Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: jon5hill on March 12, 2012, 08:36:11 PM

Title: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: jon5hill on March 12, 2012, 08:36:11 PM
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/11186-no-habitat-no-fish-harper-plans-for-elimination-of-wildlife-protection.html (http://ttp://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/11186-no-habitat-no-fish-harper-plans-for-elimination-of-wildlife-protection.html)

*NEW COVERAGE* - http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+government+laws+protecting+fish+habitat+biologist+claims/6295564/story.html (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+government+laws+protecting+fish+habitat+biologist+claims/6295564/story.html)


To date the Harper government has shown little regard for the protection of the environment and over the past few years has supervised the almost total elimination of enforcement of the habitat  protection and the pollution provisions of the Canada Fisheries Act (Sections 35 and 36 respectively).
 
During the Cohen Inquiry in 2011 data was presented to show that pollution and habitat violation investigations have been greatly reduced and convictions of violations in BC and indeed throughout Canada is now almost non-existent (see attachment).

The Fisheries Act of Canada was put in place in 1868 and is one of the oldest and most tested pieces of environmental legislation in the world. In 1975 many people worked hard to get a proper section added to the Act to protect fish habitat in Canada.
 
Section 35 (habitat protection) was passed by Parliament in 1976 and has been extensively used across Canada over the past 36 years. In B.C., the Federal and BC governments largely quit enforcing  the pollution and habitat sections of the Act in favor of allowing industry to self govern their own environmental project’s ‘needs’ and monitor their own self compliance. This has proven to be a disaster wherever it has been attempted elsewhere in the World.

I have just been leaked a confidential copy of proposed changes to the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act as directed by the political levels within the Harper Government. The government is totally re-writing the habitat protection provisions of Section 35(1) so as to remove habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act. This is a serious situation and will put Canada back to where we were in the pre 1976 period where Canada had no laws to protect fish habitat and no way to monitor the great industrial expansion that occurred in Canada with the consequential loss of major fish habitat all across Canada.

Fish habitat includes the lakes, rivers and oceans and their water flows, life processes, the banks and the riparian vegetation along a water way, marshes, gravel beds and the diversity of habitat that allow a rich and diverse population of life to live in our waterways that supports a large economic, cultural and recreational fishery. Also this habitat produces healthy and robust populations of fish that are essential to the feeding and maintaining the health of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems e.g. the bears, eagles, otters, grebes, herons, etc.

Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act now states:
35(1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
(2) No person contravenes subsection (1) by causing the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by an means or under any conditions authorized by the Minister or under the regulations made by the Governor in Counsel under this Act

The proposed new subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act is as follows:

35(1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity, other than fishing, that results in an adverse effect on a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value.

(2) No person contravenes subsection (1) if
(a) the adverse effect is authorized by the Minister and is produced in accordance with the conditions established by the Minister;
(b) the adverse effect is authorized by a person prescribed by the regulations and is produced in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the regulations;
(c) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions set out in the regulations or with any other authorization issued under this Act;
(d) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in, on, over, under, through or across any Canadian fisheries waters, and
(i) the work, undertaking or activity falls within a class of works, undertakings or activities, or the Canadian fisheries waters fall within a class of Canadian fisheries waters, established by regulation, and
(ii) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the regulations.

The existing effective and essential piece of legislation is to be changed to apparently just protect fish - something that the Act already does.  The lack of mention of ‘habitat’ in the proposed draft law and the number of subjective and ambiguous words inserted into this major amendment will make any enforcement of this new law very difficult. For instance what is a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value? If is has no economic value, can it now be needlessly destroyed? This newly drafted provision is not intended to protect fish habitat in any manner whatsoever. To support the habitat provisions in the Act, in 1986 DFO developed the National Habitat Policy with it’s central theme of ‘no net loss’ and it was once heralded as one of Canada’s first policies promoting sustainable development. Will that now also be withdrawn?

Also the above drafted section is enabling the making of regulations and, as with CEAA, the government may pass many regulations that restrict the intent of that section of the Act. That is double jeopardy. First the Canadian government amends the legislation to eliminate the protection of fish habitat and then it may undermine that new questionable fish protection legislation by allowing the passing of regulations that will create loopholes in what is left in the Act.

DFO used to hand out pencils and pens with the slogan embossed on their sides  – No Habitat – No Fish. The Prime Minster and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must realize that the Government has not replaced nature and has not changed the ecological and natural laws that create habitat and maintain ecological functioning in our essential life supporting aquatic ecosystems. They cannot replace living forms of life and their habitats and when it’s gone, it’s gone. Why at this key time in our history of ongoing industrial development pressures on our rivers, lakes and oceans, do we turn away from responsible aquatic habitat protection responsibilities? Where is the ethic and moral responsibility for our children and future generations and those that cannot be heard or cannot vote   – our fish and wildlife resources?

This proposed move by the Harper government is a travesty for our fishery resources and the health of the entire ecosystem and it ignores the needs of our future generations. It is little less than another attack on the biological systems that allow life to exist on this planet. To make matters worse, the political level has decided to not consult with DFO staff or the public on these proposed changes. The Harper government will attempt to sneak this neutering of the Fisheries Act through Parliament within the next two weeks by tacking it on to the end of the up coming Budget Omnibus Bill.

This is disgraceful and the movers of this legislative change are urged  to reconsider their planned reckless and irresponsible actions. All sport fish groups, fishermen, First Nations, ENGOs and the public must say enough is enough and oppose what Mr. Harper is planning to do.



Otto E. Langer
Fishery Biologist and Aquatic Ecologist



Biography of Otto E. Langer BSc(Zool) MSc
Worked for DFO and DOE for 32 years in habitat and water quality protection issues. Helped organize BC Assoc. of Prof. Biologists and was President of the group. Qualified as an expert witness on over 100 pollution and habitat destruction cases in Canada from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island. Published and directed many studies relating to the protection status of BC habitats. Author of the red, yellow and green habitat color zoning system that is used to protect the Fraser River Estuary.  Promoted the inclusion of habitat protection provisions into the Fisheries Act in 1975.

Awarded the BC Government Silver Metal for urban stream riparian protection in 2000; BCWF BC Conservationist of the Year 2009; BC Best Regional Book Prize 2005 - Stain Upon the Sea - a book dedicated to exposing the salmon farm industry in BC. Awarded the CWF Roland Michener Canadian Conservationist of the Year Award for 2010. Left government in 2001 and joined the David Suzuki Foundation (2001 to 2005) and formed their Marine Conservation Program. Have been retired for past 7 years and do volunteer work for many conservation causes including VAPOR (no jet fuel tankers in the Fraser River) , Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee (Chilliwack), oil and oil sands issues, London UK based MSC (2001-2010), BC Marine Conservation Caucus and had legal standing at the Cohen Inquiry on declining Fraser River sockeye stocks.  
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 12, 2012, 08:47:20 PM
 I posted this below earlier this evening, maybe Rod can delete mine to prevent double posting of this subject.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: StillAqua on March 12, 2012, 09:49:14 PM
I posted this below earlier this evening, maybe Rod can delete mine to prevent double posting of this subject.
This is one issue for which no double posting apology is required......
Anyone who continues to doubt what Harper's hidden agenda for our waters and environment is has their head buried deeply in the mud. If you voted for him, you're getting it now....
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Athezone on March 12, 2012, 10:29:28 PM
I never voted for this Bozo and glad I didn't. From major pension reforms to OAS age increases and just 5 hours ago Bill C-10 was pushed through the House of Commons to increase mandatory sentencing. That bill alone should show us all that he has learned nothing from the 30 year lesson taught to us by the US. that locking up more people longer will decrease crime. The Canadian Bar listed 10 top reasons to oppose Bill C-10 and the major reason was that it will cost us Canadians billions more in tax dollars and break an already overloaded justice system.

I could go on and on about this man's incompetence and his many mistakes but to get back to the issue at hand, if these changes to the Fisheries Act take place the irreparable harm it would do to Canada's habitat is incredible. These changes would have far reaching results and they definitely ignore the needs of future generations of Canadian's.

