Fighting C-45 on multiple fronts

by Aaron Wherry

Amid all else yesterday, Nathan Cullen rose on a point of order shortly after Question Period to argue that the way in which C-45 was referred to various committees for study was procedurally illegitimate.

Scott Brison then rose on his own point of order to argue that the maneuvering at the finance committee was out of order.

Meanwhile, the Green Party has recruited Gord Downie, Leslie Feist and Sarah Harmer to oppose C-45′s changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Fighting C-45 on multiple fronts

  1. In statements read out at the press conference, Gord Downie of The Tragically Hip noted:
    “… Our claim to Canada’s rivers is older than the country itself. For
    the last four years, the government has been trying to find a way to pry
    that claim from the hands of all citizens and reserve it for a select
    few. If this new law passes, they finally get their wish …”

    Leslie Feist, singer-songwriter warned: “ … If we
    lose the protection of the NWPA, we lose our opportunity to study
    ungoverned and unaccountable development’s possible impacts to fish,
    wildlife, communities, and lives. It leaves our waters open to
    exploitation by the first person to get there with a backhoe.”

    Mark Mattson, President & Lake Ontario Waterkeeper:
    ”… By removing “water” from the “Navigable Waters Protection Act”, the
    government is removing all meaning from one of our oldest laws. I don’t
    think they truly understand the repercussions their actions will have.
    People will be hurt out there.”

    These guys have nailed it. This will come back to haunt this govt. Respect for and love of the water is something that unites almost all Canadians. It’s one of those rare bipartisan issues. But hey, it’s their brand, get used to wearing it CPC…Canada’s exclusively “pro”business lobby party

    • Nailed it ? Try reading the Navigble Waters protection Act….it doesn’t do ANY of these things. The act protects the potential for navigational interests and is not in any way environmental protection legislation.

      • If you’re talking about the one the cons just eviscerated you might be right? But since the original act did allow for environmental reviews to be triggered by the NWPA…you’re completely wrong.
        Why on earth would i take your word for it when i can ask an environmental lawyer – who does know what he/she’s talking about – with the click of a mouse?

        • Please how me where in the original Navigational Waters Protection Act where it clearly references environmental reviews as being part of the act ?

          • It can [ or could?] and has triggered an environmental review. [ eg: Oldman dam] Do your own research. If you can be bothered there’s even an interview with a prominent envronmental lawyer somewhere in AW’s farce saga. If you can’t bring yourself to do that go check out Mike de souza’s stuff on it at post media[?] That’s all the time i have for a wilful ignoramus on the subject.

          • Once again I challenge you to show me in the original act where it references environmental reviews being triggered. You cannot show me this because it does not exist under the act.

            Quoting left leaning media sources as experts is disingenuous. I challenge you again to show me in the original act where these environmental reviews are specifically referenced

          • Did you even read that link that you posted before you engaged in name calling? There is absolutely nothing in that link that shows anything in the Navigable Waters Protection act that calls for an environmental review process.

            The link you provided explains how the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act had environmental reviews based on actions that occurred under the Navigable Waters Act to the extent that you could certainly suggest that it is an act that references environmental review however my earlier point remains that there is NOTHING in the Navigable Waters Protection Act that references an environmental review.

            Even the so called “expert” quoted in your link is quoted as saying that the Navigable Waters Act is not about environmental protection. My challenge remains – show me where under the Navigable Waters Act it references environmental reviews. You cannot because it does not exist. Instead of calling me names you should simply state that you cannot provide ANY references under the original Navigable Waters Act that reference an environmental review process thus clearly indicating
            that your original comments based on leftist talking points are incorrect.

          • “Saxe explained how the act, while not explicitly about environmental protection, has come to be closely connected with it.

            Here’s perhaps the key point Saxe walked me through: four provisions in the Navigable Waters Protection Act automatically required an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
            Among them is the key federal power to approve building on navigable
            waters—structures like bridges, booms, dams and causeways. So approving
            or rejecting any of these sorts of projects required an environmental
            assessment under the CEAA regulations.

            …. But under the previous CEAA— passed in 1992 and in force until its repeal last
            summer—the Navigable Waters Protection Act was named in regulations as a law that triggered assessments. (You can search here for
            those regulations.) To claim then, as Fletcher did, that the act was
            only about navigation and never the environment, is, in Saxe’s words,
            “just wrong.”

            So you hang your whole point on one sentence and simply ignore everything else. You truly are an idiot, or like most tory partisns – wilfully obtuse.

          • You validate my earlier point – it is the Environmental Assessment Act that contains environmental review process based on actions that occur under the Navigble Water protection Act – However my point, and the point you can to try and evade remains – there is NOTHING within the Navigable Waters Protection Act that pertain to environmental reviews. Yes there is in the Environmental Assesment Act but that is a different act. I once again challenge you to show me where in Navigable Waters Protection Act there
            is wording with respect to an environmental review. Once again you CANNOT do so because it does not exist.

          • “Here’s perhaps the key point Saxe walked me through: four provisions in
            the Navigable Waters Protection Act automatically required an
            environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment
            Act.”

            What part of the English language do you not read or understand – this part obviously?

            And lastly this was your original point, the point minister Fletcher also tried to pedddle. The point Geddes debunks.

            “…it doesn’t do ANY of these things. The act protects the potential for
            navigational interests and is not in any way environmental protection
            legislation”

            You are wrong on all points. So be a man and admit it.

          • Once again you FAIL to show me ANY wording within the Navigable Waters Protection Act that references a review process. You can move
            the goalposts over to the Environmental Assessment Act as it does have language referencing environmental reviews but surely even you recognize that is a different act. The point remains; you CANNOT show any language in the original Navigable Waters Protection Act that references an environmental review process. That is because this wording does not exist.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *