Thursday, August 21, 2008
A question to politicians regarding proposed changes to the NWPA
A question for Stephane Dion,the Liberal Party and any other political wannabees
Answers will be posted on the "I Speak for Canadian Rivers Site" www.canadianrivers.com and forwarded to the more than 100 various outdoor user groups now aware of this and making statements on their web sites.
...My question deals with the proposed changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The majority of modern Canadians are completely unaware of the great gifts that this piece of legislation has given us. This legislation is almost as old as the country and was put in place with great foresight by the early Canadian governments, a country which was built on the ability of an open canoe to navigate the vast water resources that we so sadly continue to exploit.
This act, enshrined in law, drafted to give all Canadians access to that resource and to protect that water for future generations the ability to canoe, kayak, power boat, to fish and to hunt, much the same as Canadians 100 years ago, except instead of doing it to survive we do it for recreation.
In the recent past Canadians have learned to use the act for protection of their water ways because the act required that "works" be advertised, giving a chance for concerned citizens to voice their concerns over proposed works. If Canadians even 40 years ago showed the same concern for their environment we would not be using huge amounts of tax dollars to rehabilitate the many cement ditches and destroyed urban watersheds.
At the 11th hour, various out door groups became aware of the proposed changes to the act by the TRAN committee, Chaired by Conservative member of Parliament Merv Tweed of the riding Brandon-Souris and what we found very unsettling was the fact that the stakeholders that were made aware of these meetings were very one-sided (no outdoor user groups were properly invited or made aware of the hearings).
As a Canadian in what is supposed to be a democratic country I found this treatment and their responses towards the outdoor user groups completely unacceptable and frightening.
We can understand the need for changes,
We can also understand the need for a fast track mechanism to build infrastructure projects.
But we also understand that these works need to be done in an environmentally way as to safeguard the health of the watersheds.
There should be approved construction/water treatment processes that evolve with technological advancements.
We also believe that the Canadian public should not have to subsidize industry so that they may profit. A case in point is the 16 lakes/watersheds that have been requested to be made into tailing ponds.
These are just more “Sydney tar ponds” disasters in the making, If the costs of protecting the environment makes the business of mineral or resource extraction unprofitable then the taxpayer shouldn’t make up the difference.
How can we protect/preserve National Parks such as Nahanni, let alone the few areas of old growth forests and urban water sheds that are left with the “Gutting” of our environmental laws that has taken place over the last couple of years?
There is definitely a pattern here where industries cry poor and can not create employment or compete with other international companies, they then lobby, change the laws so that their profit margins increase, and then leave environmental disaster areas, and then claim they do not need to pay for the clean up because it was done under existing laws.
The proposed changes to the Navigable water act are a perfect example of this, and by also denying/removing our heritage rights to access these areas, alarm bells can not be sounded to the desecration of these water sheds.
What is your position on the changes to the Navigable waters Protection Act?
Are you going to ensure that the present right to navigate “small waters” be enshrined in new legislation?
Are you going to restore the right of Canadians to be properly notified and be involved in shaping Canada’s future in this and other committee hearings?
Jeff McColl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Useful Links
- Mount Gox - Bitcoin exchange
- Reggie Middleton's Rapier Analysis
- Ontario Rivers Alliance
- Geodesic Dome Construction
- Canadian Disaster Preparedness
- Globe and Mail
- Chris' The Weekly Telegram
- Michael Rupert of CollapseNet
- Max Keiser
- Nicole Foss Blog - the automatic earth
- Peak Moment Discussions
- Scotia Mocatta Bullion Store
- Dimitry Orlov - Peak Moment Discussions
- Jims's ISFCR Blog
- Jenny Right Side Blog
- Scott Sorensen
Alternative Energy Sites I like
The Queen is not amused!
The Ashlu river: it could happen to you
Whitewater Ontario
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 Dam: After
Where is the Kipawa
Kipawa Dam
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
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
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.