Urgent action needed to stop Bill C-10!

[Little Hawk]

This was posted on another forum and some of you might be interested.



Urgent action needed against Bill C-10
The federal government has introduced Bill C-10 a Federal Budget proposal. Unknown to many, they have included “Amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act” (NWPA) in Bill C-10.

Please see today’s press release (below) for information and contact your MLAs and MPs and senators immediately to demand they remove the amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act from Bill C-10.

Contact information can be found at these sites.


Members of Parliament: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Lists/Members.aspx



Senators: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb...e/isenator.asp
BC Wildlife Federation Concerned With Amendments To Navigable Waters Protection Act



The BC Wildlife Federation adamantly opposes amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) as included in the Budget Implementation Act, Bill C-10.



Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Act was originally passed in 1882 with the intent of recognizing the common right of access to and free passage on public waterways. Bill C-10 makes unacceptable changes to that legislation.



The proposed changes will:

1. Eliminate environmental assessments, with few exceptions, for development projects on Canadian waterways.

2. Allow Canada’s rivers to be separated into those that are worth protecting and those that can be exploited.

3. Those classifications can be determined secretly within cabinet with no public consultation, no basis in science and no opportunity for any appeal.

4. Ensure that these decisions will most certainly be made based on political expediency rather than on scientific or long-term social and environmental considerations.



Enabling the government to declare previously protected waterways as non-navigable also has other ramifications for the resource.



If a waterway is designated as navigable the bed of the waterway is considered to be crown property. Designating the waterway as non-navigable will enable the bed to pass to private ownership. From this flows the further concern that private ownership of the waterways bed implies private ownership of the fishery.



If the federal government honestly believes that the NWPA needs updating, the BCWF urges Prime Minister Harper to remove the amendments from Bill C-10 and hold transparent and meaningful public discussions on the legislation across Canada. Regardless, the government must:



1. Restore the existing environmental assessment requirements,

2. Remove the Minister’s discretion on major construction projects as listed in the legislation, specifically dams, causeways, bridges and booms.

3. Remove the power of government to arbitrarily divide Canada’s rivers into those considered ‘worthwhile’ and those that are somehow less valuable.



The public right to free passage on public waterways goes directly back to the signing in 1215 of the Magna Carta and it has been the federal government’s mandate to protect that right.



With their intent to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the federal government appears to be putting Canadians on notice that they are now willing to abrogate that responsibility. The Federation cannot believe this government is prepared to destroy the birthright of all Canadians under the pretext of a stimulus package.



The amendments to the Navigable Water Protection Act, as included in Bill C-10, ensures the loss of adequate environmental protection and public access to navigable waterways that is a part of our Canadian heritage.



The BCWF urges all Canadians to contact their MPs and Senators and demand they remove the Navigable Waters Protection amendments from Bill C-10.



For further information contact Patti MacAhonic, Executive Director of the BCWF at 604-291-

9990 extension 230 or mailtoatti@bcwf.bc.ca

 

[Little Hawk]

Again, thanks to Eagleye on the BC Fishing Reports Forum for posting this for all of us fishermen.

With this info, we can stay on top of the proceedings as Ottawa (prompted by Gordon Campbell) prepares to tweak a centuries-old piece of the Constitution designed to protect our waterways for all Canadians in perpetuity.


Be sure to express your concerns to the Committee Clerk at eenr-eern@sen.parl.gc.ca

Hello,

I have received many emails from Canadians asking when the Senate Energy Environment and Natural Resources Committee will begin hearings on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I am happy to inform you that the first of the hearings will begin Thursday April 23rd at 8:00am, and continue with intensive study through to June. Information on the hearings, such as witnesses and times can be found here; to keep up to date on the committees progress, be sure to watch the webcastof the proceedings.

If you have not already done so, you can email the committee clerk (Lynn Gordon eenr-eern@sen.parl.gc.ca) with your perspective on this issue, or your request to appear as a witness before the committee.

Sincere Regards,

Senator Elaine McCoy, QC
Alberta Senator
__________________
http://www.savebcsalmon.ca/

...and sign Alexandra Morton's Petition too the situation is urgent!
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cEkxX3p3MGFBbWNVVGNVU3lxQnBwQmc6M A..

 

[drolston]

Good posting, Terry.

Here's my letter to the Senate clerk for that submission...
------------------------------------------------------
I understand that the Senate Energy Environment and Natural Resources Committee will begin hearings on the proposed changes as outlined in Bill C-10 submitted by the conservative party - to the Navigable Waters Protection Act from this April 23rd 2009, continuing with intensive study through to June 2009.

I further understand that your office is inviting broad community input and submissions to inform this process and add to the findings. I would like to submit input for this process.

