Opinion

Take Back our Waterways!

Harper and Campbell want to gut a good old law. Here's why.

By Rafe Mair, 16 Mar 2009, TheTyee.ca

Kayaking on Koch Creek

Kayakers proving BC's Koch Creek 'navigable'. Photo Damien Gillis / Save Our Rivers Society.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Welcome to the new autocracy of Canada, "autocracy" defined by Merriam Webster as government "in which one person possesses unlimited power."

Our autocracy only differs from a pure autocracy because every few years the public gets to choose which potential autocrat to give all the power to.

In fact, we in B.C. have two autocrats set in authority over us: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper and the Honourable Gordon Campbell.

Both of these autocrats subscribe to the theory that the more humungous private companies doing their thing on our rivers, the better. They also believe in avoiding contact with the public. After all, the citizenry might not like what they are doing and stir up a terrible fuss. Although the Autocrats must know that they're safe because their tame media can be counted upon to be silent.

Harper's budget bill trickery

Harper has employed parliamentary trickery by including changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the budget bill making the amendments of the act a matter of confidence so that the only way the Commons can defeat the amendments is to defeat the government.

The Senate, if it had had any backbone, could have severed the amendments to the act but the parliamentary poodles decided not to do so.

Let's look at what the Navigable Waters Protection Act was designed to do and what the amendments will do.

Back in 1882, the federal parliament passed the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was "designed to protect the public right of navigation in Canadian waters, as defined by the law, by prohibiting the building, placing or maintaining of any work whatsoever in, on, over, under, through or across any such navigable water, without the authorization of the minister of fisheries and ocean canada. The expression 'navigable water' designates any body of water capable, in its natural state, of being navigated by any type of floating vessel for the purpose of transportation, recreation or commerce and includes a canal and any other body of water created or altered for the benefit of the public, as a result of the waterway assigned for public use. The public right of navigation also includes the use of both pleasure craft and commercial ships as well as all other types of boats."

Now Autocrat Harper wants to amend this act, because, he says, the act is out of date.

How the Hell can an act be "out of date" unless it's been overtaken by new circumstances? In fact, the old act is more apropos now than ever before. So indeed is the Magna Carta upon which the right to navigation was based.

Gutting the Navigable Waters Protection Act

The changes that disembowel the old act are:

1. The removal of the four named works (bridges, causeways, dams, and booms) as obstructions to navigation.

2. Giving the minister of transportation the power to create "classes of works" and "classes of navigable waters" -- in other words: separating them into "major" and "minor" categories. It's noteworthy that the minister in charge of the act until now has been the minister of fisheries and oceans and it seems obvious that the change is more than merely cosmetic.

3. Giving the minister sole discretion in determining what constitutes "significant interference with navigation." In essence, this eliminates environmental assessments in most cases, as the matter moves from environmental protection to a matter of who has made wise political investments. It effectively permits the minister to do what he wishes.

It should be noted that estimates of Canada's supply of fresh water vary depending on whether we mean all fresh water or just from lakes. In total we have about 20 per cent of the world's supply and we live next to a thirstier and thirstier country that would vastly prefer importing our water than using their own.

Campbell's angle

Enter, stage right, Autocrat Campbell. His energy policy uses water and it's a considerable nuisance when kayakers and their ilk use these rivers, then claim that they are navigable rivers so that their use of them brings the rivers under the protection of the 1882 Act. Wouldn't it be nice and convenient for Autocrat C to call up Autocrat H and get him to name the rivers that Autocrat C needs for private energy production? What Campbell worries about is the definition of Navigable Waters in the old act, which, God forbid, actually gives people, ordinary people the right to use navigable waters! After the amendment passes, that right will be subject to the minister of transportation without any hearing or debate.

What if some or even all of the B.C. rivers coveted by private energy companies were in fact within the definition and needed a federal permit? Can't have that, you know! My God! This brings the rabble into the deal chanting for their rights going back to 1215 when John "The Bad" gave them those rights, the ones Autocrat Harper and Autocrat Campbell want taken away from them.

