I have absolutely no confidence in this man at all at all at all!!!!!This is unacceptable!!
-
gorfman007
- Silver Participant
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 10:40 am
- Location: Ottawa and Bob's Lake
Fact- an application for an enviromental impact study is NOT triggered by an application to transport canada regarding navigable water crossiing permits.
Developers will continue to have to do an enviromental impact study regardless of how high or low the property may be.
If everyone is so worried, let the federal government download the responsibility to local municipal government like they have everything else.
In Ontario, you still have to involve the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources at the same time you contact the Federal Department of Oceans and Fisheries regarding a Navigable Water Crossing Permit. So we can be assured that our aqua life will be protected in the future.
But as far as safegaurding your canadian right to paddle a canoe up a ditch with less than 60 cm of depth through the middle of a golf course without portaging over a pathway once, well, how often does that happen.Or are we heading down a path of trying to protect some thing that may not really be at risk?
When the dust settles on the proposed changes to the NWPA, we will still have our boating privledges. We will still access all of the same places we boat and fish today.
One the flip side, I can't imagine the americans getting their natural gas pipeline from alaska, through Canada and back into the homeland without crossing a river or stream along the way.
Developers will continue to have to do an enviromental impact study regardless of how high or low the property may be.
If everyone is so worried, let the federal government download the responsibility to local municipal government like they have everything else.
In Ontario, you still have to involve the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources at the same time you contact the Federal Department of Oceans and Fisheries regarding a Navigable Water Crossing Permit. So we can be assured that our aqua life will be protected in the future.
But as far as safegaurding your canadian right to paddle a canoe up a ditch with less than 60 cm of depth through the middle of a golf course without portaging over a pathway once, well, how often does that happen.Or are we heading down a path of trying to protect some thing that may not really be at risk?
When the dust settles on the proposed changes to the NWPA, we will still have our boating privledges. We will still access all of the same places we boat and fish today.
One the flip side, I can't imagine the americans getting their natural gas pipeline from alaska, through Canada and back into the homeland without crossing a river or stream along the way.
-
skubasteve
- Participant
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:34 pm
- Location: Portage du Fort
-
Trophymuskie
- Gold Participant
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:00 pm
- Location: Ottawa River
- Contact:
The conservatives at work. And more people voted them back in, this time around unreal.
And they think the Liberals were a bunch of crooks. LOL
I can't wait to actually see what the reality of this is as we know depending who reads the bible we get different interpretations and the same can be said for any legislation changes.
And they think the Liberals were a bunch of crooks. LOL
I can't wait to actually see what the reality of this is as we know depending who reads the bible we get different interpretations and the same can be said for any legislation changes.
Catch and release them all
Richard Collin
Richard Collin
MLR - The comments you made are valid and I understand what you are saying. However, the implications of the changes to the NWPA go beyond paddling down a creek through a golf course.
You are right to say that after these proposed changes to the NWPA we may still have access to our current larger bodies of water, but what will they be like? Should these changes come to pass, the condition of these waters we want to enjoy may be irreparably harmed as a result of the loss of smaller, non-navigable creeks and drainages.
The proposed changes to the NWPA would make it easier for developers to alter or destroy these smaller waterways in order to get their projects completed at lower costs to themselves.
Don't forget, these smaller waters are where many fish species such as speckled trout spawn. These smaller waters provide habitat for all kinds of species of insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals. Loss of these habitats means the loss of these creatures. As well, these smaller waters act as filters that remove much of the pollution that we create. As you can see, the loss of these smaller waters will have an obvious negative effect on larger waters.
The proposed changes to the NWPA put these smaller, non-navigable waters at greater risk to be sacrificed in the name of progress. Add to the mix all the budget cuts made at the MNR and ask yourself, "Can we honestly expect greater protection of the environment or less protection after these changes?"
You are right to say that after these proposed changes to the NWPA we may still have access to our current larger bodies of water, but what will they be like? Should these changes come to pass, the condition of these waters we want to enjoy may be irreparably harmed as a result of the loss of smaller, non-navigable creeks and drainages.
The proposed changes to the NWPA would make it easier for developers to alter or destroy these smaller waterways in order to get their projects completed at lower costs to themselves.