First, I wish to briefly summarize my experiences to benchmark my understanding of the issues:

• I graduated from Coast Guard College in 1984, and worked for 9 years in the Coast Guard, often dealing directly with various sections of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
• I have both a Fish and Wildlife Technician’s Diploma, and a Bachelor of Science (Biology – Honours), along with over 19 years of experience in the fisheries research/management fields.
• I have worked in the freshwater end of habitat in New Brunswick, Ontario, and British Columbia – while I have been involved in saltwater habitat in New Brunswick and British Columbia.
• I initially started work in the fisheries field in BC, through consulting work funded through the Watershed Restoration Program of Forest Renewal BC, then I switched to community fisheries work mostly funded through either the Habitat Renewal and Salmonid Enhancement Program of FOC (now rescinded) and/or the Fisheries Renewal BC programs (also now rescinded).
• I have been involved in both sides of industrial development and the associated CEAA environmental processes.

I therefore believe I can offer some insights.

From what I can understand, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives introduced this legislation – not as a separate bill – but as part of a budget submission; and subsequently held that it would be a matter of confidence in the house (now composed of a minority government of conservative members) if the budget (and the attached NWPA amendments) did not pass.

Since nobody in Canada wanted to precipitate another election so earlier after October’s federal election – the budget (including the NWPA amendments) was passed.

This tying-in of budget and NWPA amendments (what the NWPA Act has to do with the budget is NOTHING except a blatant attempt by Harper’s Conservatives to bully everyone so their multinational corporate buddies can rape pillage and plunder Canada’s natural and public-owned public resources) is not fair, professional, or at the minimum – democratic. I am outraged at Stephen Harper’s office and the Conservatives.

As the last bastion of democratic checks and balances – I expect the Senate to step-in and deny the conservatives their blatant attempt to hijack the public’s trust. If they were serious about the NWPA needing an overhaul, then the conservatives would have submitted a separate bill on an open vote.

I will outline why we should not change the NWPA, as outlined by the conservative bullies.

The proposed changes will:

1. Eliminate environmental assessments, with few exceptions, for development projects on Canadian waterways.

We already know the steep decline in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (i.e. DFO’s ) capacity, as their funding has been successively been cut over many years.

Since that time, DFO has attempted to resort to “results-based” monitoring in order to save money.

Properly structured and enforced “results-based” regulations can be effective and powerful tools for environmental protection. However, it can be very difficult to even evaluate compliance with a “results-based” law, let alone to enforce it.

If the “result” is not carefully and specifically identified, it can be difficult to determine whether it has been achieved or not, even by experts;

• Determining if an environmental result has been achieved usually requires considerable information about what the environment was like before the change. This requires sufficient baseline data. If the information is not available, no one can tell if the result was achieved;
• Evaluations of compliance require going into the field and may involve complicated assessments as to whether a result has been achieved. As a result, government inspections require more staff time and expertise.

Any environmental law needs to be well constructed to be effective. Policy is at most – nebulous with respect to specific project deliverables.

Amongst other problems, the new “results-based” approach could:
1. reduce government’s ability to enforce environmental standards;
2. create limits on government’s ability to protect the environment;
3. increase “flexibility” to lower standards; and
4. put the public good in the hands of the private sector, who are interested in shareholder profits – not long-term intergenerational sustainability.

FOC’s Conservation and Protection Program is responsible for: “monitoring compliance with legislation and regulations regarding the conservation of fisheries resources and fish habitat”.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appoints fishery officers to enforce fisheries regulations and management plans as well as the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. The enforcement and compliance monitoring activities of fishery officers are “vital to the Habitat Management Program and are key to protecting Canada’s fish and fish habitat”. An important part of their work is on “preventing harm to fish, fish habitat or human use of fish caused by physical alteration of fish habitat or pollution of waters frequented by fish”.

Priority for action to deal with suspected violations is guided by; the degree of harm to fish, fish habitat or human use of fish caused by physical alteration of habitat or pollution of waters frequented by fish, or the risk of that harm; and/or whether or not the alleged offence is a repeat occurrence.

However, the 1999 National Referral Study (Blueprint Project Team on National Guidelines) concluded that the Habitat Management Program has “tended to manage development referrals reactively rather than proactively. As a result, the level of effort spent reviewing some activities have been disproportionate to the level of risk that the referral poses to fisheries and fish habitat”.

The 1999 National Study also concluded that FOC enforcement measures were “fragmented and inconsistent, and that compliance monitoring was inadequate” (http://www.FOC-mpo.gc.ca/publication_e.htm#oceans). This situation has not gotten any better – but worse.

