home who we are projects support us weekly feature newsroom community sitemap
 
Changes to the NWPA: Backgrounder
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, Sierra Club of Canada, Ecojustice Press Release
February 23rd, 2009
  

The NWPA mandates that, if someone wants to build something in, on, around, under, over, or through a navigable waterway, such projects are subject to an assessment of the impacts on navigation (ability to canoe, kayak, go rafting, etc) and an environmental assessment (in accordance with CEAA) before they can be approved.

Thus, the amendments to the NWPA that were recently included in Part 7 of the federal government’s Budget Implementation Act (Bill C-10) will have repercussions for both access to and environmental protection of Canada’s waterways.

These amendments include:

  • The removal of the four named works (bridges, causeways, dams, and booms) as obstructions to navigation
  • Granting the Minister the authority to create “classes of works” and “classes of navigable waters” – ie: separating them into “major” and “minor” categories –and exempt them from all or part of the Act as the Minister deems fit
  • Granting the Minister sole discretion to determine what constitutes a “significant interference with navigation”

Not only have the above amendments been proposed without proper stakeholder input, but this new Ministerial discretion would not be checked or balanced by any public consultation, transparent disclosure or Parliamentary review.

The NWPA was originally enacted in 1882. It is one of Canada’s oldest pieces of legislation, and there is no doubt that some parts of the Act may need to be modernized—however, in the name of “cutting red tape” to speed up the building of infrastructure projects and stimulate the economy, the federal government is introducing harmful amendments that were recommended in a report dated June 2008 by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which failed to consult Canada’s outdoor recreation, outfitter and ecotourism, First Nations, angler and hunter, and environmental communities, all affected stakeholders.

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.

These effects will be felt by recreational and outdoors communities, from participants to ecotourism businesses. A few examples of potential effects include:

  • Sea kayaking: Aquaculture farms may be established without providing a safe and effective navigation channel, which could effectively 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 waterways 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.

Potential environmental effects of the proposed amendments include:

  • Obstruction of migratory fish populations
  • Increased water toxicity levels, interfering with ecosystem health
  • Increased water temperatures, interfering with the ability of fish to reproduce

The Canadian Rivers Network (CRN) has one key request for the federal government:

Decouple the proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act from Bill C-10, the Budget Implementation Act.

These changes to the NWPA are not a budgetary matter, and should be treated as a separate piece of legislation, with a transparent process that allows for adequate stakeholder consultation.

Bill C-10, the BIA, is expected to go to a special joint meeting of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities committee and the Finance committee on Monday. Representatives of the Canadian Rivers Network and other organizations will be making brief presentations to encourage the federal government to treat the amendments to the NWPA as a bill of its own, separate from Bill C-10.

For more information:

 

Websites: www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca, www.waterkeeper.ca, www.ecojustice.ca

Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=7203&post=30045&uid=54338330449#/group.php?gid=54338330449&ref=ts

Facebook Cause: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/214743?m=f6a2e5a8

Twitter: www.twitter.com/SaveNWPA


  

Other stories like this one ...

About Waterkeeper
(Most recent of 678 articles) Canada
(Most recent of 2472 articles) Drink
(Most recent of 3872 articles) Environmental Law
(Most recent of 5812 articles) Fish
(Most recent of 5875 articles) Press Releases
(Most recent of 104 articles) Swim
(Most recent of 2376 articles)
 
Changes to the NWPA: Backgrounder | Arctos Canadensis wrote:
February 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

[...] Changes to the NWPA: Backgrounder [...]

Jack Goering wrote:
February 24th, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Re:- 16 lakes to be used as dumps for tailings and Bill C-10.

In 1970 I was a member of a canoeing party of 6 which was travelling from Point Lake NWT to Yellowknife as part of the North West Territories Centennial.

Another party of 6 travelled from Point Lake to Coppermine on coronation Gulf.

The planning for this event was arranged by Eric Morse and the NWT Centennial Committee so that these 2 parties would retrace the route of Sir John Franklin in 1820-21 150 years earlier.

The party travelling to Yellowknife stopped at Winter Lake at what was thought to be the site of Fort Enterprise. While there on July 28, 1970, we met a group from the Department of Archaeology from the University of Alberta, who were working on finding the remains of Fort Enterprise.

I understand that Winter Lake is one of the 16 lakes to be used as a tailings pond.

This is unacceptable. This lake and its environs should be a Heritage Site and fully protected.

I am astonished at the possibility of this important area even being considered for a dump.

Every effort must be taken to prevent this from happening.

I have photographic and written evidence to back up my comments.

Jack Goering, 333 Lakeshore Road, Port Hope, ON, L1A 1R2

Invent Civil » Canada’s Budget Implementation: Bill C-10 wrote:
February 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

[...] Visit the page by Lake Ontario Waterkeeper [...]