Discussing changes to the NWPA - the barn door is open, the horse ran back in, and the barn is on fire!

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Diving+into+Navigable+Waters/7478309/story.html
 
Diving into Navigable Waters
OTTAWA CITIZEN OCTOBER 31, 2012
Bruno Schlumberger, Ottawa Citizen
 
Photograph by: Bruno Schlumberger , The Ottawa Citizen
 
Does the federal government have a role to play in construction of the 
cottage docks and waterslides of the nation?
 
Canada’s Navigable Waterways Protection Act — which dates back to 1882 
and was brought in under Sir John A. Macdonald — says the federal 
government has a role in anything that could interfere with the 
navigation of Canada’s lakes, river and ocean shores. Common law 
supports that. The federal government, which is attempting to streamline 
the act as part of its latest omnibus budget bill, says its current role 
is far too broad.
 
The federal government has a point that the act, whose purpose is to 
protect the public’s right to navigation, is ripe for tweaking or even 
major amendments. Should it really be an issue for the federal 
government what size docks are (in some cases) or whether de-icing 
bubblers are installed near them?
 
Still, the federal government has failed to clearly make the case about 
how it is going about changing the 130-year-old act, except to say that 
it is cutting red tape and the changes are being welcomed by many 
municipalities. “A new streamlined approach to navigation law will cut 
red tape while resources are focused on Canada’s busiest waterways,” 
Transport Minister Denis Lebel wrote in the letter to the Citizen. 
Earlier, he told the House of Commons, “This act has created a 
bureaucratic black hole, holding up simple projects that do not impede 
navigation.”
 
Cutting red tape can cover a multitude of sins and should not be offered 
as a catch-all explanation for doing away with government oversight. In 
many cases red tape — even the most annoying kind (think airport 
security) — serves a necessary purpose. The real test is whether acts 
and laws achieve a necessary goal and do so without causing further 
harm. Lebel argues that the act causes harm by holding up simple 
projects, but is it also preventing harm?
 
The act was amended in 2009 to remove most minor works — including many 
cottage docks — and minor waterways, a change that made sense. The 
government now proposes removing most lakes from protection under the 
act. The new act, contained in the government’s second omnibus budget 
bill, includes a list of 97 lakes, 62 rivers and three oceans that 
retain protection under the act. For the remaining thousands of lakes in 
the country, there would no longer be a requirement for federal approval 
for construction to protect the right to navigation.
 
Including such major, and historic, changes in the omnibus budget bill 
means they will have less scrutiny and chance for thoughtful amendment 
than if the changes had been introduced independently.
 
More time would give the federal government a better chance to explain 
how it selected 97 lakes and 62 rivers to include among the inland 
waterways that will continue to have federal protection. Transport 
Canada has produced a complex formula that it says was used to select 
the proposed scheduled waterways. It includes information that looks at 
how busy the waterways are with recreational and commercial traffic, how 
much infrastructure there is, such as wharfs, their historic importance, 
proximity to heavily populated areas and more. The department notes that 
it could add to the list over time.
 
The government argues its selection process was scientific, yet an 
analysis by Citizen reporter Glen McGregor points out that the vast 
majority of those waterways listed happen to be in Tory ridings. 12 
alone are in the Muskoka riding of Treasury Board President Tony 
Clement, including Lake Rousseau which has some of the most expensive 
cottage real estate in North America, some of it owned by Hollywood 
celebrities.
 
Coincidence? It could well be. But the list itself and the process of 
selecting waterways deserves more scrutiny. Why should only lakes near 
large population centres be protected under the act? Do Canadians not 
also have navigation rights to more remote lakes? And is protection 
under the law something that benefits local property owners or is a 
hindrance to them? And what effect would the changes have on the 
environment or large resource projects near more remote waterways?
 
The law has been there since Sir John A. was in office. That suggests 
that it was due for review, but also that it deserves to be modernized 
with care.
 
Ottawa Citizen