If fisheries-management decisions are based on sound science that is relayed to the public, in an inclusive process – there is an increase in local self-enforcement. I think that generally FOC has lost the trust of the public, and the so-called “results-based management” suggested as an alternative only works with adequate monitoring, enforcement and fines – which is currently lacking. A recent example of “results-based monitoring” is not currently working well between the provincial WLAP program and the forestry industry. To offload this responsibility to industry is irresponsible and an abdication of federal fiduciary rights.

Many other countries or states (e.g. Alaska, Iceland, New Zealand, etc.) incorporate a bottom-driven (verses a top-down) fisheries management regime, and have much higher national profiles of their fisheries resources. This is where we in the long run have to head towards.

Ultimately, local stewardship is long-term protection – not quarterly shareholder reports. We need effective Local Area Management (LAM), something like they have in Ireland or other countries – funded through the Treasury Board, and an inclusive process to make fisheries decisions.

None of this will work if the DFO minister is given his discretion in how he applies fisheries-management decisions. His discretion is influenced by high-paid corporate lobbyists that prowl Ottawa, and have his ear. Schriber was no isolated mistake; but instead an inept lobbyist that got caught.

2. Allow Canada’s rivers to be separated into those that are worth protecting and those that can be exploited.

Okay, what about the creek in your backyard? How about I determine whether or not it is worth protecting from 3000 km away? What if you cannot now access that creek or utilize it since I use “my discretion”? Is that fair? Is that a good and scientifically-determined usage that protects the public’s resources over the next generations?

There is no scientific rationale for the DFO minister to use his discretion to classify rivers into categories worth – and not worth protecting.

The DFO minister has no background by which to hold this position – and frankly – should not be given it. He/she is a political appointee; appointed by (in this parliament) Stephen Harper.

The original NWPA has checks and balances already in it. Why change it? So Harper can get his way?

3. Those classifications can be determined secretly within cabinet with no public consultation, no basis in science and no opportunity for any appeal.

Already within the CEAA environmental assessment process, class screenings are used. A class screening may be conducted when a particular activity or type of project, and the full range of its potentially adverse environmental effects, have been fully identified.

Class environmental screenings generally apply to projects which have predictable and mitigable environmental effects.

However, public involvement is “discretionary” in a screening. Since public input is not mandatory - neither is it effective. This is the model we are now supposed to accept as necessary because Harper says so?

Since these screening applications are required to perform only a screening report; only due to NWPA considerations (which is the real reason Harper wishes to change the NWPA), and not environmental concerns - theseappliactions are not part of a comprehensive study report.

This means that “far-field” effects are not estimated or even described, as well as cumulative effects since it is assessed on a project-by-project basis.

4. Ensure that these decisions will most certainly be made based on political expediency rather than on scientific or long-term social and environmental considerations.

Not good enough, leaders of the Senate.

We have a sacred duty here to protect Canada’s resources for the benefit of our kids and their kids.

Instead, my suggestion is to ultimately develop a Local Area Management (LAM) planning and development system for all watersheds and the associated estuaries. The development of this co-management model would provide guidance on a number of issues, including industrial development and stock management within the geographic boundaries of this unit. Other potentials include assisting in the development of a traceability program, strengthening fisheries monitoring, catch reporting, and increasing First Nations’ participation in the fisheries management decision-making process.

There are many examples of Local Area Management (LAM) systems throughout the globe (e.g. Norway, Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Alaska, Canada). It has become the management tool which is effective if real input and decision-making is embodied within the LAM body, where bottom-up verses top-down goals and directives are developed - as well as a commitment to long-term funding. Some links to this information:

http://www.goac3.org/initiatives.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-07-2007/0004522623&EDATE
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-3995.d01-16
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a756678484~db=all
http://www-comm.pac.FOC-mpo.gc.ca/pages/release/p-releas/2001/nr021_e.htm

I suggest the development of a watershed/estuary-based LAMs, where all user groups (i.e. various First Nations communities, commercial and sports fishermen, NGO’s, local governments, communities, etc.) have a place at a decision-making table where either there is adequate information from which to base decisions – or there is a concerted effort to obtain this information through directed research.

I hope that you will do the right thing – and return this Bill to the Parliament with the following recommendations:

1. Restore/maintain the existing environmental assessment requirements,

2. Remove the Minister’s discretion on major construction projects as listed in the legislation, specifically dams, causeways, bridges and booms.

3. Remove the power of government to arbitrarily divide Canada’s rivers into those considered ‘worthwhile’ and those that are somehow less valuable.


Dave Rolston,
Prince Rupert, BC

 

[Little Hawk]

Wow! Thanks Dave and welcome aboard! What a primer on our Fed's political high-jinks. Sure is a system full of holes.

Unless I am mistaken, wasn't this attempt to alter the NWPA a Campbell initiative to smooth-out his ongoing plan to rape our rivers?

You didn't mention Campbell... he's a pecker-head too!