Navigable waters Protection Act, A question for StephaneDion

[jedi jeffi]

A question for Stephane! Town hall meeting Oakville, Ontario, August 20, 2008

Well I got my chance, I had to use the readers digest version of my question/statement, but it was well recieved,

I got thrown off a bit when they stopped me part way through my intro, but more or less got my act back together

I have to thank Garth Turner for giving me the chance for the question, when I got there an hour early and reintroduced myself and reminded him that I was the only one that showed up for one of his first town hall meetings when he first got elected to Ottawa in the Mulroney Gov't, and now he is a Liberal since being kicked out of the Harper Government.

Point one they are very aware and impressed by the effort of the paddling/outdoors community to get the word out on this act.

Point 2 he is not fully aware of the all the ins and outs of the act, and asked for a full copy of my question so he could answer it. (in front of the audience!)

He then had one of his personal staff approach me right after my question (other questions were still going on) and asked me to contact him

So another opportunity begins...

and I will keep you people posted because I will need input to represent us (out door user groups) properly.

A question for Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party.

Answer will be posted on the I Speak for Canadian Rivers Site 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 government, 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 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 for the proposed changes to the act 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 and 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 defiantly 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 about 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

264 Sydney St.

Milton, Ontario

ispeakforcanadianrivers.com

[bigugli]

Cut, copy and paste the above, along with your personal comments to your local MP or contenders. Let them know how you feel. Stand up for yourselves.