Working Hard to Safeguard Paddling Assets for All Canadians

All about Whitewater

All about Whitewater
A Blog about River Preservation and the need to protect our free flowing whitewater resources

Friday, October 26, 2012

The link between the navigable waters protection act and the environment has been broken: Its the Wild West Again! Dammers, Pipeliners, Bridgers - Go Nuts!

 
 
 
 
 All from From Jamie Keen: at Mining Watch - except pictures from CTV.CA

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/10/26/harper-government-changed-course-on-navigable-waters-act-four-months-ago/ Harper government changed course on navigable waters act four months ago By James Munson | Oct 26, 2012 5:00 am On February 27 2004, Transport Canada decided the construction of a shellfish farm in Blind Bay, British Columbia needed an environmental assessment because of requirements in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Five years later, the facility — which required floats, weights and anchors to be placed in BC’s Georgia Strait — was approved after the outfit in charge of performing the assessment, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, concluded the project wouldn’t harm the environment. That seems like a pretty straightforward link between the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) and environmental policy, and for the better part of two decades examples like these were normal, even if the NWPA itself never mentions the environment. Just check any easily-available regulatory filings. In April of this year, Cenovus Energy was advised by Alberta’s environment department to go and see if the NWPA would trigger an assessment for a thermal project it was working on. Another random example from the government’s own mouth – Transport Canada explained to the town of Markham in a March 2008 letter that some approvals under the NWPA would mean an assessment. And it wasn’t only in the hidden corners of the public service that this relationship was well known. The Senate, in a 2009 report on previous changes to the NWPA, stated unequivocally that the act is linked to environmental policy. “The NWPA plays a wider role beyond that of protecting public navigational rights because the navigational approval process under the NWPA can trigger environmental assessments though the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,” says the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources’ report from June 2009. So when government ministers, in response to more changes to the NWPA being made in the most recent omnibus budget bill, began speaking as if the link never existed this week, the opposition New Democrats were understandably confused. Environment Minister Peter Kent reiterated the government’s position Thursday after he spoke at a luncheon in an Ottawa hotel. “The Navigable Waters Act provided for navigation,” said Kent. “The changes that were made to that act are under the Transport Ministry – they involved transport infrastructure.” Later, outside the House of Commons, the NDP’s environment critic Megan Leslie pointed out the government’s revised history. “What they’re trying to say is it has nothing to do about protecting environment and I beg to differ,” said Leslie “It’s a strong piece of environmental legislation, just like we know that the Fisheries Act was a strong piece of environmental legislation.” So who’s right? Technically, Kent. The NWPA in Leslie’s mind is the one that existed for the past two decades until June this year. The NWPA according to Kent has only existed for four months. The reason is an altogether different piece of law. Those who remember the spring’s omnibus budget bill will recall that changes to Canadian Environment Assessment Act (CEAA) were a big reason why the opposition opposed it. Alongside alterations to other acts impacting environmental policy, CEAA was repealed and replaced with a different act. The new act, called CEAA 2012, completely reformed the way the federal government performed environmental assessments for industrial projects. Under the old act, anytime a federal agency or department had to provide a license or grant some kind of approval, that federal body had to ask the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to perform an assessment. CEAA 2012 took away that trigger and replaced with more narrow requirements: the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would be called in if the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission needed an assessment, or if the environment minister designated an activity or a class of activities as requiring an assessment. So when someone would build something — like a shellfish farm for instance — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would spring into action and perform an assessment because the person behind the project would need government permission under the NWPA to proceed. But when the spring’s budget received royal assent on June 29 and CEAA 2012 replaced the old CEAA, that link between the NWPA and environmental policy was cut. So Kent’s right, at least since last Canada Day. -- Jamie Kneen, Communications & Outreach Coordinator, MiningWatch Canada Web: www.miningwatch.ca <http://www.miningwatch.ca/> - Facebook: MiningWatch <https://www.facebook.com/MiningWatch> - Twitter: @MiningWatch <https://twitter.com/MiningWatch>

No comments:

Canadian Rivers

Canadian Rivers
I speak for river users too!

