Fishing Act revised.

[OldBlackDog]

Fisheries Act amendments brought into force despite widespread opposition
Monday, November 25, 2013
Former fisheries ministers, scientists and public concerned changes will hurt fish and local economies

VANCOUVER – Today, after an almost 18 month delay, Canada is bringing into force changes to the federal Fisheries Act that have faced widespread and persistent opposition and First Nations’ legal challenges since they were introduced in last year’s omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45. The amendments, which weaken legal protections for fish and their habitat, have been broadly criticized as having passed without proper parliamentary debate or public consultation, and for being motivated by pressure from resource industries.

When it introduced the amendments, the federal government claimed the changes would benefit businesses and municipalities. For many coastal communities and businesses, however, the changes bring greater uncertainty and risk.

“I have been up and down the coast explaining these amendments, and what I am hearing is that today’s Fisheries Act amendments are bad news for many local businesses,” says Anna Johnston, Staff Counsel at West Coast Environmental Law Association. “Coastal economies are often heavily reliant on water and fish, both of which are put at risk by these changes.”

Enacted in 1868, the Fisheries Act was widely considered to be one of the most important environmental laws in the country.

“Many of Canada’s fish species will lose their legal protection as a result of these changes,” says Johnston. “The changes will also allow more harm to fish habitat. It’s a much weaker act in terms of protection.”

Legal changes in force today eliminate protection for many fish species as well as a longstanding legal prohibition on disruption of fish habitat.

“As any sensible person knows, if you want to protect fish, you have to look after their habitat. Moving away from this approach abandons good science and as a consequence good public policy,” says the Honourable John Fraser, Canada’s fisheries minister in 1984-85. “I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence from the federal government to support its assertions that their changes to the Fisheries Act are going to be better for habitat and better for fish.”

Scientists argue that the changes will expose fish to harm that could put them at risk. “The changes allow temporary harm to be done to fish habitat, which could effectively wipe out certain species, like pink salmon, that have short life-cycles,” says Dr. Ken Ashley, Director of the Rivers Institute at BCIT.

Last year, Fraser and other former fisheries ministers Tom Siddon, David Anderson and Herb Dhaliwal, who served in both Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister expressing their alarm about proposed changes to the Fisheries Act.

They never received a reply.

Turning a deaf ear to widespread scientific and public concern, Cabinet has passed an Order bringing the amendments into force today.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Experts protest 'gutting' of Fisheries Act
By CRAWFORD KILIAN
Published November 25, 2013 05:30 pm | 2 Comments

Canada's revised Fisheries Act came into force today, removing protection from over 70 freshwater species currently at risk of extinction. The change has drawn criticism from both Canadian and international scientists.

On November 9, the journal Fisheries published an article by Jeffrey A. Hutchings of Dalhousie University and John R. Post of the University of Calgary. Titled "Gutting Canada's Fisheries Act: No Fishery, No Fish Habitat Protection," the report detailed the implications. While the article itself is behind a paywall, the abstract makes some key points:

Revisions to Canada's national fisheries legislation have eviscerated the country's ability and responsibility to protect most fish habitat. Changes to the Fisheries Act, passed by Parliament in 2012 and supported by new regulations in 2013, stipulate that habitat will now be protected only for fish that are considered part of a fishery or that support a fishery. The habitats of most freshwater fish species in Canada, including the majority of threatened and endangered fishes, will no longer be protected.

Contrary to responsible management practices for the protection of native fishes, the act now inadvertently prioritizes habitat protection for some nonnative species -- even hatchery-produced hybrids -- as long as they are part of a fishery. Changes to the Fisheries Act were not supported by scientific advice (contrary to government policy) and are inconsistent with an ecosystem-based approach to management.

Politically motivated dismantling of habitat protection provisions in the Fisheries Act erases 40 years of enlightened and responsible legislation and diminishes Canada's ability to fulfill its national and international obligations to protect, conserve, and sustainably use aquatic biodiversity.

Today an article in the prestigious journal Nature brought the problem to worldwide attention. In part, it said:

That the law removes protection for fish habitats strikes many biologists as especially short-sighted. "The one thing that fish need to persist is a safeguarding of the place they live, and that is no longer an explicit part of the fisheries act," says Eric Taylor, who studies fish evolution and conservation at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

A 1989 study of North American fish extinctions found that almost three-quarters of extinctions in a 100-year period were caused by habitat alteration. Another study has shown that in Canada, habitat loss and degradation is the predominant threat faced by endangered freshwater fish.

... Meanwhile, the new Canadian policies could have downstream consequences for the United States, as roughly 300 lakes and 15 major transboundary water basins span the two countries' shared 8,891 kilometre border. Canada's fisheries law now leaves headwaters that are crucial to downstream water quality with fewer protections, as such areas normally lack fishing activity.

