Who is David Schindler and what does he know anyway?

[CEAA-LCÉE] The Harper Decade: The Erosion of Environmental Protection and Public Environmental Information

Read, or listen to, this devastating commentary from the great David Schindler.

http://www.theharperdecade.com/blog/2015/4/18/the-erosion-of-environmental-protection-and-public-environmental-information

THE HARPER DECADE
CANADA HAS CHANGED


The Erosion of Environmental Protection and Public Environmental Information

MAY 07, 2015 BY DAVID SCHINDLER

The Navigable Waters Protection Act

The Navigable Waters Protection Act was weakened via its inclusion in an omnibus bill. It became the Navigation Protection Act, removing provisions that would have challenged or delayed the construction of pipelines, bridges, dams and other major projects in order to protect navigation. 

These same provisions were historically important to protecting aquatic ecosystems from harm. Most of the discussion in parliamentary committee regarding this topic was about expediting industrial development, not about protecting the environment, navigation, or the rights of indigenous people potentially affected by the changes.

The Harper Government has used omnibus bills to reduce protection of Canadian wildlife, plants, and their habitats, including marine habitats, by eliminating consultation with experts and concerned stakeholders and putting decision-making in the hands of politicians and their appointees. 

These changes have been made to ease the way for industrial development, and have the additional benefit of reducing citizen involvement and understanding in the process.

Whitewater Ontario's Minden is being pressed to divert for power

Here is the ongoing discussion:

Whitewater Ontario wants a hydroelectric diversion put in!!!!! Email them how you feel about this. Let's Dam WO, AND NOT THE GULL RIVER.

Welcome to Whitewater Ontario
Whitewater Ontario
WHITEWATERONTARIO.CA
Share
Jeff McColl, Jon Ward and 2 others like this.

Wayne Donison Not a true statement.
12 hrs

Billy Harris What should it say?
10 hrs

Robert Koloshuk It's a true statement unless the advocacy committee presents a resounding 'NO' at the board meeting. So if it's not a true statement than prove it Wayne!
1 · 11 hrs

Billy Harris Hold on Wayne. Do you want this project to go through?
11 hrs

Billy Harris I don't care what carrot or sweetener a corporation slathered on this it's a corp wanting to put a hydro electric project in and kayakers say no to that. Leave the gull b!
11 hrs

Kevin Maggs Ok, So Wayne is on the Volunteer W/O Board. Wayne who was part of the fight to save the Kipawa, Ran the Rally at least one year. Was part of that big rally in Ottawa to fight against the dam that threatened the entire Kipawa watershed. You know the one that Esprit organized? Maybe you missed it. Has attended more HOHW events than you have Billy and he lives more than 45 minutes away. As part of W/O has the negotiated paddler access to various Marmora area rivers. Was the main one responsible for saving access to the lower Irvine with a Landowner agreement. Before being on W/O spent hours on a committee to remove a dam on the Grand, then hours fighting for access to the Grand when a developer wanted to close access. I don't know but I kind of think if he is on the case, things might not be so dire. It's not like he'd rather be paddling than spending hours in meetings about yet another dam or access issue. Personally I don't care about the Gull, It's kind of an artificial river so I'll leave it up to people to fight it out but Wayne's credentials are solid.
5 · 3 hrs

Billy Harris Wayne's credentials are solid, so who is on side for this project?
2 hrs

Gary George I don't have any concerns about Wayne Donison or his credibility. My trust in the WO process doesn't go much beyond that. I have been the well intended hard working unassailable tireless guy deflecting dissent and encouraging people and advocating on behalf of the two worlds. I know how that often turns out.
2 · 2 hrs

Wayne Donison Simple statement, as I have said to many people many times. The committee position on behalf of paddlers has always been that we prefer NO diversion...of course. The concern was the risk of losing paddler access below Whitehorse Falls...since we don't own that land. The survey did not present this position as clearly as I would have liked.
1 · 2 hrs

Robert Koloshuk I agree with Kevin that Wayne's track record is exceptional. But there's this conversation that Wayne is stuck in the middle of, and it's a conversation between people who are totally misguided and people who care about the river and realize that it's totally ridiculous to sign MOU1. The fight should be for access if there is a fight at all, based on what we know about OPGC and the project. I'm sorry, but lots of great paddlers do care about the Gull (a lot), and nobody has presented a case where signing OPGC's MOU1 can be worth it, even if there were a fight for access, which quite frankly, its fairly obvious there won't be...
2 hrs

Gary George So here we have the Countries most famous and celebrated Slalom course, the second most favoured reliable whitewater in the Province, the home of several World Cup competitions and the recent venue of the Pan Am`s and we`re concerned that a small hydro operator will withdraw access if we don`t play ball and give up water and functionality?
1 · 2 hrs · Edited

