakes and seas where Canadians paddle, raft, fish and play.

The effects will be felt by recreational and outdoors communities, from participants to ecotourism businesses. Examples of potential effects include:

Sea kayaking: Aquaculture farms may be established without providing a safe and effective navigation channel, which could effective sever sea kayak routes.
Fishing: Rivers with the potential of being restored for the purpose of reintegrating fish and aquatic life may not receive protection under the proposed amendments.
River Paddling: Canoeists and kayakers may face increasing obstacles in their riverways such as culverts and small-scale hydroelectric dams. Seasonal and remote wilderness waterways may no longer be protected.
Whitewater kayaking: Important sites may be considered to be not navigable and thus not protected due to the high number of “obstacles” along the waterway.

Ecojustice recommends that the proposed amendments be withdrawn from the Budget Implementation Act. At the very least, it would only be appropriate for the proposed changes to be considered more fully by all relevant constituencies in the spring of 2009, when the federal government has announced that it will be presenting a bill to reform the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Issue

Scott MacGregor — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:08:00 +0000

The Conservative government's proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) threaten the longstanding public right to navigation, including the right to recreational navigation. If the Budget implementation Act is passed, these changes will grant the Transport Minister an unprecedented discretion to define “classes” of projects on waterways that do not require government approval or environmental assessment (EA). Furthermore, this discretion would not be checked or balanced by any public consultation, transparent disclosure or Parliamentary review.

Although the Government invokes the language of “red tape” and “duplication” with provincial processes, the simple fact is that navigation is a purely federal responsibility under the Constitution. Even when projects trigger provincial EA processes, these do not specifically require that the public right to navigation be considered. In short, both navigation and environmental rights are being sacrificed for short-term economic gain. The result will be less federal protection for the rivers, creeks, lakes and seas where Canadians paddle, raft, fish and play.

The effects will be felt by recreational and outdoors communities, from participants to ecotourism businesses. Examples of potential effects include:

Whitewater kayaking: Important sites may be considered to be not navigable and thus not protected due to the high number of “obstacles” along the waterway.
Fishing: Rivers with the potential of being restored for the purpose of reintegrating fish and aquatic life may not receive protection under the proposed amendments.
River Paddling: Canoeists and kayakers may face increasing obstacles in their riverways such as culverts and small-scale hydroelectric dams. Seasonal and remote wilderness waterways may no longer be protected.
Sea kayaking: Aquaculture farms may be established without providing a safe and effective navigation channel, which could effectively sever sea kayak routes.

Open Letter to Parliament (Feb 20)

Scott MacGregor — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:51:00 +0000

We need to help Canadian politicians understand what is at risk if the proposed changes to the NWPA are passed into law.

Send your letter in one click at Sierra Club's website, here, or, download our open letter to Parliament, and send it to the below email addresses.

Write your elected Member of Parliament and Members of the Parliamentary committee for Transport Infrastructure and Communities, Finance Committee. List as follows, copy and paste into your email.

TweedM@parl.gc.ca, Volpe.J@parl.gc.ca, LafraM@parl.gc.ca, Bevington.D@parl.gc.ca, Brown.L@parl.gc.ca, Dhaliwal.S@parl.gc.ca, Gaudet.Ro@parl.gc.ca, Hoeppner.C@parl.gc.ca, Jean.B@parl.gc.ca, Kennedy.G@parl.gc.ca, MayesC@parl.gc.ca, WatsoJ@parl.gc.ca, tran@parl.gc.ca, Rajotte.J@parl.gc.ca, Laforest.J@parl.gc.ca, Pacetti.M@parl.gc.ca, Bernier.M@parl.gc.ca, Carrier.R@parl.gc.ca, Dechert.B@parl.gc.ca, Kramp.D@parl.gc.ca, McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, McKay.J@parl.gc.ca, Menzies.T@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Wallace.M@parl.gc.ca, Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca, Trudeau.J@parl.gc.ca, McGuinty.D@parl.gc.ca, Scarpaleggia.F@parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, Regan.G@parl.gc.ca, Tonks.A@parl.gc.ca, Rae.B@parl.gc.ca, Brison.S@parl.gc.ca

(For a clearer picture on who's who on the committees, click here.)

