Canadian Pacific cuts off access to rafting on popular B.C. river

Share

The lower canyon of the Kicking Horse River was thought to be too dangerous to run until white water rafting guides learned how to navigate it safely, turning it into a popular summer playground for tourists.

But now, more than 30 years after the first rafting descent, the canyon is considered un-runnable again. This time the problem isn't dangerous white water – it's a locked gate across the only access road.

In response to concerns raised by Transport Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway has closed the unmarked, unofficial crossing, saying it can't be used safely by the rafting companies, which had been taking rafts and tourists across the rails at the site for decades.

The dispute seemed to have been resolved April 22 after an agreement in principle was reached in a meeting involving CP Rail, river guides, and local and provincial government officials.

Carmen Narancsik, a spokesperson for the Kicking Horse River Outfitters Association, said CP Rail promised in that meeting that access could continue if rafting clients signed liability waivers before crossing the tracks, and if the rafting companies paid for railway flag operators to be on site.

But when raft crews tried to use the crossing last week on opening day of the rafting season, they found a locked gate and railway police on guard.

"We were shocked," Ms. Narancsik said. "We just didn't see that coming."

She said rafting companies continue to take tourists down upper and middle sections of the river, accessed by another road. But loss of access to the lower canyon effectively cuts off one-third of the white water runs, shortening the rafting day and reducing the rates charged to tourists and wages paid to rafting guides.

"We are hurting," Ms. Narancsik said. "A lot of guides are looking for second jobs now."

Norm MacDonald, the NDP MLA for the area, said the agreement in principle reached at the April meeting broke down in later talks because CP Rail demanded that the provincial government accept liability for any accidents at the crossing.

He said the demand was so broad the government just couldn't accept it.

"They are insisting on half a billion in liability [coverage]," he said. "[The provincial government] would get nailed for everything, even a train dumping into the river. It's just completely unfair," Mr. MacDonald said. "I'm in Opposition and my job is to criticize government, but they just couldn't accept that."

But Mark Wallace, vice-president corporate affairs and chief of staff for CP Rail, said the company has taken a fair and reasonable position.

"The big concern from our perspective … is if there was any fatality, God forbid, or a train derailment caused by the presence of the rafters … that would incur hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in damage, that CP would not be held liable for those costs going forward and somebody would indemnify us," he said. "We don't expect liability for any incident outside the hours [when rafters are using the crossing]."

Mr. Wallace said CP's position has not changed since the April 22 meeting, but the province was unable to meet the liability concerns in subsequent discussions.

"We are providing the solution that they can't meet unfortunately and they are asking us to indemnify, or self-insure basically for any incident that happens for people crossing an active rail line," he said

In an open letter released last week, two B.C. ministers said the province has offered $250,000 to install a safe crossing at the site, and has offered to take on financial responsibility "for any injuries suffered by rafters during a permitted crossing."

But Transportation Minister Todd Stone and Tourism Minister Shirley Bond said CP Rail demanded more than the government could agree to.

"It is totally unreasonable to think B.C. taxpayers would take on basically the full financial responsibility for any loss or injury from CP's operations despite having no jurisdiction over CP," they stated.

In an e-mail, Wayne Stetski, NDP MP for the region, urged CP Rail to reconsider its position.

"I am quite prepared to make this a national issue around whether or not CPR should have the right to block Canadians' access to our lakes and rivers across our country," he said.