The Queen is not amused!

The Queen is not amused!
http://www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca/

The Damned Dam - 2005 -

The Damned Dam - 2005 -
22nd Annual Kipaw Rally has modest turnout. - 23rd does better

The Ashlu river: it could happen to you

The Ashlu river: it could happen to you

Whitewater Ontario

Whitewater Ontario
Working Hard to Protect Canada's Paddling Resources

Whitewater Ontario - Mission Statement

It is Whitewater Ontario’s mission to support the whitewater paddling community through the promotion, development and growth of the sport in its various disciplines. We accomplish this through the development of events, resources, clubs, and programs for personal and athletic development, regardless of skill level or focus, to ensure a high standard of safety and competency; We advocate safe and environmentally responsible access and use of Ontario’s rivers. Whitewater Ontario is the sport governing body in the province, and represents provincial interests within the national body Whitewater Canada and the Canadian Canoe Association http://www.whitewaterontario.ca/page/mission.asp

Kipawa, Tabaret, and Opemican

Kipawa, Tabaret, and Opemican
If Hydro Quebec is not actively pursuing Tabaret what is that bite out of Opemican for?

Kipawa Dam: After

Kipawa Dam: After
Laniel Dam at 2006 Rally

Where is the Kipawa

Where is the Kipawa
Kipawa flows into lake Temiskamingue, running from Kipawa Lake, under hwy 101 in Quebec

Kipawa Dam

Kipawa Dam
laniel dam at 2004 River Rally

Tabaret is a Bad Idea

About the Kipawa



The best thing paddlers can do to help the cause of the Kipawa:

1. attend the rally and bring others including non paddlers to attend and buy beer and have fun

2. write your MP /MNA and raise the issue and post your objections -1 letter = 200 who didn't write

3. Write Thierry Vandal the CEO of Hydro Quebec strongly opposing the 132 MW standard decrying the use of "diversion" as the most environmentally inappropriate method of power production

4. Write Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec protesting that either the algonquin or the tabaret project will eliminate all other values on the Kipawa River by turning it into a dry gulch.

5. See if you can get other allied groups interested by showing your own interest, ie the Sierra Defense Fund, Earthwild, MEC, and so on.

6. Demand further consultation

7. Currently we are at the point where we need to sway public opinion and raise awareness.

However, if all else fails, don't get mad, simply disrupt, foment, and protest . The Monkey Wrench Gang.

Have you read Edward Abbey?

Important Addresses
CEO,Hydro Québec, 75 boul René Levesque, Montreal, P.Q., H2Z 1A4Caille.andre@hydro.qc.ca



Tabaret is a Bad Idea (Part Two)

Les Amis de la Riviere Kipawa is poised to use an application to the Federal Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to ensure the Minster does what he is supposed to do, protect the public's right to navigate the water control structure at Laniel, Quebec using the Navigable Waters Protection Act. (see http://www.kipawariver.ca/)

In the now gutted Navigable Waters Protection Act lay the means by which the Minister of Transport could keep the public right of passage down our great Canadian Heritage, our rivers and streams which are threatened especially by resource corporations and power brokers such as Hydro Quebec.

These powerful entities continue to petition that 'this' river or 'that' stream is not navigable and therefore not protectable.
I don't say that dams and bridges should not be built, only that if they are, historical navigation rights should be considered and preserved by making reasonable accommodations for recreational boaters.

It is the Minister of Transport, in exercising the right to allow or disallow work on or over a navigable waterway is what keeps boats and recreational boaters plying our waterways.

To many recent cases launched in the Federal Court concerning the Navigable Waters Protection Act, most recently the case of the Humber Environment Group of Cornerbrook Newfoundland versus the Cornerbrook Pulp and Paper Company indicates that the important oversight is not being faithfully performed. Have we really come to the point now where we must say "such and such a stream is one foot deep, possessing so many cubic feet per second flow and so on?" The answer to this is... YES!