Don't forget, these smaller waters are where many fish species such as speckled trout spawn. These smaller waters provide habitat for all kinds of species of insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals. Loss of these habitats means the loss of these creatures. As well, these smaller waters act as filters that remove much of the pollution that we create. As you can see, the loss of these smaller waters will have an obvious negative effect on larger waters.
The proposed changes to the NWPA put these smaller, non-navigable waters at greater risk to be sacrificed in the name of progress. Add to the mix all the budget cuts made at the MNR and ask yourself, "Can we honestly expect greater protection of the environment or less protection after these changes?"
As someone who applies for 3 to 5 navigable water crossings per year. The local MNR in the Pembroke District have been more than helpful with my application and actually came to watch what we were doing when we invited them.
We never did here from the Department of Oceans & Fisheries or the Federal Minister of Transport and were advised to just proceed if we didn't hear back from them. I would assume that they took the GPS coordinates provided and seen that it was a very narrow shallow part of a river that we were crossing and that with the side profile we provided showed that the water was only 40 cm deep at the high water mark, that this wouldn't really have an impact on vessels trying to navigate the water system.
The MNR can, will and should supervise any and all work activity around our water ways, either navigable or non navigable.
We never did here from the Department of Oceans & Fisheries or the Federal Minister of Transport and were advised to just proceed if we didn't hear back from them. I would assume that they took the GPS coordinates provided and seen that it was a very narrow shallow part of a river that we were crossing and that with the side profile we provided showed that the water was only 40 cm deep at the high water mark, that this wouldn't really have an impact on vessels trying to navigate the water system.
The MNR can, will and should supervise any and all work activity around our water ways, either navigable or non navigable.
-
Fish'n Buddy
- Bronze Participant
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: South Nation River
-
slushpuppy
- Retail Advertiser
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:58 pm
- Location: Stittsville (Ottawa)
- Contact:
I'm very interested to see how this all plays out but I don't think it's too much to worry about. Our waterways are extremely well protected from various pieces of legislation (including the NWPA). When proposed projects are reviewed under the NWPA they are reviewed from the stand-point of 'impacts to navigability'.
The Fisheries Act (DFO) protects fish and fish habitat.
Section 35(1) General Prohibition of harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction of fish habitat (HADD).
Definiton
Fish Habitat: 'spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply migration and any other areas on which fish depend directly or INDIRECTLY in order to carry out their life processes'.
The key term in that definition is INDIRECTLY, meaning even the tiniest of swale, ditch, municipal drain are considered fish habitat because they indirectly support fish through flows and food.
In most cases in EO Conservation Authorities have downloaded the authority to 'enforce' the fisheries act in the sense that they review most projects. If the project is likely to negatively impact 'fish habitat' then DFO takes over the dominant role in 'Authorizing a HADD' which trigers an Environmental Assessment.
The fisheries act is just one of many pieces of legislation that could potentially impact development proposals. MNR has several differnent acts that can potentially apply.
Conservation Authorities have their own legislation:
'Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 170/06'.
I hope this didn't confuse anyone, just wanted to make a point that our waterways are still going to be well protected and this ammendment isn't going to mean that our streams and rivers will be filled in. Still way too many layers of red tape before that could happen. But it's great that something like this inspires us to show the fatcats at parliament we care for our environment.
Cheers,
The Fisheries Act (DFO) protects fish and fish habitat.
Section 35(1) General Prohibition of harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction of fish habitat (HADD).
Definiton
Fish Habitat: 'spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply migration and any other areas on which fish depend directly or INDIRECTLY in order to carry out their life processes'.
The key term in that definition is INDIRECTLY, meaning even the tiniest of swale, ditch, municipal drain are considered fish habitat because they indirectly support fish through flows and food.
In most cases in EO Conservation Authorities have downloaded the authority to 'enforce' the fisheries act in the sense that they review most projects. If the project is likely to negatively impact 'fish habitat' then DFO takes over the dominant role in 'Authorizing a HADD' which trigers an Environmental Assessment.
The fisheries act is just one of many pieces of legislation that could potentially impact development proposals. MNR has several differnent acts that can potentially apply.
Conservation Authorities have their own legislation:
'Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 170/06'.
I hope this didn't confuse anyone, just wanted to make a point that our waterways are still going to be well protected and this ammendment isn't going to mean that our streams and rivers will be filled in. Still way too many layers of red tape before that could happen. But it's great that something like this inspires us to show the fatcats at parliament we care for our environment.
Cheers,