Robert Koloshuk That's right Gary... It's ludicrous... And several people within the WO advocacy committee have indicated that they would prefer if the river were diverted to keep the levels lower for them sometimes, and because OPGC will pay off WO to the tune of maybe $10,000 per annum.....
2 hrs

Gary George WO has always operated in a money vaccum, proposals have been made in the past to re-finance or sell the Preserve in order to fulfill budget needs. The budget needs of WO are primarily slalom based. As always it appears the Preserve will be a target to fund the rest of the organization. Recreational paddlers are the primary users of the Gull and the Preserve these days as has been the case for a couple decades now. The occasional usage by the slalom world is so rare and relatively inconsequential by comparison yet the river and the Preserve itself will be sacrificed to support that faction of WO. This is a glaring example of the diametrically opposing needs of the organization and the fatal flaw that keeps WO forever floundering. There is no logical reason what so ever that Advocacy should have to be negotiating among paddlers to find consensus on river protection, especially this river. Yet here is poor Wayne having to defend an asinine intent to paddlers when his energy would be better spent fending off what can only be regarded as an assault an insult and a renege of agreements of long ago. In my opinion WO is to concerned about political correctness and warm fuzzy bullshit.
2 hrs

Billy Harris Who are the people saying yes to this diversion program?
2 hrs

Gary George I always preferred the Gull in the lower levels rather than at higher water however I cannot imagine advocating for something so precedent setting and obviously negative just so my time on the river would be more pleasant for me. If this goes thru it will embolden the hydro proponents, expect more of the same on other favourites. It amazes me that anyone could take a hands off viewpoint on this just because they don't paddle at the Gull.
1 · 1 hr

Kevin Maggs Perhaps someone could explain the down side to me. After reading the proposal it seems that right now the gull is a dam controlled river. If W/O wants reliable water for an event, they pay for it. Quite a bit of money from the looks of things to Parks for moving logs. Is it possible that W/O in exchange for their support could have negotiated releases that wouldn't cost? What are paddlers losing here? How many times per year does it run big? Is it fun at those levels? If the argument ends up being a dam controlled river that costs vs a dam controlled river that doesn't cost for releases and we still get regular releases but miss some high flow is that an issue? If you look at the W/O page they are begging for volunteers to run the Preserve. If paddlers love this preserve so much then why isn't it a paid position with high enough camping fees to cover costs?
1 hr

Robert Koloshuk The Parks Canada dam will still be there, and if the diversion is built they will have to negotiate more water from two counterparties instead of just one. The only thing they will 'get for free' is less water, a giant construction site for 2 years, a giant concrete tailrace and powerhouse, an underground diversion channel right under the campground, and a dry river outside of the 'normal paddling season'. WO has a unique power to stop the project because of land ownership, but the other stakeholders (fishermen, photographers, etc.) will also be getting shafted. A lot of paddlers are local or have cottages in the area, and they don't use the preserve lands, they just show up on river-right to paddle for the day, which might be why the campground doesn't generate much in camping fees per person on the river boating.....
1 hr

Robert Koloshuk Here is a copy of the unbiased survey that got killed by the committee:The case for signing:

1. There is a potential to create access issues if MOU 1 is not signed, but these are as yet unverifiable issues.
2. If MOU 1 is signed there is a limited opportunity to have some control over river flows in cases where it is deemed preferential for the flows to be lower.
3. During spring flows the diversion would make the river level lower, and this may be preferential to some paddlers.
4. There is a potential to enhance the paddling experience for some intermediate paddlers by ensuring that levels more frequently suit the needs of those people who are not comfortable with the seasonal flows when they are higher than 8.3.
5. Lower flows could be ordered at no cost for special events, and higher flows could be ordered dependent on both Parks Canada’s and OPGC’s cooperation. Additional costs will likely still apply to ordering higher flows from Parks Canada.

The case for not signing:

1. There is no indication that OPGC would enact any form of retribution for failing to sign MOU 1. To date, all communications with OPGC indicate that they are perfectly willing to accept a no to signing MOU 1, and they will simply allow the status quo on the river to be maintained. Legally OPGC may be in a position to act vindictively, but it is not standard practice for corporations to expose themselves to unnecessary lawsuits, and therefore there is likely no disadvantage to not signing MOU 1, other than the potential lost opportunity with regards to having lower flows when desirable.
2. The diversion of flow to generate power will remove flow from the kayaking section, and thereby undermine the paddling experience throughout the entire year.
3. If MOU 1 is signed then WO will lose its special bargaining position with respect to its land ownership and its unique ability to protect the interests of other user groups (in much the same way that the DND was able to influence the Xeneca project to the benefit of Petawawa paddlers). WO will be signing away the ability to assist other stakeholders if it agrees to cooperate with OP as per the terms of MOU1.