The honourable Mr. Justice John A. O'Keefe, ruled that it had not been shown that the river was navigable. How convenient was that to the Minister? But either the Minister of Transport acts to protect our rivers and streams as a public right or he does not and that means rivers and streams currently enjoyed by kayakers and canoists.

Enough of the cheating, and double-talk. Canadians! our rivers and streams are our own, lets urge the Minister of Transport and the our government to protect them.

Peter Karwacki

Tabaret is a Bad Idea (Part Three)

10 Reasons WhyTabaret is a Bad Idea1) Tabaret is too big. The station is designed to useevery drop of water available in the Kipawawatershed, but will run at only 44 percent capacity.We believe the Tabaret station is designed to usewater diverted from the Dumoine River into theKipawa watershed in the future. 2) The Tabaret project will eliminate the aquaticecosystem of the Kipawa River.The Tabaret project plan involves the diversion of a16-km section of the Kipawa River from its naturalstreambed into a new man-made outflow from LakeKipawa. 3) Tabaret will leave a large industrial footprint on thelandscape that will impact existing tourismoperations and eliminate future tourism potential. 4) The Tabaret project is an aggressive single-purposedevelopment, designed to maximize powergeneration at the expense of all other uses. 5) River-diversion, such as the Tabaret project, takinglarge amounts of water out of a river’s naturalstreambed and moving it to another place, is verydestructive to the natural environment. 6) The Kipawa River has been designated a protectedgreenspace in the region with severe limitations ondevelopment. This designation recognizes theecological, historical and natural heritage value ofthe river and the importance of protecting it.Tabaret will eliminate that value. 7) If necessary, there are other, smarter and morereasonable options for producing hydro power onthe Kipawa watershed. It is possible to build a lowimpactgenerating station on the Kipawa river, andmanage it as a “run-of-the-river” station, makinguse of natural flows while maintaining other values,with minimal impact on the environment. 8) The Kipawa watershed is a rich natural resource forthe Temiscaming Region, resonably close to largeurban areas, with huge untapped potential fortourism and recreation development in the future.Tabaret will severely reduce this potential. 9) Tabaret provides zero long-term economic benefitfor the region through employment. The plan is forthe station to be completely automated andremotely operated. 10) The Kipawa River is 12,000 years old. The riverwas here thousands of years before any peoplecame to the region. The Tabaret project will change all that.

Problems on a local River?

  • There is more to do as well but you have to do your research and above all, don't give up.
  • IN the meantime prepared a document itemizing the history of navigation of this spot and its recreational value. Use the Kipawa river history of navigation as a guide: see www.kipawariver.ca
  • Under the Ministry of Environment guidelines you have a set period of time to petition the change under the environmental bill of rights, you may have limited time to take this action. But it involves going to court for a judicial review of the decision.
  • 4. contact the ministry of natural resources officials and do the same thing.
  • 3. contact the ministry of the environment and determine if they approved the project
  • 2. determine if the dam was a legal dam, approved under the navigable waters protection act.
  • 1. research the decision and timing of it to determine if an environmental assessment was done.

Minden Ontario

Minden Ontario
Gull River Water control at Horseshoe lake

A History of Navigation on the Kipawa River

Prior to the environmental assessment there was no signage at the Laniel Dam

T-Shirts Area: These are available now!

T-Shirts Area: These are available now!
Send $25 and a stamped self addressed envelop for the Tshirt, and for the bumper sticker, a stamped and self addressed envelope with $5.00 for the bumper sticker to Les Amis de la rivière Kipawa, 80 Ontario St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1K 1K9 or click the link To purchase a Les Amis "T" contact Doug with the following information: Number of shirts:Sizes: Ship to Address: Method of Payment: cash, cheque and paypal, Shipto address:

Bumper Stickers Now Available

Bumper Stickers Now Available
Get your bumper sticker and show your support for the Kipawa Legal Fund ! - send $5.00 in a Stamped, self addressed envelope to: Peter Karwacki Box 39111, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 7X0