In short, gentle readers, I smell a rat. I see two governments bound and determined to see our water in the form of energy or in bulk going to the U.S. and my sensitive proboscis tells me that, as happened with fish farms, the federal government doesn't want any part of environmental protection of B.C. rivers.

What is the logical conclusion?

The Autocrat Campbell gets rid of a federal nuisance leaving him in charge of environmental assessment, which he can waive or, forgive the pun, "water down" to suit his private power pals and political donors.

The bottom line

Let's see then where we stand: Our Autocrat C says we need power, when we clearly do not and fiddles the figures to make that seem the case. (The government says we have been net importers of energy for seven out of the last 11 years. The real figures from the National Energy Board show we are net exporters of energy for eight of the last 11 years. The Campbell government's accounting includes power imported from Alberta and immediately "flipped" to the U.S., power that was never intended for domestic consumption.)

Autocrat C then says BC Hydro can't make that power we don't need. He then gives the job to friends in the business world. He forces BC Hydro to give them fat contracts for power, which can only be created in the spring thaw when BC Hydro doesn't need any power -- meaning that this private power is obviously intended for export.

Now, because he doesn't want we members of the public to make nuisances of ourselves, he has his federal government remove all obstacles to private firms that want to rape our rivers as their need and greed arises.

We British Columbians can do something about this on May 12 when Autocrat C and his party face an election. We will learn that day just how much we care for our rivers and the outdoors in general.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Rafe Mair writes a Monday column for The Tyee. Read previous columns by Rafe Mair here. He also acts as a spokesperson for the Save Our Rivers Society.

28 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • seth

    3 years ago

    Corporate welfare bums

    So Pirate power is guaranteed 12 cents a kilowatt hour from Bchydro for tens of billions in power which then BCHydro must export.

    Given that California market will be buying nuclear and solar boiler power at rates of 2 to 3 cents a kwh for conventional and .5 cents for ten years down the road pulse fusion, it looks like free enterprise Gordo and gang have just signed up histories most depraved Corporate Welfare bums.

  • Campbellwearsatutu

    3 years ago

    You are correct Rafe

    And I believe the recognition act was part of the plan,by giving natives full say in land use,Campbell and private power would merely have to wave a few million here and a few million there in front of hungry first nations and,
    Shazzam.they give their consent,the people in nearby towns have no say and Campbell would merely say, don`t look at me,look at first nations!
    The fly in the ointment is the other big industries,foresters,mining,and major industry,they saw where this was going,and the needs of private power were being put on the front burner,
    They put their backs up and the recognition act is being delayed,but rest assured with a Campbell victory in the election and that bill will be shoved down our throats.
    I am not against native rights but where I live the first nations claim the land beneath my feet and my neighbors is theirs,in fact they claim every bit of land within 500 miles of where I live is theirs,there are land claims that over-lap,every square foot of BC has some sort of claim on it.
    But,the recognotion act,has one purpose, RIVERS-STEAMS-CREEKS-and to take the say away from any local people or councils or anyone.
    The only thing we have going is that Campbell is going to get squashed in the election.

  • Curt

    3 years ago

    The law of 1882 has stood

    The law of 1882 has stood all these years and should continue. It is obvious it was proclaimed for "good" reason even way back then.

    It's obvious there is more to the rewriting of this law than the politicians want us to know. They have a plan.

    The lies and deceit of the disgusting Campbell regime must be stopped. Harper is also just a puppet playing with the big boys and cowtowing to the Corporation.

    Enough of giving away and selling off our "public" resources. Enough !!

    Come on citizens, smarten up. Do you not see what is going on here.

  • Jeffrey J.

    3 years ago

    Democracy In Peril

    Rafe, as usual, tells it like it is. The irony is that as the US begins a return to democratic sensibilities, we're left with these two right wing regimes still hell-bent on privatizing Canada.

    Time for a change!

    Great coverage of a very, very important issue.

