I Speak for Canadian Rivers is a popular site that has more background information about the navigation issue, the organizations who are working on this, as well as other tools. It’s here at: http://www.ispeakforrivers.ca/

All About Whitewater is a blog that has lots of information as well: http://www.allaboutwhitewater.blogspot.com/

Friends of the Kipawa River have a bilingual site with information here: http://www.kipawariver.ca/

Sierra Club of Canada is working on the issue as well: http://sierraclub.ca/national/media/item.shtml?x=2871

Ecojustice has a review of the legislation, but I can’t find a weblink yet.

As President of the Alberta Fish & Game Association and Co-Chair of the Alberta Outdoor Coalition, I must tell you that the changes to the NWPA are cause for serious concern. Alberta is a province with relatively few rivers and many of what we here consider to be bigger or large rivers, rarely maintain an average flow of over 1 meter in depth. The changes to the act would subject our water ways big and small to commercial, industrial and private exploitation with out regard for the environment, habitat, fisheries, wildlife and access. Water in our province is already on under very high demand; it should be regarded as a source of life, a critical part of our environment not an economical commodity or worst yet an obstacle to progress (profits). Without the protection provided in the original act, which is already poorly enforced in Alberta, we can only project irreversible damages and changes to our waters, fish and wildlife, habitat…our quality of life. Here we have long asked for stronger legislation and a more visible DFO staff and enforcement. On one hand our law makers speak and promote “green” playing the part of concerned global citizen on the stage built on global warming while on the other, willingly showing no appreciation for what we have now that is good and should be conserved.

What changes to the Fishereis Act and the Environmental Protection Act are being proposed to make the changes to NWPA work?

The NWPA amendments are a good thing… in the end it will provide more protection for back country paddlers and the environment, than at present.

Presently a foot bridge over a navigable stream in the woods has to go through the same approval process as the fixed link to PEI… these are the impediments that the amendments are trying to fix.

In the present act…no bridge, boom, dam or causeway could ever be exempted from the act, no matter what the size of waterway or work in question… the new act will allow for this under strict conditions.

Greater officer powers and much larger fines are also in the new act… presently developers factor in menial fines and administrative delays caused by the old act because they know it’s toothless, and it’s is mearly an administrative process where no one gets rejected… developers will have plenty to fear with the new act.

In short any officers of the NWP I’ve met are kayak conscious, and environmentalists at heart…. the amendments are much needed to bring this ancient legislation into the real world.

Navigation is a treasured public right…. I hope it gets past so we give Transport Canada the power to protect it.

I have been workinghard here in the north on this issue and am looking forward to i hope a hard fought victory. The purposed changes were an incredible insult to all Canadians. I was surprised at the difficulty I had in convincing folks to been look and the almost lackn of reponse from some of the groups was alos hard to believe. Very thankful for all that stepped up to the plate and pitched in. we did however get good support from out MP Dennis Bevington and that was great. I wish all of the presenters at this evenings affair thr e very best and we are withthem in spirit. Cheers Sincerly Greg Loftus

Hello Boonzer,

In response to your comments posted above and on another article (http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2009/02/20/carol-hughes-navigable-waters-changes/#comment-14620), we’re happy to respond some of your statements:

“This is so wildly inaccurate it’s crazy…. people do your own research.”

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has undertaken substantial research on the proposed changes to the NWPA. Links to transcripts and clause-by-clause analysis are above.

“The NWPA amendments are a good thing… in the end it will provide more protection than at present.”

We disagree with this analysis. If you have specific clauses that you can point to that demonstrate where the increased protections to the environment are, that would be most helpful.

“Presently a culvert over a swollen ditch in front of your house has to go through the same approval process as the fixed link to PEI… these are the impediments that the amendments are trying to fix.”

This is incorrect. The Canadian Environmental Assessment process has three tiers of scrutiny, ranging from independent panel review to self-assessment screening report. What’s more, the NWPA does not apply to waterways that are not navigable, nor does it apply to projects that do not interfere substantially with navigation.

“In the present act…no bridge, boom, dam or causeway could ever be exempted, no matter what the size… the new act will allow for this under strict conditions…. ie: the ditch in front of your house could be exempted instead of 6 months of approval process and an expensive EA plus the crane to move your car back and forth into the drive way.”

It is incorrect to say that there are “strict conditions” for exemption. No such conditions exist. Furthermore, the changes allow the Minister and/or cabinet to make decisions without being subject to Parliamentary oversight, Access to Information, or public notice.

“Greater officer powers and much larger fines are also in the new act… presently developers factor in menial fines and administrative delays caused by the old act because they know it’s toothless… developers will have more to fear with the new act.”

It is true that there are greater officer’s powers and larger fines. However, the absence of meaningful prohibitions make these powers fairly meaningless.

“In short the amendments are much needed to bring this ancient legislation into the real world.”

We have noticed that the common rhetoric being used by those in favor of the amendments has been that the NWPA is in need of “streamlining” or “modernization”. With all due respect, the age of the Act is irrelevant, particularly in the context of individual rights and freedoms.