Oh Great Leader, I hope you know what you're doing !!! Can anyone spell Impeechment ??? 
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: jon5hill on March 12, 2012, 10:31:53 PM
I posted this below earlier this evening, maybe Rod can delete mine to prevent double posting of this subject.

My apologies Chris!

I didn't see your post, I hope Rod can clump them or delete mine or whatever
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 13, 2012, 06:27:36 AM
My apologies Chris!

I didn't see your post, I hope Rod can clump them or delete mine or whatever
That's OK, as StillAqua stated this serious situation deserves to be double posted. It must be distributed widely!!!!
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 13, 2012, 12:09:27 PM
NDP MP Fin Donnlley just asked, in the House a few minutes ago about this and Fisheries Minister said no decision has been made yet. Check Hansard for his brief response. Thanks to Fin for bringing this to the House's attention
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 13, 2012, 12:47:50 PM
http://www.burnabynow.com/Leaked+info+alleges+Tories+removing+habitat+protection+from+Fisheries/6295018/story.html
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: wizard on March 13, 2012, 12:54:11 PM
Very sad state of affairs indeed.

Seems like Canada is becoming less and less "Canadian" by the month it seems.

Bill C-10 is a travesty to democracy.

As tax payers we should all be concerned for thie future of this country, it's changing and fast. 

Do we really need 65 new Fighter Jets, but we have literally 0 money for things such as environmental protection agencies, DFO officers and the like, really disheartening.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: IronNoggin on March 13, 2012, 02:48:29 PM
This inane BS MUST be stopped! I've provided a link for all to access to acquire your MP's contact information. I strongly suggest we all let them know this type of crap is NOT to be tolerated!!   >:(

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=current
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: jon5hill on March 13, 2012, 04:08:02 PM
NDP MP Fin Donnlley just asked, in the House a few minutes ago about this and Fisheries Minister said no decision has been made yet. Check Hansard for his brief response. Thanks to Fin for bringing this to the House's attention

I sent Fin a message as soon as I got Otto's email yesterday. I am glad he was on the ball! Fin is excellent.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandy on March 13, 2012, 05:01:34 PM
Very sad state of affairs indeed.

Seems like Canada is becoming less and less "Canadian" by the month it seems.

Bill C-10 is a travesty to democracy.

As tax payers we should all be concerned for thie future of this country, it's changing and fast.  

Do we really need 65 new Fighter Jets, but we have literally 0 money for things such as environmental protection agencies, DFO officers and the like, really disheartening.

totally agree,

Harper has taken Canada and Canadians back decades in what was gained by environmental legislation. All this will do is perpetuate the massive right to left swings and force somewhat moderates to become extreme in their views. He's Totally out of control ...oops totally under control by industry.

How did he get in again?

re: the fighter jets.
We need to modernise if we are going to continue to commit to Nato and UN peacekeeping/making ;-) The F35 was the wrong plane and I'm told that are they adding another year onto expected delivery dates, wonder if that's requested by the PMO or as an FYI by the US.

Also told that the cheaper Euro typhoon is gaining support or do we endup with superhornet plus a new refueling fleet for the gas guzzlers? either way the numbers are astronomical and when you consider the human suffering they cost, it is not hard to question just how much do we need them, if we are going to send our pilots up, we best give them a fighting chance, we owe them that. Right know they need the advanced radar protection and CAP supplied tby allies to complete battle sorties (were) given.

Not in any way anti-military, but when you consider this, I trained with both Milan and the Redeye systems, each when fired excluding anything but the actual cost of the round was told was the same then as the cost of 2 Kidney machines and I know I fired two too three doz of each in training or otherwise, add several doz gustav rounds and the same for the wombat RR. I shuuder to think what the actual costs are now.

 Hell I know what it cost to reload my 3006 and 338-06 what does one of those 155's cost?

but what is the answer? cutting into hard fought for and much respected environmental legislation, is not going to make Canadians' lives any better , all it will do is put more money in the pockets of a select few industrialists.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandy on March 14, 2012, 08:20:43 AM
Sorry re the military spending hyjack.

Time to send a WTF to your MP I think!
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Athezone on March 14, 2012, 08:45:56 AM
Thanks for the link IronNoggin, my MP here in New Westminster is Fin Donnelly and I'll be sending him a well worded reply on what I think of this whole ball of bee's wax. And I'm not going to mince words either. If he wants my vote and hopefully my wifes he'd better put something on the table.

At least Fin has brought this issue up in the House so he is at least concerned which bodes well for a decent exchange of ideas and solutions. I hate to see our great country dismantled and ruined piece by piece by side-ways talking politicians who only look at the dollar signs and not the truth of reality.

Here's hoping they don't make these changes to the fisheries act but I really have a tough time waiting for the politicians to do what's right. Finger's are crossed though.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: IronNoggin on March 14, 2012, 12:08:54 PM
"Meanwhile, the Conservative-dominated Commons environment committee on Tuesday recommended downloading much of the job of environmental assessment to the provinces and imposing timelines so the development of big projects won’t be delayed."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-wants-to-bow-out-of-regulating-fish-habitat-documents-show/article2368513/

"In its present form, the environmental review process can cause delays and lead to lost economic opportunities, she said – “a particularly important fact given that major energy and mining projects represent as much as $500-billion dollars in potential investment over the next decade.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-rigged-environment-committee-to-gut-review-process-opposition/article2367961/

Kinda tough not to see the pattern here - if your head ain't buried in the sand that is...

Nog
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: jon5hill on March 14, 2012, 03:21:57 PM
More press: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/14/pol-cp-freshwater-regulation-environment.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/14/pol-cp-freshwater-regulation-environment.html)
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 14, 2012, 06:27:09 PM
And more press.  http://thecanadian.org/item/1375-stephen-harper-gutting-fisheries-act-habitat-salmon-rafe-mair
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 14, 2012, 07:36:39 PM
More.  http://www.theprogress.com/news/142661676.html
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: jon5hill on March 15, 2012, 10:43:50 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Changes+Fisheries+would+death+blow+Greens+warn/6305639/story.html (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Changes+Fisheries+would+death+blow+Greens+warn/6305639/story.html)
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 15, 2012, 12:01:55 PM
For those that wish to contact the government and the Fishery Minister.



http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/take-action/seafood-oceans/fish-habitat-protection-must-remain-law
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 15, 2012, 12:55:34 PM
From yesterday's hansard.

Fisheries and Oceans 
    [table of Contents]
Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, a leaked document has revealed a new Conservative plan to attack the Fisheries Act. It shines light on the government's plan to gut important environmental protection.


    Eliminating habitat protection will set us back decades, making it easier to ram through big industrial projects, like the Enbridge pipeline which we know will have a devastating impact on the environment.


    I ask the minister again, is the Conservative government planning to gut the habitat fisheries, yes or no?

    [table of Contents]
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, current fisheries policies go well beyond what is required to protect fish and fish habitat. I can give some examples of that.


    Last year in Saskatchewan, a long-running country jamboree was nearly cancelled after newly flooded fields were deemed fish habitat by fisheries officials. In Richelieu, the application of rules blocked a farmer from draining his flooded field.


    We are looking at the policies, but there has been no decision made.

[Translation]

    [table of Contents]
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, those are empty words. Canadians know full well that they cannot count on the Conservatives to protect the environment.


    We know that the industry started lobbying the Conservatives in 2006. The government is supposed to protect our fishery, not roll out the red carpet for disastrous mega-projects.


    Are the Conservatives going to do their job or are they going to keep giving their lobbyist friends special treatment? When are they finally going to meet the needs of the fishers?

[English]

    [table of Contents]
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, it is more like empty questions. The member opposite obviously has a crystal ball that I do not have.


    What we are looking at is policies. I can tell the member that we have not made any policy changes. We are currently looking at the policies that are in place and how we can improve them to make it better for fish habitat and the fisheries.

    [table of Contents]
Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, let us give the minister another chance.


    First, the Conservative government smeared B.C.'s first nations, whom it has a duty to properly consult, by calling them radicals and adversaries.


    Now we have learned that the government plans to relinquish its role in protecting vital salmon and other fish habitat. This is a cynical attempt to shortcut the northern gateway pipeline approval process at the expense of local communities and the environment.


    Will the government commit here and now to drop its plan to gut fish habitat protection?