  • morechatter

    3 years ago

    "Out Of Date"

    Harper and Campbell are out of date without a doubt as regulations involving global warming, business regulation and government regulations are the focus of the world as regulations are beefed up. And it would be wise of the people of Canada and BC to demand accountablty from their government by insisting they change the laws that lets these guys all of the hook. But like I said these guys are a thing of the past. Look what the politicians did in the US and Campbell and Harper are alikely lot no doubt as they both work in secret. No Secret/No Lies.
    How about jail time for our politicians and watchdogs and not like Campbell where he made his own Ministers their own watch dogs, what a dog.

  • morechatter

    3 years ago

    And Lets Not Forget?

    Out of Touch with the people they govern as its not like they spend anytime trying to find out other than how to push their own agenda. But yes start letting your MP and MLA know you want things changed yesterday, and don't let up its your right until they get it right and if don't they aren't doing their job and send them packing.

  • Van Isle

    3 years ago

    This was one of the main

    This was one of the main points in the movie The Corporation. Michael Walker's mantra is everything should be bought, everything should be owned by somebody and in particular a corporation cuz that's how money is generated. Under the American Constitution a corporation is classified as a person; 14th amendment I believe. Campbell and Harper (and their underlings) are doing just what the Fraser Institute is advocating.

  • Van Isle

    3 years ago

    Campbell and Harper love it

    Campbell and Harper love it when our governments are in a deficet then that gives them a reason to sell of government assets. Harper sold off a bunch of government property/buildings a couple of years ago for $1 billion dollars, then leased them back. (the press hardly said diddly-squat). I wouldn't call that smart. Same with Martin; sold off the remaining government shares in Petro-Canada just as the price of oil and fuels started to go thru the roof. Smart, really smart. More likely dumber than a stick if you ask me.

  • southdeltawalker

    3 years ago

    The Fight Is On-Protect Our Water.

    The Council of Canadians has been organizing to oppose this change. Here is link to sample letter to send to your M.P.
    http://www.canadians.org:80/action/2009/25-Feb-09.html

    World Water Day is on March 22-we all need to stand up and protect our water.

    The privatization of water is happening all over the world.
    Today in Turkey water activists were violently attacked by police:

    "The Council of Canadians is expressing shock and outrage this morning after Turkish police violently attacked a peaceful march by 300 water activists protesting the World Water Forum in Istanbul.

    Reports indicate that Turkish police used tear gas and water cannons, fired rubber bullets, and arrested seventeen people, many of whom are now in hospital....."

    A great resource on what is happening to the Earth's fresh water is the documentary-
    "Flow: How Did a Handful Of Corporations Steal Our Water?"
    now out on DVD and avail. as a rental and at some libraries.

  • trulib

    3 years ago

    electric cars

    I just read an article in our local paper about the province preparing for widespread use of electric cars, having contracted a Phoenix company to study all the actions necessary to put the charging infrastructure in place. I suspect this initiative has a lot to do about justifying river power.
    It must be frustrating for Mr. Mair to writeso many excellent articles about what's really going on with Campbell's government and to know that his message is almost only getting out to supporters of the NDP. Somehow the message has to get out to those who will determine who wins the next election, the swing vote, most of who probably don't read the Tyee. I haven't read the Canwest papers for some time, and usually pick up a Globe and Mail paper where I read the B.C. section (also online) to get information. Somehow the message has to get out in this province. At this time, it isn't.

  • trulib

    3 years ago

    Aboriginal Act

    Good article by Rod Mickleburgh in the G&M online>National>B.C.section today. "B.C. puts Aboriginal Act on hold".
    Hey, can Rafe contribute articles to the G&M? :-) ???