COUNTRY REPORT: CANADA Canadian Environmental Asessment Reform: A Glimpse at Regressive Reforms in Canadian Environmental Law Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny*

COUNTRY REPORT: CANADA
 Canadian Environmental Asessment Reform:
A Glimpse at Regressive Reforms in Canadian Environmental Law
Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny*


I derive two main conclusions from this reform relevant for jurists, whether advocates or
academics. The first is that due to the limited scope of CEAA 2012, both in terms of covered
projects and of considered environmental effects, we will have to increasingly pay attention
to provincial environmental assessments. The benefit of a federal state is that federal lacuna
can be partially mitigated through provincial action. Moreover, some provincial governments
might be more willing to lead on environmental matters than the current federal government.
The recent decisions of the Superior Court of Québec concerning the protection of beluga
whales and works conducted for the Energy East pipeline show how provincial regulations
can potentially act as a safeguard for federal inaction.41
The second conclusion is broader. It is easy to think that established environmental
legislation are secured (in French “les aquis”) and to focus our mind on what the next step
forward can be. However, those aquis are, as demonstrated by this report, much more
fragile than one might have thought. We must, as members of the public and as jurists, be
mindful of how quickly decades of progress can be set aside. For the road ahead, it is
worthwhile to start thinking about the best way to protect the environmental aquis from the
changing whims of governments, such as constitutional protection or special parliamentary
procedures, and ensure that environmental reforms, even in times of economic downturn,
does not equate with regression..159 5 IUCNAEL EJournal
One Step Forward, Ten Steps Backward: CEAA 2012
While CEAA 1995 was not perfect, the regime had the advantage of covering a large
number of projects. For example, during the fiscal year of 2004-2005, the federal
government conducted over 6000 screenings and 11 comprehensive studies.23 The first key
change brought by the 2012 reform is the drastic reduction in the number of projects subject
to an environmental assessment. This was firstly done through modification of other
statutes, mainly the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act (now known as
the Navigation Protection Act), which would have triggered federal environmental
assessments through various approval processes under the old regime.24 Secondly, CEAA
2012 changes completely the scope of environmental assessment by moving away from a
regime applicable to all federal decisions to one where only projects designated by the
government are subject to an assessment. 25 Even when a project is designated, the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has considerable discretion to determine if an
assessment is warranted.26 Environmental assessments used to be the norm, now it seems
they are the exception.27
The second change brought by the enactment of CEAA 2012 is the limitation of
environmental effects to be considered by the responsible authority. While under CEAA
1995 all environmental effects had to be considered, now only effects within the legislative
authority of Parliament are taken into account.28 This is a considerable change to the regime
which limits substantially the effectiveness of federal environmental assessment. 29





 

Sarah Outen Film Festival: Her around the world tour on her own steam defines human achievement

News item from CBS

Are you safe, healthy and happy? Its a simple formula, or is it?

 


21600 miles



Kayaking the aleutian island chain to Alaska


In Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JLY0AK3m6E&feature=youtu.be&t=790
 

In Kazakstan





Big Country: Kazakhstan


In Japan

 

and here rowing across the Indian Ocean:

How to travel light by bike



 In China

 

In Mauritius (about the boat, and the ocean)

 

 Recovered from Pacific on her first attempt

 

kayaking to Japan from Russia






cycling in Alaska

 


Rolling the rowboat: and good luck wishes


Sarah in her own words

Did you meet any new friends on the way?



When the going gets tough




Global News in Winnipeg Make sure to check out Sarah Outen's team website WTTW news in Chicago feature

Canadian Dam Association - a Catch 22

Mt. Polley Panel Recommendations from U Vic environmental Law school http://www.elc.uvic.ca/documents/Mount%20Polley%20Engineering%20Panel%20Submission_2014Dec7.pdf The Canadian Dam Association rules and regulations are badly in need of review.. Dam Safety Review for a Project Schedule C submitted CDA only requires a dam safety certificate BEFORE FILLING OF THE RESERVOIR. WTF? Billions would already spent to build the dam (s) and then there is a dam safety certificate is issued, before the water is backed up behind the dam. It would be preferable to do a preliminary study and a "temporary" dam safety certificate issued before the billions are spent, by just reviewing the Proponents complete construction documents. The Dam Safety Guidelines of the Canadian Dam Safety Association Once billions are spent to build the infrastructure, Proponents have every reason to declare that they must spend whatever it takes to ... fill in the blanks here for YOUR project.

Naomi Prins talks about bankers, banking and getting banked

9/11 insider trading - Lars Schall hits a home run in a methodical review of the subject