    [table of Contents]
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, these are policies that we are looking at.


    There is ample evidence that the policies we have in place are inhibiting the everyday activities of Canadian landowners. We have a responsibility to Canada and the Canadian public to ensure that we protect our habitat. At the same time the policies have to be reasonable and do not infringe on the everyday way of life of Canadians.

    [table of Contents]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, last year purse seiners were unable to catch all of the remaining herring in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Now we are hearing that the minister has cut a deal to allow massive corporate mid-water trawlers to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


    Will the government, knowing that these massive corporate trawlers will destroy the species, inform the House and Canadians that it will not allow this type of trawler in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which will destroy the herring species?

    [table of Contents]
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question from the member opposite. Days ago he was criticizing me for listening to fishermen and seeking ideas and input from fishermen.


     Obviously, those members probably would not be way down there in the House if they had listened to Canadians and Canadian fishermen.

*   *   *

[Translation]

The Environment 
    [table of Contents]
Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have transformed a crucial report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development into Conservative talking points. The report contains no proof and does not take the points of view of key stakeholders into account. Since no one can support their plan to phase out environmental assessments, they wrote a phony report that supports their case.


    When will they stop producing reports based on their fantasy world?

   (1500) 

    [table of Contents]
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all.

[English]


    The standing committee has completed its review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and has made some constructive suggestions for improvements to the act that will allow for continued rigorous protection of the environment while at the same time protecting Canadian jobs and the economy.


    Our consideration of legislative change will certainly benefit from the recommendations of the standing committee.

    [table of Contents]
Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, here is the Conservative plan to study environmental assessments: One, ignore important evidence; two, fail to consult key stakeholders; and three, write a phony report full of holes that serves no one but the Conservatives.


    That is not good enough. We are talking about important safeguards here to protect our health, communities and environment. Conservatives are turning environmental assessments into a farce.


    Will the Conservatives put off any changes to the Environmental Assessment Act until a credible review can be done?

    [table of Contents]
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, if the NDP spent a little less time lobbying against Canadian jobs and a responsibly regulated industry, the member would have a better chance of helping to protect the environment.


    The Environmental Assessment Act and the good work of the agency are very much front of mind. We are well aware of where improvements to the act can be made. That said, we do appreciate the recommendations made by the standing committee.

*   *   *

Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 15, 2012, 01:54:58 PM
Lots of links on this story.

ttp://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/142710655.html
***************************************************
See also:
http://www.findonnelly.ca/node/416

14MAR12 Aggregated Articles:
http://news.google.ca/news/more?q=Habitat+to+be+Removed+from+the+Canada+Fisheries+Act&hl=en&prmd=imvns&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1280&bih=871&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=djN-RE6ltBt-yfM5dULEcfuzAXlLM&ei=7vtgT9ycFKLM2AXHrrSOCA&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQqgIwAA

Checked at 1:20PM

http://www.mysask.com/portal/site/main/template.MAXIMIZE/?javax.portlet.tpst=e4c43b55b5646bb94df4821050315ae8_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_e4c43b55b5646bb94df4821050315ae8_viewID=story&javax.portlet.prp_e4c43b55b5646bb94df4821050315ae8_topic_display_name=Environemnt%20News&javax.portlet.prp_e4c43b55b5646bb94df4821050315ae8_topic_name=Environment&javax.portlet.prp_e4c43b55b5646bb94df4821050315ae8_new s_item_id_key=17339496&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken


http://www.globaltvbc.com/canada+poised+to+roll+back+fish+protection+laws+biologist+claims/6442600216/story.html
http://www.globaltvbc.com/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.globalregina.com/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.globalnews.ca/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.globaltoronto.com/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.globalmontreal.com/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.4-traders.com/TRANSCANADA-CORP-1411996/news/Canada-Weakening-Environment-Laws-To-Aid-Pipelines-Biologist-Says-14215295/
http://www.globalsaskatoon.com/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/canada/ndp+says+leaked+documents+show+feds+abandoning+fresh+water+oversight/6442599865/story.html
http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article/340497--ndp-says-leaked-documents-show-feds-abandoning-fresh-water-oversight
http://www.metronews.ca/winnipeg/canada/article/1123047--ndp-says-feds-abandon-fresh-water-oversight
http://www.canada.com/Canada+poised+roll+back+fish+protection+laws+government+source/6296423/story.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mps-plan-to-streamline-environmental-oversight-draws-opposition-fire-142482265.html
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/03/13/leaked-documents-show-feds-ready-to-strip-fisheries-act-ndp/
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/canada/article/686711--tories-dismantling-environmental-protection-opposition-critics-say
http://www.brandonsun.com/lifestyles/breaking-news/mps-plan-to-streamline-environmental-oversight-draws-opposition-fire-142482265.html?thx=y
http://www.therecord.com/news/canada/article/686710--tories-dismantling-environmental-protection-opposition-critics-say
http://thetyee.ca/CanadianPress/2012/03/13/Environmental-Assessment-17339496/
http://www.570news.com/news/national/article/340497--mps-plan-to-streamline-environmental-oversight-draws-opposition-fire
http://www.660news.com/news/national/article/340497--mps-plan-to-streamline-environmental-oversight-draws-opposition-fire
http://www.burnabynow.com/technology/Leaked+info+huge/6299498/story.html
http://www.royalcityrecord.com/technology/City+wants+know+Tories+weakening+fish+protection/6299285/story.html
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/proposed-fish-habitat-law-changes-protect-industrial-projects-191456718.html
http://www.globaltvbc.com/canada+poised+to+roll+back+fish+protection+laws+biologist+claims/6442600216/story.html
http://www.thevalleyvoice.ca/Voice%20Stories/March%202012/Harper%20Government%20Plans%20to%20Eliminate%20Fish%20Habitat%20Protection%20-%20March%2013%202012.htm
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/03/13/canada-weakening-environment-laws-to-aid-pipelines-biologist-says/
http://www.theprogress.com/news/142661676.html
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Canada+poised+roll+back+fish+protection+laws+biologist+claims/6295564/story.html
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/73413-feds-neutering-fisheries-act
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Ottawa+ready+laws+protecting+fish+balance+environmental+economic/6296286/story.html
http://www.hopestandard.com/news/142661676.html
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/11191-paving-the-way-for-enbridge-second-harper-omnibus-hides-gutting-of-fisheries-act-protections-provision.html
http://www.burnabynow.com/Leaked+info+alleges+Tories+removing+habitat+protection+from+Fisheries/6295018/story.html
http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/our-work/seafood-oceans/spotlights/no-habitat-no-fish
http://www.windsorstar.com/Tories+fish+protection+warns+biologist/6298362/story.html

Earlier:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-wants-to-bow-out-of-regulating-fish-habitat-documents-show/article2368513/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/14/pol-cp-freshwater-regulation-environment.html
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Ottawa+eyes+changes+Fisheries/6300221/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Tories+spawn+fisheries+changes/6298768/story.html
http://www.burnabynow.com/Leaked+info+alleges+Tories+removing+habitat+protection+from+Fisheries/6295018/story.html
http://thecanadian.org/item/1373-ndp-critic-fin-donnelly-harper-government-changes-fisheries-act
http://blogs.canada.com/2012/03/13/are-tories-secretly-rewriting-the-rules-on-protecting-fish-habitat/

Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: jon5hill on March 15, 2012, 05:45:28 PM
The most important link so far: Take Action -> http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/take-action/seafood-oceans/fish-habitat-protection-must-remain-law/view (http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/take-action/seafood-oceans/fish-habitat-protection-must-remain-law/view)

This is of paramount concern for anyone who cares about the environment across Canada.

Please fill this form-email out. It's very simple and took me less than 30 seconds. Spend 30 seconds of your time to help prevent the conservatives from abolishing key parts of the fisheries act.

You must speak out against this or they will push this legislation through!

Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: IronNoggin on March 17, 2012, 12:12:30 PM
"When government officials charged with protecting the environment talk about their ability to walk softly and carry a big stick, they are usually referring to the powers invested in them by the Fisheries Act.

The bill, first passed in 1867, has been strengthened several times over the years, most notably in 1986 when the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney brought in key measures to protect fish habitat.

It came as a surprise then, both to environmental organizations and apparently even staff within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, when an internal document was leaked this week indicating the government may water down the bill.

Responding to questions in the House from NDP MP Fin Donnelly, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield confirmed he is looking at significant changes."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/ottawa-defends-proposed-fisheries-act-changes/article2372325/
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 17, 2012, 04:59:43 PM


You can see how these proposed changes are serious when a former fishery minister says this.

 Former minister urges PM to resist Fisheries Act changes
 B.C. resident Tom Siddon, who introduced the act while in Brian Mulroney's cabinet, says there's 'no excuse' to water down habitat protection
 By Peter O'Neil, Vancouver Sun March 17, 2012   A former Progressive Conservative fisheries minister urged the Harper government Friday to reject private sector appeals, which are particularly loud in Western Canada, to water down the federal Fisheries Act.

Tom Siddon, who introduced the policy in 1986 under thenPrime Minister Brian Mulroney, said there's "no justifiable excuse" for removing provisions ensuring the protection of fisheries habitat.

The government, according to information leaked to retired federal fisheries biologist Otto Langer earlier this week, plans to drop any references to habitat. The proposed new wording would prohibit activity that would cause an "adverse effect" on "fish of economic, cultural or ecological value."

The government is responding to complaints from groups such as the Mining Association of Canada, which says $140 billion in potential mining projects are being stalled due to "nonsensical" decisions involving the Fisheries Act. But Siddon, fisheries minister from 1985 to 1990, urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to resist the pressure.

"The prime minister and some senior cabinet ministers might be well-meaning in trying to move in this direction, but they're misinformed if they think the weight and pressure of industry inconvenience should supersede the importance of the indelible values of our environment," said Siddon, who lives near Penticton. Siddon said the wording would turn fish into a commodity and overlook the importance of the broader ecosystem that, for instance, allows B.C.'s famous salmon resource to thrive.

"It's like saying as long as we have a happy lifestyle and can go to the rec centre and keep fit, it doesn't matter what the air is like that we breath or the water that we drink," Siddon said. "If we want to preserve and protect our fish stocks it's more than a commercial equation."

Siddon also suggested there could be political repercussions in B.C. for the Conservatives, who are waging a verbal war against opponents of the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline to the West Coast.

The Tories took 21 of 36 seats in the 2011 election in B.C.

"I have no doubt that if people don't do things the right way it will have political consequences."

Siddon said he's trying to arrange a meeting with Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, who didn't deny the reports and cited examples to demonstrate why the Fisheries Act is problematic.

Harper may have already taken a political hit in B.C. due to factors that predate this week's reports about fisheries legislation. A poll by Justason Market Intelligence of 611 British Columbians between February 24 and March 7, which asked respondents how they'd vote in a federal election, had the NDP in the lead at 40 per cent. The Conservatives were next at 30 per cent, followed by the Liberals at 20 per cent and the Green party at eight per cent.

That represents a significant shift from public attitudes expressed in the 2011 election, when Harper's Tories took 46 per cent of the vote compared to 33 per cent for the NDP, just 13 per cent for the Liberals, and eight per cent for the Greens.

The poll is considered to be an accurate reflection of public opinion to within four percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Pollster Barb Justason said the Tories are likely suffering the effects of the robocall controversy, anger over the government's Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, and concern over the government's stand on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project.

Pierre Gratton, president of the Ottawa-based Mining Association of Canada, said industry doesn't object to efforts to protect habitat that sustains important fisheries. But he said recent court decisions have resulted in "nonsensical" decisions.

One Yukon mining project was temporarily blocked because it affected a "former stream" that had the potential, according to a fisheries officer, to become a fish-bearing stream again, Gratton said.

"We'd like to see some common sense," Gratton said.


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Former+minister+urges+resist+Fisheries+changes/6318292/story.html#ixzz1pQCWzOtt
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 17, 2012, 07:06:17 PM
It’s time to fish or cut bait, Premier Clark!
 
Our esteemed contributor Otto Langer blew it wide open when he, using a leaked document, stated that under the Harper government the protection of fish habitat would no longer be enforced against industry and that it would use an “omnibus bill” to try to sneak it through.
 
An omnibus bill is used to make technical changes to support major legislation. A budget will usually need amendments in various statutes and that’s natural. It might also be used to make clear provisions causing confusion in statutes. It is not intended to bring in substantive changes, thus is not usually debated. When that bill is in fact designed to make a substantial change the government shows its moral turpitude big time.
 
The proposal to take protection of habitat out of the Fisheries Act was especially dishonourable because at first glance it looked as if the government was taking extra care to protect salmon - but the eagle eye of Otto quickly saw it for what it was and now the fat is in the fire.
 
The Vancouver Sun, which has suddenly got religion, got a document through the Access To Information Act which showed that the Tories considered habitat protection as a significant “irritant” for development.
 
The Minister, Keith Ashfield, lamented in the House Wednesday that a jamboree in Saskatchewan last year was almost cancelled because a flooded field contained fish. This speaks volumes for this government – to trivialize the huge assault on habitat in this way shows that the federal government couldn’t care less about BC’s fish.
 
There is no doubt that Ottawa has the Enbridge pipeline in mind.
 
The critical question is one that a grade 1 student would ask: if you don’t protect where fish live what’s the point of the other protections?
 
The answer is, of course, that there’s no point at all. The Enbridge pipeline will cross 1,000 rivers and streams stripped bare of protection. Sensible civic bodies won’t allow building close to rivers and streams while the government will not “inconvenience industry”.
 
Let me tell you with certainty what two premiers, from each major party would have done with this – I refer to Dave Barrett and Bill Bennett, who will be horrified to be named together in the same sentence, such was the acrimony of their relationship.
 
They would have said “BC habitat and the environment in general in BC is not for sale," and then would have had the Attorney to tell them the way to stop it.
 
His first answer would have undoubtedly been - make it clear that BC will use it’s constitutional right to protect it’s coast and ban all oil tankers. This would end the matter since there’s no point transporting oil when it cannot use a BC port and BC’s coast to take it away. Game Over.
 
It would be unwise, of course, not to go for the head of the snake, Enbridge while we’re at it.
 
BC has a shared environment jurisdiction and under this could protect non-migratory fish and place a habitat protection zone around all of the 1000 rivers and streams to be crossed by Enbridge. I have no doubt they could also protect the animals that use the area by setting up preserves.
 
Let’s cut to the chase here: this will no doubt bring lawsuits which I say all the better – by the time the matters make their way slowly and unsteadily through the courts, including appeals on rulings, Enbridge will have to make a move somewhere.
 
Barrett and Bennett would have said we will use our powers to prevent tanker traffic on our coast and, if the Enbridge people get their way, then we will bring the Coast Protection Act in.
 
Why wait for the Enbridge decision?
 
That would delay the start of any litigation on that initiative so that time absorbed in court re: the pipeline would have finally passed and a new court case started. In other words, the cases would not be concurrent but consecutive.
 
Is it ethical to use these tactics?
 
Of course it is – the unethical people are the feds. We would simply be protecting of our glorious province which Premier Clark and her caucus are sworn to do. Buying time is perfectly proper.
 
What should Premier Clark do?
 
Simple – state that the foregoing is the position British Columbia will take and it would be wise both in moral, legal, and fiscal terms to give Enbridge the hook now.
 
Premier Clark is in a lot of trouble and this move could only benefit her because it would leave John Cummins as the only party in favour of the Enbridge/tanker traffic plan and would clearly leave him with only Fraser Institute bred and fed hard right wingers which Clark has lost anyway.
 
I’m willing to bet the ranch that she hasn’t got the guts to stand up to the Feds. Much of this cowardice relates to the money BC has to return to Ottawa under the bungled HST fiasco.
 
At this point we must go after the snake's head, thus a very good time to demand protection of the province by our federal Tory MPs - to remind them and demand that they represent our interests not those of Enbridge.
 
As a bit of assistance - here they are:
Ed Fast Abbotsford ed@edfast.cat.
Dick Harris - Cariboo - Prince George Harris.R@parl.gc.ca.
Mark Strahl - Chilliwack - Fraser Canyon mark.strahl@parl.gc.ca.
Kerry Lynne Findlay - Delta - Richmond East MP Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca
Nina Grewal - Fleetwood - Port Kells Grewal.N@parl.gc.ca
Cathy McLeod - Kamloops - Thompson - Cariboo McLeod.C@parl.gc.ca
Ron Cannan - Kelowna - Lake Country ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca
David Wilks - Kootenay - Columbia David.wilks@parl.gc.ca
Mark Warawa - Langley Warawa.M@parl.gc.ca
James Lunney - Nanaimo - Alberni Lunney.J@parl.gc.ca
Andrew Saxton - North Vancouver Saxton.A@parl.gc.ca
Dan Albas - Okanagan - Coquihalla http://www.danalbas.com/contact-dan.html
Colin Mayes - Okanagan - Shuswap Mayes.C@parl.gc.ca
Randy Kamp - Pitt Meadows - Maple Ridge - Mission Kamp.R@parl.gc.ca
James Moore - Port Moody - Westwood - Port Coquitlam Moore.J@parl.gc.ca.
Bob Zimmer - Prince George - Peace River Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca
Alice Wong - Richmond Wong.A@parl.gc.ca
Russ Hiebert - South Surrey - White Rock - Cloverdale Info@RussHiebert.ca
John Duncan - Vancouver Island North Duncan.J@parl.gc.ca
Wai Young - Vancouver South info@waiyoung.caohn
Weston - West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky Country Weston.J@parl.gc.caview it.
 
 
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: StillAqua on March 17, 2012, 08:20:20 PM
Pierre Gratton, president of the Ottawa-based Mining Association of Canada, said industry doesn't object to efforts to protect habitat that sustains important fisheries. But he said recent court decisions have resulted in "nonsensical" decisions.

One Yukon mining project was temporarily blocked because it affected a "former stream" that had the potential, according to a fisheries officer, to become a fish-bearing stream again, Gratton said.

"We'd like to see some common sense," Gratton said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Former+minister+urges+resist+Fisheries+changes/6318292/story.html#ixzz1pQCWzOtt

Nonsensical??  Sounds they could be talking about a side-channel or seasonal tributary that provides critical overwintering habitat and high-water flood refuge for juvenile Chinook. Industry doesn't get it.....or doesn't want to get it.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandman on March 17, 2012, 08:47:15 PM
totally agree,

Harper has taken Canada and Canadians back decades in what was gained by environmental legislation. All this will do is perpetuate the massive right to left swings and force somewhat moderates to become extreme in their views. He's Totally out of control ...oops totally under control by industry.

How did he get in again?


Where to begin...he got in (with a majority government) after supporters sent "robocalls" to voters directing them to non existing poll stations.  If that wasn't bad enough, he got in (with a majority government) after 6 in every 10 Canadians that DID find a polling station voted AGAINST him.  Now we have to put up with his radical agenda for 4 years.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: alwaysfishn on March 17, 2012, 08:58:44 PM
Where to begin...he got in (with a majority government) after supporters sent "robocalls" to voters directing them to non existing poll stations.  If that wasn't bad enough, he got in (with a majority government) after 6 in every 10 Canadians that DID find a polling station voted AGAINST him.  Now we have to put up with his radical agenda for 4 years.


Politics is about picking the best out of a basket of politicians. While you may complain about Harper, if the NDP or the Liberals had of gotten in you would have a much worse situation. In a time that the world is an economic disaster, the need for a Canadian government that is financially responsible is essential. Fortunately in Harper we have the best leader for the current economy.

It's always easy to look on the other side of the fence and think that the grass is greener..... 
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: shuswapsteve on March 17, 2012, 09:51:20 PM
Nonsensical??  Sounds they could be talking about a side-channel or seasonal tributary that provides critical overwintering habitat and high-water flood refuge for juvenile Chinook. Industry doesn't get it.....or doesn't want to get it.

Many of these individuals (including many landowner that have property near water) simply do not understand the value of fish habitat for fish.  Unfortunately StillAqua, many of these people are not fish people and do not look at the whole picture including spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat.  The Act is seen as an inconvienence.

I believe DFO staff does their best to work with landowners to avoid prosecution under the Fisheries Act, but the amount of referrals goes up and up and staff fall further behind in investigating them.  With continuous cut-backs to the department, the job is even more difficult now.  Some staff are either going to lose their jobs or their positions will not be filled when they retire.  Now...add any changes to the Fisheries Act and those field staff are being cut-off at the legs.  In Saskatchewan, field staff likely had good reason for what they did.  It is frustrating when the guy you would hope would be in your corner (i.e. the Minister) is actually undermining you the whole time.
 
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandy on March 18, 2012, 12:58:40 PM
The PMO's lie spinners are posting their so-called examples of a so-called broken system. Unfortunately the DFO boots are unable to voice or post their reasons behind their decisions. Perhaps rightly so, kinda maybe?

In the past I've had decisions go with me and some agin, but more often than not those agin projects went back to the drawing board and another more expensive and acceptable solution was found. The idea is to get what you can for the least amount! more often than not it only costs a few percent from the proffit side, besides it's a cost to doing business and is more often than not a right off.

If the previous incarnation of the "Act" was not working, how the hell did those Diamond Mines get built? They moved /drained square miles of lakes and water courses. How do roads get built across the skeg or tundra?
Yes we had a system that has flaws but I still say it was a fair and equatable system that left enough space for thinking out of the box when it comes to the engineering and just plain common sense.

 This I think is part of what Canada is about, being " Fair and Equitable" is what attracted foreign investment, this is what in most cases gave us a good name as a Nation in General, none of this is gained by pandering to the greedy.

Anyone heard the story of a Province that will not have to pay back the Feds for a failed HST debacle........Oh providing that province allows the Pm's pet project to go ahead?

If anyone believes that Harper was responsible for giving Canada the good name it had with the monetary folks in Europe, I have a potential mine to sell you. The saying is "any port in a storm" Canada was attracting foreign money soly due to the global economy, Harper was just riding a wave that was created more than a decade ago.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Novabonker on March 19, 2012, 05:23:43 AM
Politics is about picking the best out of a basket of politicians. While you may complain about Harper, if the NDP or the Liberals had of gotten in you would have a much worse situation. In a time that the world is an economic disaster, the need for a Canadian government that is financially responsible is essential. Fortunately in Harper we have the best leader for the current economy.

It's always easy to look on the other side of the fence and think that the grass is greener..... 

Sorta like trying to pick which turd tastes the best. Harper is NOT a good leader, but just another hack, rewarding his friends and donors. No worries! Stevie's got the country's credit card! Stick to selling HST, AF. Look at the list of Harper's list of appointments and then sing some praise for ANOTHER THIEF AT THE HELM!( He only cheats when he can't win)

http://sixthestate.net/?page_id=1381
  
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: alwaysfishn on March 19, 2012, 07:13:55 PM
Sorta like trying to pick which turd tastes the best. Harper is NOT a good leader, but just another hack, rewarding his friends and donors. No worries! Stevie's got the country's credit card! Stick to selling HST, AF. Look at the list of Harper's list of appointments and then sing some praise for ANOTHER THIEF AT THE HELM!( He only cheats when he can't win)

http://sixthestate.net/?page_id=1381
   

I think you may be trying to hurt my feelings!   ;D

Good to see you putting up a post again Novabonker.....  In a strange sort of way I enjoy reading your left wing nonsense!
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Novabonker on March 19, 2012, 07:28:53 PM
I was getting worried AF - I was strongly agreeing with some of your posts. Left me speechless.... :-X
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: alwaysfishn on March 19, 2012, 07:47:10 PM
I know I'm on the right track when you disagree with everything I post......  now you have me wondering...  ;D
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: IronNoggin on March 20, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
Scientists are calling on the Harper government to scrap plans to weaken the federal Fisheries Act, saying it will "severely impair" Canada's ability to protect biodiversity and species at risk.

They also want Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield to come clean about what scientists inside his own department think of the proposed changes.

"In the interests of transparency and accountability, and in the interests of Canadian society, we respectfully request that the science advice received in this regard be made publicly available without delay," Jeffrey Hutchings, president of the Canadian Society For Ecology and Evolution, says in a letter sent to Ashfield on Monday.


http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Scientists+speak+against+proposed+Fisheries+changes/6326476/story.html

External Science has spoken, and directly requested that Harper lift the gag order on Internal Science to do the same.

Anyone care to take a bet??  ::)

Nog
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: troutbreath on March 20, 2012, 02:24:36 PM
I bet it gets real slimy, and fishy.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandy on March 20, 2012, 03:07:29 PM
Scientists are calling on the Harper government to scrap plans to weaken the federal Fisheries Act, saying it will "severely impair" Canada's ability to protect biodiversity and species at risk.

They also want Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield to come clean about what scientists inside his own department think of the proposed changes.

"In the interests of transparency and accountability, and in the interests of Canadian society, we respectfully request that the science advice received in this regard be made publicly available without delay," Jeffrey Hutchings, president of the Canadian Society For Ecology and Evolution, says in a letter sent to Ashfield on Monday.


http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Scientists+speak+against+proposed+Fisheries+changes/6326476/story.html

External Science has spoken, and directly requested that Harper lift the gag order on Internal Science to do the same.

Anyone care to take a bet??  ::)

Nog

It will be water off a duck's back! He could care less what others think, all he's focused on, is a seat with the Vanderbilt's or even The Bilderberg Club when he is either gets booted by the party or the electorate, and all that will do is create a vacuum that will suck in everything including an inordinate amount of Poo, and that will do us no good either.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: IronNoggin on March 21, 2012, 11:59:44 AM
Second former Tory fisheries minister rips reported changes to Fisheries Act

OTTAWA — A second former cabinet minister from the Mulroney era has levelled a broadside at the Harper government, saying reported plans to gut the Fisheries Act are "foolish."

John Fraser was responding to speculation that the federal government is planning to remove any reference to habitat protection in the legislation, a move critics say is partly intended to help Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. get approval to build an oilsands pipeline to the West Coast.

"To take habitat out of the Fisheries Act is a very serious error because you can't save fish if you don't save habitat," Fraser said in an interview Tuesday.

"People who want to eliminate the appropriate safeguards that should be made in the public interest, these people aren't conservatives at all.

"They're ideological right-wingers with very, very limited understanding, intelligence or wisdom."


http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Second+former+fisheries+minister+rips+reported+changes+Fisheries/6332377/story.html

Strait of Georgia Alliance petition: http://www.georgiastrait.org/urgent-action-message-form.php?urgent=fisheries_act_cuts
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandman on March 21, 2012, 10:20:46 PM
Second former Tory fisheries minister rips reported changes to Fisheries Act


"They're ideological right-wingers with very, very limited understanding, intelligence or wisdom."



That about sums up Harper.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: alwaysfishn on March 22, 2012, 10:02:10 AM
Farmers in the Fraser Valley are not allowed to clean out ditches that they created on their properties because under the Fisheries Act the ditches have become habitat for fish. This inhibits their ability to manage drainage of their land causing it to lose value.

Often times individuals and organizations skew the issues in order to further their own agenda's. While we shouldn't just let government make changes without providing feedback, most legislation needs to be revisited and modified as circumstances change..

It would be helpful if we could learn about the other side of this proposed change and not just the anti-government agenda.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandy on March 22, 2012, 01:51:23 PM
don't confuse enviromental concerns with Anti ( whatever) Government. Governments policies are what will or will not keep them in power. personally I have as much distaste for any ultra ????? no matter what their political slant. In this case Harper is trying to circumvent an act. that has worked reasonably well. Has it flaws ? Yep, does it need fine tuning ? probably.

What serves us the the people of BC poorly, is a proposed wholesale changes in this act, as it it designed to allow an already unpopular project to go ahead, as the Act as it now is would impose well meant and needed restrictions on the project in General.
I think most Canadians are reasonable people, fair and honest, those are who we are now seeing reject Harper's ultra right policies and his outright attack on environmentalist, big E or small e.

In short Harper brought this down on himself and the conservative Party.It is also pretty obvious that Harper's office is struggling to maintain control over some of his more moderate backbenchers, a sure sign that he is stepping on thin ice when it comes to what Canadians think is right or wrong.

Do I want a radical left ? No !
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: IronNoggin on March 22, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
It would be helpful if we could learn about the other side of this proposed change and not just the anti-government agenda.

The focus certainly is NOT a handful of farmers - that is simply and directly related to controlling the application of the Law. Some in the position of enforcing that are a tad too over zealous obviously, but this is simply a smoke and mirrors tactic to draw attention away from the real thrust of the matter.

The "other side"? Enbridge proponents, mining interests, tanker operators and more couldn't be happier. Harper continues his dance with Industry, and damn anything "environmental" getting in the way of his (their) vision...

More than 600 Canadian scientists, including some of the county’s leading experts in environmental protection and animal research, are asking Stephen Harper to abandon plans to remove habitat protections from the federal Fisheries Act.

“It is the explicit role of government to find the balance between protecting this habitat and encouraging sustainable economic growth – not to pit them against one another.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/dont-gut-fisheries-act-scientists-urge-harper/article2377774/

Cheers,
Nog
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 23, 2012, 01:46:09 PM
Received this today and post for those that may wish to phone their concerns.

 Tell Randy Kamp hands off the Fisheries Act

Dear friend,

We have one week to do something about the Harper government's alleged plan
to remove habitat protection from the federal Fisheries Act. Thanks to those
of you who have already taken action.

Please help us stop this gutting of the most important protection for marine
habitat. Call MP Randy Kamp, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, at his B.C. constituency office (604-466-2761) or his
office in Ottawa (613-947-4613). Tell Mr. Kamp that without viable habitat
for fish, the health of coastal and ocean ecosystems will suffer, and so
will the coastal economies that depend on them. Tell him his government must
not proceed with this rumoured revision to the Fisheries Act.

Then call your MP whether they are in government or opposition.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandman on March 23, 2012, 07:00:42 PM
Farmers in the Fraser Valley are not allowed to clean out ditches that they created on their properties because under the Fisheries Act the ditches have become habitat for fish. This inhibits their ability to manage drainage of their land causing it to lose value.

Are those the same ditches that replaced the natural drainage creeks that the farmers completely obliterated when they filled them in on their farms?  I do hope you are not suggesting that the farmers plight regarding the protection of the Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace warrants the removal of habitat protection from the Fisheries Act.  While something needs to be done to facilitate the need of farmers to maintain the drainage on their farms (balanced with the protection of these endangered species of course), this change to the Fisheries Act is most certainly NOT the answer.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: shuswapsteve on March 24, 2012, 11:36:52 PM
I agree with both Nog and Sandman.....The truth of the matter is these proposed changes (if that's what you call it) are not popular with the people that are entrusted to monitor and enforce habitat laws.  It is kind of dishearting when your employer is attempting to undermind your ability to do the job that the public expects.  In this day, optics are everything and it will be much harder for those front line workers to have any credibility with the public.  I have disagreed with Sandman in the past, but his post about ditches hits the nail on the head several times over.  AF, how do you think some agricultural land gets created?  I can tell you for a fact that some of that was likely fish habitat until it was altered.  A balance needs to be met, but for the most part I believe habitat people at DFO do their best to work with landowners.

But let's be honest about this.....As Nog says, this is not about farmers in Saskatchewan or farmers in the Fraser Valley.  Even the habitat people are not fooled.  It's about much bigger development and the need to streamline (i.e. pipelines).  Yes, the Fisheries Act can seem a little beaurocratic, confusing to follow, and a bit of a road block at times; however, many times landowners bring about the problems on themselves by doing unauthorized works - leaving habitat people and Fisheries Officers very little room to be the nice guy.  On one hand, habitat people want to be friendly and cooperative, but they also have a responsibility to uphold.  Many times developers/landowners will plead ignorance of the rules after the fact.  One of the reasons why the referral process takes so long is that there are too few people to look at all the new proposals.  This won't be getting any better if you know what is about to come down the pipe in regards to budgets.   Although I am not opposed to legislation being reviewed from time to time, it is not the Fisheries Act that's needs the overhaul - it is the expectations and thought process of some landowners (including Joe Public) and industry in regards to fish and fish habitat.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 25, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Why has the Harper Government and Fisheries Minister Ashfield Failed to Provide a Credible Rationale for Their Planned Elimination of Habitat Protection from the Canada Fisheries Act?

A Discussion Paper From Otto Langer
March 25, 2012

About two weeks ago I was leaked a secret Harper Government document and released it to the public (March 12, 2012). I commented on the significance of that government's attempted move to eliminate the habitat protection provisions in the Fisheries Act [i.e. section 35(1) - also called the HADD section of the Act - "harmful alteration , disruption or destruction of fish habitat]. The government was to sneak those amendments through Parliament in the Budget Omnibus Bill and few Canadians would have been aware of what had happened.

Since MP Fin Donnelly ambushed the DFO Minister in the House of Commons, Mr. Ashfield had to admit what he was up to and is now trying to rationalize his actions. Based on new information and brief Ministerial statements we can now see what has motivated Ashfield and his government and it is less than convincing and actually a bizarre logic. It is obvious that his plans to neuter the habitat law in the Fisheries Act is definitely not in the public interest and will ensure the continued erosion of Canada's wild fishery resources that have been in decline for many years.

During the past many days I have been contacted by hundreds of reporters and concerned citizens and those closely associated with the fishery and its essential habitat base. I have been forwarded information on the flooding of the Craven County (Saskatchewan) Jamboree campground (see below).  It is indeed that issue that Minister Ashfield seems to depend on most to rationalize the need to eliminate habitat protection from the Fisheries Act. Apparently his actions are based on a flood event that some river experts say, based on probability, will happen once every  300 years.

 A Saskatchewan fish and game organization noted that thousands of northern pike and walleye (valuable sports, First Nations  and in some areas commercial fish and ecologically significant species in any prairie river) were stranded behind the dyke after river flooding. The obvious way of addressing such a major fish stranding  problem would be by the breaching of the apparently poorly designed dyke 'protecting' a poorly located campground. The water and entrained fish would then naturally drain out of the Jamboree dyked campground and re- enter the Q'Appelle River and be safe and the campground would be drained.

This is a common sense solution and appears to have been suggested at the time.  It is too bad that fish have to die because the Jamboree campground was located in a flood plain which would be an important and uncommon habitat type in an area that is dry and not rich in rivers. Also the building of such a dyke can be counter productive as has been learned in many river systems such as in this very Saskatchewan-Manitoba flood event in 2011 and in the Mississippi River system floods. The river needs to spread out during flood events and dykes block the natural functioning and value of a flood- plain and its floodplain habitat values.

If you do build such dykes you have to  construct them in a way to get water out from out behind the dyke once the flood is over. If pumps had to be used, a fish salvage program could and should have been undertaken.  This is not rocket science and is standard procedure! Once the dyke is breached to drain flood water, it would have been very logical to put in a drainage culvert and flap valve prior to filling in the  breach and in future years the site would drain naturally in the event of another flood. Why would this not be treated as a learning opportunity for all involved versus a knee jerk response by Mr. Ashfield?

This fish stranding example as raised by Mr. Ashfield to rationalize why the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act go too far in protecting fish habitat.  He accused his own staff of declaring the campground fish habitat and obstructed the drainage of the campground. Why has Minister Ashfield declared war on his own staff  Instead should he not budget for their training, better select competent managers and audit their activities before he cuts them off at the knees?

This example makes no sense what so ever and provide no basis for the Harper government to go off on a tangent and say the present habitat legislation is too powerful to do the necessary job of protecting fish habitat across Canada. Despite the bizarre assertions of Mr. Ashfield, I am certain no court in Canada would accept a campground as fish habitat.

What Mr Ashfield does not seem to realize that the example he waves about is not really a habitat problem! If his DFO staff were not muzzled by the Harper Government they could state what actually took place at this incident. The entrainment of fish behind the dyke that would be killed by conventional pumping is really covered by another section of the Act - i.e. Section 32 - No person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing except as authorized by the Minister or by a regulation passed by the Governor in Council. Therefore why use this incident as an excuse to eliminate the habitat provision of the Fisheries Act?

Even if the Harper Government did get away with the elimination of the habitat provisions in the Act, the very amendment that Mr. Ashfield has proposed and was leaked to Canadians still would have prevented the pumping out of the water from behind the dyke. If his amendment was passed by Parliament, it would still be illegal to do any work or activity that would adversely affect fish of economic, cultural or ecological value. Also in this circumstance the Section 35(1) would not to be used to stop the pumping - it was s fish kill incident that DFO staff were preventing - not a destruction of habitat.

Continued
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 25, 2012, 05:03:29 PM
Mr. Ashfield, his advisers and senior staff must get their minds straight on what  they are really trying to do and obtain a basic understanding of Canada's habitat law and the need to protect fish and fish habitat as intended by Parliament in 1976. Mr. Ashfield again speculates that this is not the intent of that section of the Act. Again he is totally wrong. I was hired by DFO in 1969 to protect fish habitat and worked to get this section of legislation into Parliament in 1975. Mr. Ashfield was no where on the radar screen in 1975 so I do not understand how he is now an expert on what DFO staff and a public resource needed or what Parliament intended some 37years ago.  Instead of criticizing his staff and attempting to raze the Fisheries Act for no good reason, should a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not better support his staff and the true intent of the Fisheries Act?

Mr. Ashfield says there has to be balance between development and habitat protection. Where has be  he been in the past 50 years? In the Fraser River Estuary (the ecosystem where habitat losses forced the creation of the Fisheries Act habitat protection section (Section 35) and the DFO National Habitat Policy in 1976 and 1986 respectively)  about 90% of our Fraser Estuary marshes (essential habitat for fish) have been eliminated by agricultural and other land development. In Ontario 60% of all wetlands have been lost - 75% by agriculture.  In BC's Lower Fraser Valley 20% of all streams have been lost, 63% are endangered, 13% threatened and only 5% remain in a wild state! This is an ongoing pattern across Canada! Is retaining the last remnant key habitat as found in these steams and marshes asking too much - especially from a Fisheries Minister and his colleague the Environment Minister?

If Mr. Ashfield was going to neuter the Fisheries Act habitat law, should he not have made that known to the Cohen Commission which just completed hearings three months ago? Cohen was directed by Prime Minister Harper to do an in depth and lengthy judicial review of what is wrong with sockeye salmon runs in the Fraser River. He and Environment Canada did have several habitat and enforcement experts at the hearing but many were not credible and at no time did any of them indicate that the habitat law would be tampered with or eliminated. Should the government not now recall the Cohen Inquiry so they can tell the truth? Why would Mr. Ashfield make any knee jerk changes to the Fisheries Act before the Cohen Commission final report is released this summer?

One must question what drives the mentality of the Harper government as related to environment  issues and especially the tactics and logic used by  Minister Ashfield in this instance. What DFO staff did at that g campgound site seemed proper and should maybe be done again if the Jamboree Grounds owners do not install works to prevent this flood - fish stranding from occurring again. Certainly the amendment proposed by Ashfield would accomplish nothing other than to eliminate the use of the habitat law that is needed in thousands of other applications across Canada if future generations are to have healthy populations of fish for economic, cultural or for healthy ecosystem functioning.

I cannot believe that it is  the Jamboree Campground or drainage ditches / streams on a few farms that is the issue that has motivated the attempted elimination of habitat from the Fisheries Act. It just a cover, smokescreen  or just an excuse to deliver on an anti-environment ideology. Over the years I have heard many complaints from industrial lobby groups like the the BC Business Council and many other such lobby efforts related to the pipeline, oil and gas, electrical  and other industries. Their primary goal is to get DFO and habitat protection and environment assessment processes off their backs. Harper and his Energy - Resources Minster Oliver have often repeated that very mantra and are willing to undermine whatever legislation is necessary to keep industry and investors happy. It appears that our government and many industries have an agenda for a much faster exploitation of Canadian resources to export as much as possible in as little time as possible without any significant environmental hurtles to cross?  Is that the type of sustainability that Mr. Ashfield says he adheres to?