  • TYRONE

    3 years ago

    OUR TRAMPLED RIGHTS TO WATER

    It is hard to believe we have a "minority government" in Ottawa and a "has been (as of May 12, 2009) government" in Victoria and both of their respective leaders are oblivious to their Employers - US (as in you and me, not the "southern plague").
    It is said, that we get what we deserve in elections, largely because of the "silent majority", who do not vote! We are being manipulated on a grand scale and our supposed watchdog, the media has dementia and is fast asleep! There is a huge hue and cry about papers folding and a suggestion, that the internet should take up the slack. I must say I am not entirely adverse to this idea - witness the fact that I have a voice in it!
    Therefore I submit, that anyone worth their 'salt' should make sure, that more (young) people vote on ballots and make them count and the socalled autocrats are no more. Vote anything but liberal on May 12, 2009, preferably Canadian Action Party, because they are good watchpersons!
    As for our Water Rights granted to us so long ago, one could only hope we will once again have the good fortune to have such circumspect people governing (not RULING) us in our childrens' future. There is no such thing as a law 'being old' and needing replacement or abandonment only because of age!

  • G West

    3 years ago

    trulib

    Hope you don't mind if I post a link to the Mickelburgh article:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090316.BCRECONCILIATION16/TPStory/?query=B.C.+puts+Aboriginal+Act+on+hold

    I've heard that the legal opinion referenced in the article was written by two experts in aboriginal and land titles law and that it was done for a group including Jock Finlayson, John Winter and Gavin Dirom.

    I suspect the legal opinion was leaked by someone or other to Palmer and Mickelburgh.

    One of the main problems with the discussion paper, as referenced in the legal opinion, is the vague nature of the concept of 'shared decision making'; another is the complete absence of a role for the federal crown which has sole jurisdiction for establishing laws dealing with the 'core rights' of "Indians" in this country.

    But, that's what happens when a CEO premier decides to ignore the law, legal precedent and the courts.

    Here's a link to a pdf describing a First Nations 'response' to the above mentioned 'legal observations':
    http://www.bcafn.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=441&Itemid=29

  • Janie Jones

    3 years ago

    The Way Back Machine

    The doctrine of public trust defined in the ancient Justinian code rules that shorelines, rivers and forests belong to the people, not their rulers or commerce. When Roman common law broke down in England during the Middle Ages, King John caused a public revolt by claiming the rivers and forests for the nobility. The result? He was made to sign the Magna Carta, the progenitor of the US Bill of Rights among others.

    Couple this proposed legislation with the now-delayed Liberal & NDP supported (time for Bloc BC?) aboriginal rights and title legislation and we're back to 1213.

  • SharingIsGood

    3 years ago

    Public Affairs Bureau and media monitors

    Nice piece, Rafe!

    I wonder if all of the PAB staff have been on holiday to recharge before the final run-up to the election. Perhaps they have been at a retreat, getting schooled in how to take control of media format and content - how to make sure that the Premier's message is heard most loudly. Maybe with the Liberals in high damage control mode, the media monitors have been told to lay off the commenting until after the Kinsella and BC Rail anger calms down a bit. Wherever they be, they have been conspicuous by their absence this last week. Tons of bad news about the Campbell government has been going unargued, and I must say, I quite like it. It has not been just here, at The Tyee, but in all of the online (and print) alternative and MSM publications. I afraid, however, that this is just the calm before the storm. I think we are going to be in for a deluge of NDP-trashing double-speak before long. With the public purse, the mainstream media and the corporate-filled Liberal war chest at their disposal, we are going to get ears and eyes filled with cheerleading for privatizers. As a matter of fact, I expect one of them to jump in at any moment.

  • frank2

    3 years ago

    Am disgusted the Federal

    Am disgusted the Federal Liberals acquiesced in this. When push comes to shove, they're no improvement on the Tories.

  • john flys

    3 years ago

    Take Back our Waterways & Autocracy

    Dear Raif:
    Great article.
    Tormont Webster's Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary defines Autocracy: Government by a single person having unlimited power; DESPOTISM. You left out DESPOTISM!
    Tormont Webster's defines FASCISM: A SYSTEM of GOVERNMENT that EXERCISES a DICTATORSHIP of EXTREME RIGHT, TYPICALLY through the MERGING of STATE & BUSINESS LEADERSHIP, etc.
    Which is the more accurate for the times,
    AUTOCRACY or FASCISM.

  • North of Hope

    3 years ago

    Now in a huddle

    Great article and comments.
    SIG, I would expect the BC Liberal spin doctors are in a huddle right now. We should expect a barrage of announcements to detract us from the issues of how corrupt the Liberals really are.

  • Campbellwearsatutu

    3 years ago

    Sig

    They are out there,but more problems for the BC Liberals,as I have posted in other threads,the BC Conservative party(provincial) picked up almost 5% of the vote in the BC bi-elections last fall.

    And the NDP stomped on Campbell`s stars,another fatal error by Campbell is this recognition act,even though it is being delayed,it has scared the bejesus out of his supporters,and you can`t put that genie back in the bottle.
    Carole Taylor takes the stand on wensday in the cambie merchants class action law suit,should be interesting.
    Bill Tieleman has an interesting blog today,here`s the link.

    http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2009/03/bc-conservative-party-blasts-bc.html

    The BC Conservative party (wilf Hanni) is very popular in the interior,if they get even 5% of the vote,that is right out of Campbell`s base, and the election would be all but over!
    Keep beating the drum, should be some accurate polls out by the end of the week.

  • Campbellwearsatutu

    3 years ago

    Carole Taylor

    To testify in the cambie merchants versus the BC Goverment.

    http://tinyurl.com/cu3m2l

  • For a better world

    3 years ago

    Honourable Harper and Campbell

    The title “honourable” is not befitting of either Stephan Harper or Gordon Campbell.

    Low cost and unhindered use of B.C. rivers has always been a primary desire of industry, including private energy companies. The Alcan smelter/power game is just one example.

    After the native land claims referendum, Campbell played his phoney altruistic game by pretending to recognize important issues of First Nations. He backed away from his long-standing, hard-nosed and belligerant attitude, because his business acquaintances alerted him to the potential negative effects that would spawn serious conflicts with the First Nations. Ongoing native disputes and their negative public image had the potentional of impeding industry’s free or very cheap benefits from public resources.

    Being the master of deceit, Campbell also cosyied up to certain first nation leaders. Many of those leaders are also autocrats who ensure a larger portion of financial benefits accrue to themselves rather than the band membership as a whole.

  • PWB

    3 years ago

    Forget commenting!

    Don't waste your time commenting on this forum. E-mail Mr. Harper and Mr. Campbell and also your own MLA/MP and any opposition MLA's/MP's. Tell them that you are opposed to the ammendments to the NWPA and tell them that you will be watching their actions over the next decade. Tell them that if there is any abuse of our navigable waterways, you will be letting the next generation know who and under who's governance, they were 'sold down the river'!

  • alda

    3 years ago

    Help this story go mainstream

    I don't suggest this very often as it quickly loses effectiveness if abused, but this is among the most important Canadian news stories, ever.

    I ask everyone angered by this news to write a brief note and e-mail:

    letters@globeandmail.com
    www.cbc.ca/news/feedback/?NewsTip

    Congratulations to The Tyee and Rafe, for once again, bringing the real news to light.

  • southdeltawalker

    3 years ago

    Rafe to speak on World Water Day

    The Save Our Rivers Society is the host of Vancouver's World Water
    Day, on Sunday, March 22. Rafe Mair is the featured speaker, and it's
    at the Vancouver Unitarian Church, 949 W. 49th Ave., at 7 PM.

    World Water Day is an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United
    Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro
    (see http://www.worldwaterday.org/ ).

    From their document "An International Decade for Action":
    "Water is crucial for preserving biodiversity in all environments—from freshwater lakes and rivers to
    mountain regions, wetlands, estuaries, coastal zones and oceans" and
    "Water is crucial for the production of energy; it is used to generate
    hydroelectric power and for cooling in thermal electrical power
    stations, and also in the generation of tidal power, wave energy and
    geothermal energy sources. Access to affordable energy services
    significantly improves the lives of people in developing countries and
    makes economic growth and development possible."