Feel free to also send your letter to:

your Member of Parliament (listed by riding; find your MP using your postal code)
Prime Minister, Steven Harper, Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
Minister of Transportation, John Baird, Baird.J@parl.gc.ca
National Manager responsible for the NWPA, Dave Osbaldeston, OSBALDD@tc.gc.ca
your provincial MPP, MLAs or territorial representatives (find them here)
Minister of Environment, Jim Prentice, Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca
Minister of Fisheries & Oceans, Loyola Hearn, Hearn.L@parl.gc.ca

Key Points for Letter Writing

Explain your views about the critical importance of protecting our heritage right of navigation and safeguarding the health of Canada's waterways.

Explain that removing the legal requirement for assessment of the environmental impacts of navigation on Canadian waterways will put thousands of rivers in Canada at risk.

Explain that you are extremely offended by the actions of the government of Canada, in seeking to remove the public access to and environmental protection of waterways through.

Explain that this is an assault on the rights of Canadians, an assault on the environment, and a very serious breach of public trust.

Our Position: Some Things We're Saying

The Canadian Rivers Network (CRN) is demanding that the federal Government withdraw the proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) that are currently contained in Part 7 of the Budget Implementation Act. This is not a budget issue, and should be treated as a separate piece of legislation and require proper stakeholder consultation.

Any changes to the NWPA must occur in the broader context of a comprehensive reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, due to occur in the spring of 2009. Such changes should be informed pursuant to consultation with environmental, paddling, ecotourism, as well as fishing and hunting groups.

If the federal Government decides to pursue these amendments, then the CRN demands that each of the Opposition parties publicly state their position on this issue.

Specifically, the CRN requests confirmation that each Opposition party is opposed to these amendments, and that they would repeal such changes if they were to form the next government.

Ecojustice Memorandum: Proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the ...

Scott MacGregor — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:21:00 +0000

Proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the erosion of public navigation rights on Canadian waterways

Date: February 9, 2009
Author: Will Amos, Staff Lawyer, uOttawa-Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, with research assistance from Yolanda Saito and Sam Sonshine

Download full document, memorandum_-_nwpa_amendments_in_budget_implementation_act_-_will_amos_-_uottawaecojustice_environmental_law_clinic_2.pdf 123.53 Kb 19/02/2009, 21:27

SUMMARY:
The Budget Implementation Act, 20091, an omnibus bill tabled by the Conservative Government on Friday, February 6, 2009, proposes a radical transformation of the regime that protects the navigability of Canada’s rivers and streams. The proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act2 (NWPA) would create a “tiered” or “class system” for Canadian navigable waterways, granting the Government a discretionary authority to identify waterways deemed worthy and unworthy of federal protection. Those waterways that are declassified would not be subject to the existing NWPA requirement that all works impacting navigable waters undergo an approval process. This approval process, which includes public notification and which triggers a federal environmental assessment, is at the core of the federal government’s clear constitutional jurisdiction over navigation and pursuant to s. 91(10) of the Constitution
Act, 1867. The amendments are intended to limit the applicability of the Act and hasten the approval process for works that interfere with the right of navigation. In the opinion of the author, these changes are an unnecessary form of deregulation that would undermine the government’s public trust duty to protect Canadians’ right to navigate waterways in a fair and transparent manner.

These proposed NWPA amendments will:

Limit navigation rights by impacting the long-standing right to navigate and enjoy free access to Canada’s waterways;
Deregulate the protection of navigable waterways by significantly narrowing the classes of waterways protected under the Act, and by granting both the Cabinet and the Transport Minister unfettered discretion to further exempt certain “classes of works” and “classes of waterways” from the approvals process under the Act;
Reduce transparency and accountability by eliminating the need for public notification and consultation on all projects that the Government determines not to “substantially” interfere with navigation.

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper's Radio Show Podcast on NWPA

Scott MacGregor — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:11:00 +0000

Sunk: The end of navigation rights in Canada (Feb 17, 2009)

Buried within the federal Budget Implementation Act are sweeping changes
to the Navigable Water’s Protection Act. This week, Krystyn and Mark
speak with Dr. Bob Bailey from the Canadian Outdoor Network, Peter
Karwacki of the Friends of the Kipawa River, and author Joseph Boyden on
the proposed changes and what they mean for navigation on Canadian
waterways.

Download podcast at: http://www.waterkeeper.ca/podcasts/2009-02-17_LAB_NWPA.mp3