The Shape of Things to come

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 has been the Minister of Transport, in exercising the right to allow or disallow work on or over a navigable waterway that kept boats and recreational boaters plying our waterways.

The 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 indicate that the important oversight of the MOT is not being faithfully performed - why, the very person in charge of the National NWPA is bending over backwards to issue permits: David Osbaldeston. Refer to his testimony in the trans committee.


"We've not had a lot of push-back from the recreational canoe and kayak associations. I'm aware of the association that has provided the brief--the Friends of the Kipawa--and I think I've mentioned before that we are in litigation with them over a certain situation right now, which doesn't need to be discussed here.
However, I think the essence of the canoe and kayak situation is that the recommendations we have proposed here or the concepts we have here for review we don't think limit their paddling or kayaking capability. Indeed, we outlined to you previously--I believe it was in our March letter, which we sent to you--what type of criteria we would be considering if we were going to take a look at non-navigable waterways, and it would be water that was too shallow to paddle and too narrow to paddle, or you'd be going back and forth and sideways so often in such a short span of time that it wouldn't be reasonable. You wouldn't be going forward or have any forward progress. Or it would be too steep, if it were waterfalls. It's that sort of thing. That's not where the agencies for reasonable canoeists or kayakers are canoeing or kayaking, so we would see a very limited impact, if any.”


Here is another Gem from Dave...

In a changed act,
"…you could come to us and maybe we'd review it and issue you one document for the 3,000 bridges--maybe…”


What is the veracity of this exchange?

Mr. Brian Jean (TRAN 30/3 juin 2008-§1215) :

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3543792&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2#Int-2505693

“…But to be fair, is there anywhere in this that we are proposing to reduce any navigation by Canadians—for instance, for canoeists, etc.? Have you heard anybody here today or anybody prior to this in dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act say that we want to reduce navigation in Canada?”

Mr. David Osbaldeston:

“No, absolutely not. Our mandate stays the same, and that is to protect the public right of navigation.”