In a statement, Fisheries and Oceans Canada addressed some of those concerns. The agency says that Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA) offers habitat protection to fish. But Taylor says that it may not be enough, because SARA is designed for animals that are already in trouble, whereas the previous version of the Fisheries Act offered blanket protection for all fish habitats. "This change is going to create a gap now where things are only going to be protected when they're already in trouble," Taylor adds. "It's going to cost us way more money in the long run."

- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/11/25/Experts_protest/#sthash.eUlKjvYK.dpuf

 

[tincan]

Yup, pretty disturbing. pretty much going against all available science. pretty much stephen harper.

 

[GLG]

Energy industry letter suggested environmental law changes
Jan 09, 2013

Greenpeace says oil and gas companies got what they wanted from Ottawa


A letter obtained by Greenpeace through access to information laws and passed on to the CBC reveals the oil and gas industry was granted its request that the federal government change a series of environmental laws to advance "both economic growth and environmental performance." Within 10 months of the request, the industry had almost everything it wanted.

The letter, dated Dec. 12, 2011, was addressed to Environment Minister Peter Kent and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. It came from a group called the Energy Framework Initiative (EFI), which is made up of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (now the Canadian Fuels Association) and the Canadian Gas Association.


"The purpose of our letter is to express our shared views on the near-term opportunities before the government to address regulatory reform for major energy industries in Canada," wrote the EFI.
The letter specifically mentions six laws that relate to the oil and gas industry's ability to do its work:

• National Energy Board Act.
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
• Fisheries Act.
• Navigable Waters Protection Act.
• Species at Risk Act.
• Migratory Birds Convention Act.

On Jan. 9, 2012 (less than one month after the letter was written), Oliver wrote an open letter accusing environmentalists and other "radical groups" of undermining the Canadian economy.
On April 26, 2012, the government introduced the first of its omnibus budget implementation acts which completely re-wrote the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and made major changes to the Fisheries Act and the National Energy Board Act.
On Oct. 18, 2012, the government tabled its second omnibus budget implementation act, which replaced the Navigable Waters Protection Act (one of the oldest pieces of Canadian legislation) with the Navigation Protection Act.
Environmental laws 'outdated'

In its letter, EFI suggested the approach of these laws was "outdated."
"At the heart of most existing legislation is a philosophy of prohibiting harm: 'environmental' legislation is almost entirely focused on preventing bad things from happening rather than enabling responsible outcomes. This results in a position of adversarial prohibition, rather than enabling collaborative conservation to achieve agreed common goals," explained the EFI. Environmentalists say the letter is evidence of the oil and gas industry's influence over changes in environmental laws. "The industry's fingerprints are all over this budget. They got the changes that they wanted and they even put out a press release later thanking the government for making those changes," said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace, the organization that gave the letter to the CBC.

A spokesman for Oliver, said the energy minister does meet with a variety of energy industry stakeholders. That has included meetings with both Greenpeace Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation.

"Our co-operative approach to responsible resource development was arrived at with the provinces during successive annual meetings of federal and provincial ministers responsible for energy," wrote spokesman Chris McCluskey in a statement to CBC News. The industry downplayed the timing of the letter and said they regularly talk with the government on subjects related to their field. "That's one letter. It's one element of a very long engagement process we've had with government, as others have had. Yes, we wanted changes because we think those changes enable economic activity and protect the environment at the same time," said Dave Collyer, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and one of the signatories on the industry letter.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/energy-industry-letter-suggested-environmental-law-changes-1.1346258


official reason for changes to the fisheries act...


But the federal government says the old law goes too far. Fisheries and Oceans Minister Keith Ashfield said it makes no sense to extend a flooded drainage ditch the same protection as the Great Lakes.

Ashfield said under the current laws, property owners have had to seek Fisheries Department approval before building structures to protect their property from erosion. “We’re responsible for fish and fish habitat and we’ll continue to do that. This in no way impacts or weakens that,” he said in an interview.Ashfield said the changes will allow the department to focus on real threats like invasive species. He said the oil industry did not lobby for the change to be made. Opposition parties have alleged the government is removing Section 35 to fast-track new pipeline developments.“This has been the dream of the oil industry forever,” said NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen, “to simply take out the one piece of the Fisheries Act that provided environmental protection across the board.”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada...nservatives-for-gutting-fisheries-protections

 

[cohochinook]

I have worked closely with John Fraser on fighting these changes. I have a huge amount of praise for all his efforts. Also Ken Ashley is one of the most well respected scientists I know.

This is a sad day for Canada, loosing one of our most important protections for fish habitat.