As part of an omnibus budget bill introduced on Oct. 18, 2012, the Progressive Conservative federal government has included changes to the 1882 Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). It is unclear how proposed changes to the act could affect the long term protection of the many lakes and rivers in Northwest B.C., including Babine Lake.  Neither Babine Lake, nor any of the rivers flowing from it would be included in the new list of federally protected lakes and waterways proposed in the bill under debate in Ottawa.

In a press release issued by Transport Canada, a reform to the act was called for because it had become cumbersome and ineffectual.  Waters not listed under the new Navigation Protection Act would 鈥榗ontinue to be protected through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Fisheries Act.鈥�

The new list of protected lakes and rivers does not include any of the waterways that have been in local news recently like Babine Lake and the Babine River, as well as the Nechako River and its already threatened sturgeon population.

Chief Wilf Adam of the Lake Babine Nation said that they are still assessing the changes to the act, but he is concerned.  鈥淏abine Lake needs cleaning up from the past,鈥� Chief Adam said.  鈥淧ast logging practices and decommissioned mines need much attention.鈥�

鈥淸We] can鈥檛 just take the resources and leave the mess to the people who have to live there,鈥� he said.

The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation have been more vocal in their criticism of the proposed changes to the legislation.  鈥淭his is unacceptable,鈥� said Eriel Deranger, Communication Coordinator for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, 鈥淸the conservatives] have made a unilateral decision to remove protection of waterways without adequate consultation with First Nations and communities that rely on river systems for navigation and cultural practices protected under treaty.鈥�

Shell Canada is currently applying to the federal government for approval to mine 21 kilometres of the Muskeg River in bitumen sands development.  鈥淲e鈥檙e fighting [the] Shell application right now.  Part of the application is to mine out the Muskeg River which is no longer protected,鈥� Deranger said.  After realizing that the changes to the NWPA meant that the Muskeg River was no longer protected, 鈥淚t became strikingly clear to us what the act was really about,鈥� she said.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not that we won鈥檛 be able to fight applications without the act, it鈥檚 the fact that the tools for doing so are becoming fewer and fewer as the years go by,鈥� she said.  鈥淯nder the conservative government a lot of the environmental tools that we鈥檝e used in the past are gone.鈥�

The government鈥檚 position is that the act was meant to deal with navigation and not environment, and this new act is needed to 鈥榗ut through the red tape鈥� of an act that has come to apply to 鈥榓ll waters in Canada that can float a canoe including some brooks and streams that are only full for a few weeks during the spring runoff and other waters that are not normally navigated.鈥�

But according to Deranger, 鈥淢any of these smaller rivers and streams are still used by band members as navigation points and entry points into parts of traditional territories that otherwise would be much more difficult to access.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檙e definitely not the only ones affected,鈥� she said.  鈥淢any First Nations and rural communities utilize smaller rivers and streams that are no longer listed on the waters protection act.  They use them for navigation into their communities or to access fishing, hunting and trapping grounds.  We鈥檙e not unique.鈥�

Jessica Clogg, Executive Director and Senior Counsel for West Coast Environmental Law described the bill as a 鈥渨olf in sheep鈥檚 clothing that will have major implications for the environment and human health.鈥�

鈥淯nder the [proposed changes], the Skeena River would be the only body of water in Northwest BC that would have some level of protection under the act,鈥� said Tadzio Richards of Rivers Without Borders.

While federal environmental assessment acts remain in place the problem, according to Richards, is that the previous omnibus bill already weakened those protection mechanisms.  鈥淭hey鈥檝e weakened fish and fish habitat protection in the Fisheries Act, and greatly eroded the environmental assessment process,鈥� said Richards.

Large industrial projects require federal as well as provincial environmental approval.   By replacing the inclusive NWPA with the slimmed down WPA, 鈥渢he [federal] requirement for a project to describe waterways affected by the project has been removed.鈥�

鈥淓ssentially the federal government has off loaded much of its responsibility to the provinces,鈥� says Richards.  鈥淭hat means the federal government has removed key protections for the lakes, rivers and fish in Northwest B.C., at the same time as they鈥檝e made it easier for large scale industrial developments to go ahead.鈥