  • BC Mary

    3 years ago

    Campbell's great election ploy

    Whoever drew up the big dream for a New Relationship between the BC government and First Nations had to know that what THEY were proposing, wouldn't work.

    They had to know they were provincials messing around in a federal jurisdiction. They had to know that no precedent supports their notion of totally sharing sovereignty.

    But what an election idea! (And what a cruel dream!)

    Public Affairs Bureau must have arranged endless happy conferences with First Nations, bringing them onside with mining and power corporations, at government expense.

    And when the concept failed (as this heartless premier knew it would), it will become a perfect election ploy! Mr Gamble can go swanning about the province saying, "First Nations people know I'm their Best Friend, and you all know what I tried to do for them ... so if you want justice for First Nations, re-elect me and I'll keep trying!"

    This is the premier who came into high office talking about how wrong the Nis'gaa Treaty was, and getting people upset enough to hold a referendum because he thought the Nis'gaa shouldn't have even that much territory under treaty.

  • lynn

    3 years ago

    The intentional re-shaping of federal and provincial powers

    I mostly agree, BC Mary... but the danger in finding no danger but an election ploy in Campbell's new aboriginal relationship proposal is found right here in this article by Rafe.

    It is why this article is so important....because in it we already see Harper (in Rafe's words) " employing parliamentary trickery by including changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (one of the oldest and most respected acts) in the budget bill" to facilitate his fellow autocrat, Gordon Campbell's provincial energy policy.

    In other words, right here we are witnessing federal powers being sneakily changed to facilitate and create "new" provincial powers.

    In other words federal law is being changed surreptitously...to prop up and expedite similar corporate interests between our ruling provincial and federal autocrats.

    As Rafe notes, "the federal" nuisance of a "protective" environmental law gets presto! changed to conveniently serve Harper's brother-autocrat-in- arms, Gordon Campbell's, corporate energy interests, "provincial" interests:

    QUOTE:

    "The Autocrat Campbell gets rid of a federal nuisance leaving him in charge of environmental assessment, which he can waive or, forgive the pun, "water down" to suit his private power pals and political donors."

    Suddenly a provincial premier has federal powers.

    The Navigable Waters Act is about slyly giving access to what was previously inaccessible to corporations.

    Campbell's New Relationship proposal is the same kind of stealthy move in favour of corporations.

    The New Relationship is not about giving rights to First Nations. It is about abusing the treaty process to give rights, and a "new controlling relationship" to corporations...flying the doors of access wide open to corporations to obtain crown land for land and mineral development...trumping the rights of Canadian citizens and using the treaty process as a shield to hide behind.

    I consider this article by Rafe to be one of the most important articles The Tyee has published.

    It is a blueprint that reveals how both federal and provincial jurisdictions are being distorted and "re-shaped" to benefit corporations.

  • Janie Jones

    3 years ago

    The Scam of the Century

    You are right, the whole thing is set up to be dumped into the fed's lap and they will just alter anything they have to. Don't forget, government can do anything. Although it wasn't the Liberals who said that. It was the NDP and they want this legislation too.

    I have chanced upon Vandana Shiva's observation that the fights about resource development projects like the Ashlu are really about local democracy and self-government. It is always the same modus operandi. "The history of the World Bank," she said, has been , "to take power away from communities, give it to a central government, then give it to the corporations in the form of privatization."

    None of these developments will go through for the new sovereign tribal councils unless they are in partnership with the corporations.

    And no doubt, the public still on the hook when they go bankrupt and then, their former corporate partner walk away with the watersheds.

    It's already happening out there. Companies like Cloudworks, Kiewit and Plutonic are already operating as if BC's first nations own the watersheds they are developing. It's a foregone conclusion. I have worked on the IPPs and have seen it manifested on a daily basis.

  • Janie Jones

    3 years ago

    My mistake

    Sorry, confused aboriginal title and watershed privatization legislations above. I do not know if the provincial or federal NDP support this legislation. I would hope not.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.