I Speak For Canadian Rivers

[tgneal]

The Federal Gov't is considering changes to the Navigable Warterways Protection Act that would make it much easier for developers to build bridges, dams and causeways on Canada's waterways.

As the Act now stands effects on the navigability of rivers have to be considered before any development is given the green light. If a canoe can be floated down a river then it is considered navigable.

If the amendments are made then the effect of developments on the canoeability of a river or stream need not be considered.

Please see the link below for more information about this issue;

www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca/

Excerpt from the site;

The NWPA Issue: Rivers At Risk
Transport Canada is in the process of rewriting the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to eliminate a developer’s obligation to consider impacts on navigation when building dams, bridges, causeways or other invasive structures on thousands of waterways across Canada.

Transport Canada Minister Lawrence Cannon and his allies in government and industry hope to achieve this by exempting "minor waters" and "minor works" from the NWPA, and by re-defining "navigation" under the act in a way that will strip all legal protection from recreational navigation.

The new law will ignore all whitewater rivers, all seasonal waterways and all vessels with less than a one-metre draft. This is a direct assault on Canada’s tradition of river travel and the future health of our waterways by the same people who are supposed to protect both. It is a fundamental breach of public trust.

You may want to write or e-mail your local MP to voice your concern about this issue. We who paddle the rivers of N.B. know what a dam can do to a river.
Thanks,
Tom

Sample Letter

List of NB MP's;

Allen, Mike Tobique—Mactaquac

D'Amours, Jean-Claude Madawaska—Restigouche

Godin, Yvon Acadie—Bathurst

Hubbard, Charles (Hon.) Miramichi

LeBlanc, Dominic (Hon.) Beauséjour

Moore, Rob Fundy Royal

Murphy, Brian Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe

Scott, Andy (Hon.) Fredericton

Thompson, Greg Francis (Hon.) New Brunswick Southwest

Zed, Paul Saint John

Other key contacts;

Prime Minister, Steven Harper, [e-mail]
Minister of Transportation, Lawrence Cannon, [e-mail]
National Manger responsible for the NWPA, Dave Osbaldeston, [e-mail]
Minister of Environment, John Baird, [e-mail]
Minister of Fisheries & Oceans, Loyola Hearn, [e-mail]

Becky Mason(daughter of famed canoeist Bill Mason) released the following call to action on June 6, 2008;

The Canadian Federal Government is considering revising the Navigable
Waters Protection Act (NWPA). I know, this sounds dreadfully boring,
but this is really crucial to the future well being of our lakes and
rivers. I’ve been told that the hearings for the NWPA have finished and
I have also learnt that all presenters at the hearings with one
exception argued for the removal of your and my rights. This bill will
probably be tabled in the House in the fall.

Very briefly, and in a nutshell the NWPA law of 1882 states that all
navigation has to be considered before any development can occur in a
navigable waterway. If it is found that navigation will be inhibited
then an Environmental Assessment is automatically triggered before
permission for development is granted. Proposed changes to the
definition of a navigable waterway will mean that many of our favourite
rivers and streams will not be considered navigable waterways and thus
not fall under the protection of the act, leaving them open to possible
development without an automatic environmental assessment. It also means
that our traditional “right of navigation” in small watercraft (canoes,
kayaks, rafts, even motor boats) is taken away and no assessment of
impacts on navigation would be required for any projects on those waterways.

I think that this is really important. Here are three things you can do:

1. (I've included a sample letter below) Please write a letter to all
the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and
Communities (TRAN) because they need to be told they should not do away
with our rights. This is essential for a whole range of environmental,
social and economic reasons for Canada’s unique waterways. The
recommendations for the re-writing of the NWPA is happening soon so
please send an email to the list below as soon as possible. They will
have to consider the public's input if they receive enough letters.

2. Attend the "Vigil for Rivers" on Parliament Hill Sunday June 8th at
7pm. If you live near Ottawa please come to this important Canadian
Rivers Day gathering in support of rivers and to protest the NWPA
changes. I'll be saying a few words along with others.

3. Pass the information along to others.

*************************************************************
Make some changes or write your own letter and send to Standing
Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (TRAN) because I'm
told they are the ones making the final decision. Please CC
the emails I've included too.
**************************************************************

Send to
SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE TRAN COMMITTEE EMAILS

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

C.C.
[e-mail]
John Baird (Minister of Environment)

[e-mail]
Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transportation)

[e-mail]
Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries & Oceans)

[e-mail]
Dave Osbaldeston
(National Manger responsible for the NWPA)


****************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER
****************************************************************
(Date)
Dear: Members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and
Communities,

I am writing to tell you of my concern for the future of our Canadian
Heritage Navigation Rights when travelling our Canadian waterways in
small craft. I was very upset to learn that your hearings are over
concerning the removal of my rights from the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). I have learnt that all presenters at the hearings with one exception argued for the removal of my rights. This was not an adequate opportunity for public input or response. I think it is unacceptable and short-sighted to have not consulted the people, organizations and businesses involved in navigation in Canada so that they might have a say in this important issue at your hearing. Like many other Canadians I have numerous concerns about potentially losing my Navigation Rights.

I think that our navigable waterways are magnificent treasures that
should be managed with the public's input. I am informed that the
hearings conducted listened to the one sided view of the presenters that
want to do away with a part of our traditional Canadian Heritage. Please,
you need to listen to the other views of our people in our great land of
water too. Our country was first explored and mapped by our First
Nations and then European fore-fathers navigating in canoes and small
craft. The proposed changes to the NWPA are premature and faulty because of the lack of public consultation! I believe that having public input is key to strengthening the protection of the future of our waterways.

I strongly urge you to not recommend the elimination of Navigation
Rights for small water craft because I want to retain my right to be
able to trigger an Environmental Assessment if we, the public, want one.
This would ensure that all environmental, social and economic concerns
are addressed before development can occur in sensitive waterway areas.

I would also like you to consider the ramifications of allowing this
proposed precedent setting elimination of our rights and the message it
seems to be saying: that most of our waterways could be open for
development if the NWPA is rewritten to exclude the Navigation Rights
for small water craft. And I assure you that this is a message that the
majority of Canadians will not be pleased to hear.

Sincerely,

(Your Name and mailing address)

[beevar]

yes that is good info, thanks.
I would like to see all the dams removed from NB rivers, especially the St John dams since it is the most obstructed. Now that solar and wind power have begun there is no reason why that can't be a valid objective. Let's put the rivers back to 1865 conditions.
It could take 50 years but we should start lobbying for that now.
any thoughts?
B

[Ken Corbett]

Well, we can't demolish NB Power's dams, but they should do a better job of fish passage, I think. Besides, who wants to do without mod stuff like the Internet? We'd pay more and more if we start dismantling the dams we've got now.

Maybe we can restore the other undammed rivers to what ever they were in 1865.

But that was the height of the Industrial Revolution and the Civil War in the US, and every tree on the eastern seaboard had been cut down except for the cliffsides. The Nashwaak ran white with waste millwood, and lost every native fish forever in 1851.

Let's just live by the rule, "leave nothing behing but our footprints," and things should start to improve.

Rant on!!!!!!

K

[tgneal]

I am not really too concerned about existing dams as they will be there for a long time to come.

I am worried that if the proposed changes come into effect then it would be easier for someone like Irving to build a causeway across the Miramichi so they can more easily move their lumber. I mention this as just an example, I am sure you can imagine any number of scenarios.

I would hate to see developers(both public and private have carte blanche over the waterways of NB).

Tom

P.S.: Ken, I like your restoration ideas.

[beevar]

Right on Ken and tg.......
good points, you highlight some key points and this is a big issue...the health of our rivers for the future.
I know we can't just demolish dams but we do need to think big if we want good things to happen, as well as leaving a small footprint.
No, no one wants to do without what we have already and no one wants to pay more. do we have to?
think about it; how would it be if we no longer required those dams? how great would our rivers and paddling be?
yes, we need to stop further encroachment and tg is right. lets stop this bill.
I am concerned about the existing dams too because i don't want them there forever.......
I'm not a dreamer i'm a realist and i do believe "a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world"
The Miramichi has no dams...the St John does....what a difference!!!!
Rant on Brotha's

[tgneal]

Hey Beevar,
I also would dearly love to see the dams removed from the St. John river system.

Unfortunately it will be a long time before that happens. These dams are over 40 years old so their capital costs have been paid off making the electricity they produce very cheap. They are cash cows for NB Power and the province.

In this age of concerns over global warming and increasing fossil fuel prices it is very unlikely that NB Power would be willing to build new fossil fuel burning generating plants to replace those dams. Solar and wind is not at the stage where it can replace hydro and nuclear is very expensive. Even if the dams electricity were surplus to the needs of the province there is still a huge market for electricity across the border which generates a lot of income for NB.

Maybe someday those dams will be gone but probably not in our lifetimes.
Take it easy,
Tom

[beevar]

Yeah Tom, i know a bit about the metrics re: those dams and NB Power. I certainly am not thinking fossil fuels in any way shape or form, that would be going backward.
Solar and wind are here, albeit with a loong way to go and moving slowly. my thought is rather than it take 100 years to replace those dams let's TRY and cut that down to 50 (or less)
I think we just have to be more ambitious for change and maybe we can move the ball down the field a little faster.
Anyway, can you email a copy of the sample letter? i can't get a usable copy printing off here (or can I?)
i'll whip that off to the politicos and thanks for that
B

[tgneal]

Aug 15, 2008 14:00:45 GMT -5 beevar said:

Anyway, can you email a copy of the sample letter? i can't get a usable copy printing off here (or can I?)
i'll whip that off to the politicos and thanks for that
B

Check your inbox, buddy.

[beevar]

Got it, thanks Tom.