Further to your interview with Jay Morrison, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society concerning the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act... the 8 hours of committee hearings specifically excluded recreational, paddling or environmentalist groups. The change to the act is problematic regardless of the lack of democratic process involved in the change. Let's be frank, putting changes of this sort in an omnibus bill make it very difficult to organize debate. Liberals can complain that it was the conservatives' fault but they agreed to it nonetheless. Conservatives had the opportunty to allow debate and instead prorogued the house. What is the hurry here?
The Navigable waters Protection Act even in its antiquated form gave environmentalists the opportunity to organize and oppose certain projects as necessary and as they were affected by them. It is exactly this time provided to environmentalists, and uncertainty provided to developers that was problematic. NGO's would try to slow down projects and in some cases launch judicial reviews. This has now been taken away in favour of absolute Ministerial discretion. We have some insight into how this has hurt us in the past.
Ms. Petty said, "what do you do... look for examples when the Minster of Transport doesn't do the proper, responsible thing - authorizing certain things"
Well we do know that the person in charge of the NWPA Program, has tried to exempt streams and rivers that are too narrow, too steep, too windy. All the fun stuff! saying these were not the sort of thing a reasonable paddling organization would be concerned about. .. To the contrary! This is the person who is advising the Minister.. Baird!
In the case of the friends of the Kipawa river, Liberal Transport Lapierre Minister, announced the approval of a project before the respective Environmental Assessment was completed. The ensuing judicial review, paid for via bake sales, silent auctions and raffles, organized in the public interest revolved around the navigable waters protection act at the time these changes were being initially promolgated within the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry officials did everything they could to keep the plaintiff in the dark. Finally the Supreme court refused to hear the case on appeal and no wonder given that that entire act was being gutted.
In future, what chance would some so called minor stream have? I'll tell you, it will have none!