Thank you for writing, we encourage debate and discussion. If you can point to specific sections of the new legislation that bolster your argument, that would be very helpful.

Definitely not a step in the right direction… If anything, waterway protection should be increased while ensuring that the regulation of waterways is transparent and receptive to input from the general public. I can only hope that the government doesn’t disappoint once again by going ahead with this 3rd world country mentality.

“Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has undertaken substantial research on the proposed changes to the NWPA. Links to transcripts and clause-by-clause analysis are above”….

This is clearly not true… 100 years of history and several lawyers have yet to figure out a 10 page present act….I doubt that you guys have have a lock on the whole image… interpretation is in the hands of the reader.

You mention CEAA (Canadain Environmental Assessment Act), it has nothing to do with the NWPA, other than the NWPA being a lawlist trigger for CEAA …that is the only connection… this connection still exists in the new amendments.

You seem to be terrified that some parlimentarian is “going to pull a fast one” and sneak in something you dislike?? They are voted in by your hand and voted out by yours as well…

We’ll see how it goes

Boonzer. Thanks so much for your numerous comments. Please feel free to call our office any time as well. Our number is 416.861.1237. I would be more than happy to discuss the amendments and our analysis with you.

To all of our website readers, thank you for being engaged in these issues and the same applies: We are happy to talk about these issues any time so don’t hesitate to contact us personally. I also encourage folks to join us at the Canadian Heritage Rivers Conference to be held in June, 2009. Waterkeeper will be presenting a paper on navigation rights in Canada and it should be a fantastic session.

Cheers,
Krystyn

Last one…. I’m an ocean contractor, and here is the loop hole I use all the time…. if I have a poject that is borderline with it’s effect on navigation, and I know it’s going to be formally approved, or cause outrage in a community…. I’ll start it prior to approval or application so that it will be covered under 6(4) of the act as opposed to 5(1) which allows me the possibility to side step the CEAA process and get an exclusion and save some money….. these kind of loop holes need to be repaired…. there is no fear in me doing this becasue I know the act is toothless….nothing is ever going to be removed…and if it ever was, chances are the government would hire me to do it.
It’s an administrative process…nothing more. Now that I see areas that had never been built up before, getting built up….this act needs to change to protect it… we’ve reached maximum occupancy

[...] good people at Lake Ontario Waterkeeper have been following the issue surrounding changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and are a great resource for information on this and the other issues facing Lake Ontario [...]

We at Canoe Sailing Magazine stand squarely behind you on this. We are proud to bring your message to our own world-wide audience.

All too often, short-sighted businesses and governments take steps to line their own pockets at the expense of not only the environment, but generations of people who would enjoy and profit from an environment kept as natural and unimpeded as possible. Your question–and publicity–should revolve around who stands to profit from this proposed change. Drag them out from under their rocks and expose them for what they are. The court of public opinion will have an impact.

Teddy Roosevelt knew the environment had to have reasonable protection, thus he began the US’s National Park System in the face of vehement, well-funded opposition from business men/robber barons.

Don’t give an inch (or millimeter)on this issue!

Please keep up the good work. I, too, am behind you on this. Following is the link to Ecojustice mentioned in your first comment:

http://envirolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/memorandum-nwpa-amendments-in-budget-implementation-act-will-amos-uottawaecojustice-environmental-law-clinic.pdf

Further, the Canadian Park And Wildlife Service has a link to Democracy in Action to help send a message to Jim Flaherty, since Bill C-10 is now in the hands of the Senate’s Finance Committee after being passed by Parliament and has also passed second reading by the Senate. One has to understand that the NWPA amendments are buried in this Bill on the budget and the point is to have it removed an submitted to due process. PLEASE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK AND TAKE TIME TO SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO MR FLAHERTY; TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2463/t/1659/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26735

[...] http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2009/02/11/research-conclusions-regarding-the-amended-navigable-waters-pro… [...]

The Senate stampede…. Bill C-10 has gone through the senate with no changes

Boonzer, the steps you describe in #10 were accomplished by PWGSC with the approvals of Transport Canada, Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, for the refurbishment of the Laniel Dam on the Kipawa River.
I think you are naïve if you really think the NWPA amendments will give a better protection for navigation rights of paddlers: the feds strive to eradicate paddler’s navigation rights and with the C-10 they got the tools they needed.

[...] The Harbour Commission was a holdover from the way the federal government ran ports in the 20th Century. Every other Harbour Commission in the country was either eliminated, downloaded, or, in a handful of cases, replaced by a Port Authority under the Canada Marine Act. (It was this Act, incidentally, that first sparked Lake Ontario Waterkeeper’s interest in the management of our harbours and federal issues such as navigable waters.) [...]

Waterways are a natural passage through the land, and are a right of way. I have concerns that the term ” Navigable Waters ” may be used as a way to restrict mobility of Canadians in small streams or lakes. How will existing law or proposed new laws address this issue? As to the matter of enforcement of existing laws, what would it take to protect mobility rights, and environmental quality?

[...] is a good article here explaining the changes to our NWPA done by the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. Green energy . . . I don't see any green here! Picture of [...]