 If the habitat law is lost, a key environmental assessment trigger is probably eliminated in Canada and the public and First Nations will be cheated out of a more transparent and consultative approach to human activities that can harm fish and fish habitat.  In addition this law trigger allows comprehensive environmental assessment studies related to much more than fish habitat.  That is probably the real goal of the Harper government and their industrial lobby friends. One would be a fool to believe that it is just about some fish stranded in a country jamboree campground or in a farmer's field by a natural flood event  i.e.  it's a red herring!

Many years ago I noted a passage by some author that said --"Business and government do not have an ethic for the environment or future generations." Over the past few years this has become more and more apparent.

Otto E. Langer MSc
Fishery Biologist and Aquatic Ecologist
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 26, 2012, 03:24:54 PM
 

ATTENTION ALL MEDIA PEOPLE, ADVOCATES, AND ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ON THIS THREAD:

 

In April 2010, during the run-up to the federal election, as part of a province-wide omnibus poll, Angus Reid Public Opinion asked British Columbians questions on behalf of Watershed Watch Salmon Society and SkeenaWild Conservation Trust regarding the importance of salmon and salmon habitat.

 

These poll results are highly relevant to current discussions about the potential removal of protections for fish and fish habitat from the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Responses are broken down by demographic categories including income, region, and provincial and federal voting preference.

 

The poll results can be found here, and are available in an excel spreadsheet upon request.

http://www.watershed-watch.org/resources/wild-salmon-poll-results/

 

Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding these data.

 

sincerely,

 

- - - -

Aaron Hill, M.Sc.

Ecologist

Watershed Watch Salmon Society

250-380-1176 (office)

250-818-0054 (cell)

hillfish@telus.net

twitter: @aaronhill_

www.watershed-watch.org
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 26, 2012, 03:34:40 PM

More from Otto, lots of reading.


From Otto Langer
Fishery Biologist and Aquatic Ecologist

March 25, 2012

Re: Positive Applications of the Sect 35(1) (HADD Provisions) of the Fisheries Act.

A. Background:

I was hired by DFO in 1969 to be a habitat protection biologist. It did not take long to realize that I had no real legislation to protect fish habitat from the hundreds of human activities in BC that often needlessly harmed fish habitat.  At the time DFO could only protect habitat by means of the dam, and water intake screening and the logging (no slash or stumps could be deposited into streams) provisions in the Fisheries Act. Also, on rare occasions habitat was protected by the pollution provisions in the Act i.e. for the discharge of deleterious substances into water where that deleterious substance (e.g. fresh concrete, sediment etc.) could also harm physical habitat

Prior to 1976 many businesses and especially government crown corporations and government departments were very resistant to the protection of habitat in Canada. Any concept of stewardship and doing the right thing was a constant conflict and usually fish habitat lost. A constant battle to protect habitat from such sectors or  legal institutions such as the BC Development Corporation, gravel mining in nearly every stream near any road building or development project, BC Highways, Canadian National Railways, BC Rail, etc was extreme at time and gave rise to heated and often near violent confrontations.

For instance in the building of the BC Rail Dease Lake extension in the early 1970s, BC Rail refused to consider any considerations of fish habit (or sediment deposition ) and recklessly bulldozed soil and trees directly into fish habitat as they prepared the rail bed for the railway extension. This matter came to a head when this material was being bulldozed directly into the Bear River (an upper Babine River system), a river of great fishery values.

In about the same time the BC Development Corporation was filling in estuary marshes at Tilbury Island for a business park. At the time DFO could do little but in both cases related to the existing provisions of the Act and seized the heavy construction equipment to stop this highly fish habitat destructive work.  Such conflicts also occurred in logging shows on an ongoing basis with the culmination of conflicts in the later 1970s when DFO arrested loggers for destroying fish habitat in the Queen Charlotte Islands. It also about 1976 that the BC logging industry had declared war on the Fisheries Act and challenged every DFO attempted legal action and that resulted in the logging /slash and debris section of the Act being declared null and void i.e. it was in violation of provincial land use legal responsibilities (ultra varies). Any pollution /habitat provision in the Fisheries Act had to prove damage to fish before it was valid!

Also to prevent the whole sale mining of gravel form the salmonid spawning grounds of BC rivers, the BC grave Removal Order was passed by Order in Council as a general regulation under the Fisheries Act (usually used to pass fish management regulations). That occurred in 1967 and it mandated DFO to issue a permit for any gravel mining in any BC stream that was put on the Grave Removal Schedule – a list of about 30 streams that had been heavily mined over the previous years e.g. Fraser, Coquitlam, Alloutte etc Rivers. This did work to some degree and was at times enforced and the maximum fine for violations was $5000 (as was the fine for violation of the pollution provisions of the Act back then).

In 1975 we pushed for a form of habitat protection legislation. What we wanted is exactly what was passed by Parliament although the provinces of BC, Manitoba and New Brunswick did challenge the right of the Federal government to pass such legislation. They lost their less than convincing court challenges.

One province even raised the absurd argument that one could be prosecuted for just walking along a stream and casting their shadow over the fish habitat. This time it seems the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is taking the lead with some near absurd criticisms based on misunderstandings.  The legislation was never overly powerful and was always used with reasonable discretion and at time with excessive hesitation. Also it is hard to meet the double burden of proof in Canada’s courts i.e. one has to prove that it is fish habitat and it has been harmed.   

Finally under the Trudeau Liberal government Section 31 (HADD – same wording as it is today) was passed and became law on January 1, 1977.  The BC Gravel Removal Order was then re-pealed in that it was redundant in that gravel could now be protected in all streams across Canada and about that time the forest industry succeed in having Section 32 of the Fisheries Act ruled ultra varies and that section was repealed in that the job of protecting stream from logging debris could now be covered in the new Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. It was acceptable because what was fish habitat had to be shown and harm had to be proven.

The above legal burdens of proof still have not been grasped by many (see the Finlayson (BC Business Council) recent comments in the Vancouver Sun. He criticizes Sect 35 because it has no legal test. It indeed does have two legal tests!

When the HADD provisions were put into the Act in 1976, they did cause much confusion as to what it meant and how it was to be implemented. Accordingly a National Habitat Policy was developed to better define what HADD meant and how it was to be
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 26, 2012, 03:35:43 PM
Conti
applied so as to achieve a no net loss / net gain of habitat across Canada. This policy was released in October 1986 by the then Mulroney Conservative government.

B. Win -Win Accomplishments of the HADD Provisions of the Fisheries Act and the Supporting National Habitat Policy.

1. In about 1975 the BC Development Corporation (under the then BC New Democrats of Dave Barrett) began the filling in extensive estuary marshes at Tilbury Island in the Fraser River Estuary for a business park. The Fishery Officers of the day seized the equipment to stop this non-approved destruction of fish habitat in that DFO considered sand fill as a deleterious substance. Then a special Order in Council was passed to forbid the BCDC to do any such work in that site. That was a very expensive and awkward way to protect habitat for DFO and the BC Government and its development crown corporation.

Eventually the BCDC came around and determined that they did have a responsibility to protect the estuary and they then transferred ownership of the remaining part of Tilbury Slough to DFO for protection in perpetuity and in turn they got to develop the portion that had already been destroyed. This occurred just before section 35 was added to the Act but and it was used as proof for the need to have section 35 added to the Act and it did a great deal to educate the BCDC and probably the Province as to the value of fish habitat and the need to protect the remaining marshes in the Fraser river Estuary. No other law would have allowed it prior to Section 35(1) being promulgated.

Further to the above, it is important to note that about 85% of fish habitat in Canada is destroyed by a provincial government (e.g. highways), crown corporations (e.g. hydro, development corporations), by private industry with a provincial permits or approvals (e.g. forestry) or by a provincial creation e.g. local governments. 

2. As noted earlier the BC Rail and the BC Highway’s projects caused significant destruction of habitat in many projects. The building of the first highway to Part Hardy on Vancouver Island in the early 1970s caused much conflict and the passage of Sect 35 resolved those conflicts and forced such crown corporations as Highways, Rail, BCDC and BC Hydro to respect the need to protect fish habitat. Many of those existing corporations now protect habitat in a fairly proactive manner and without a great deal of complaining.

Due to DFO only assuming jurisdiction over marine and fishes and salmon in over half of British Columbia DFO did not have jurisdiction in that habitat protection and pollution issues were improperly delegated to the Province until the late 1990s. In those areas of the province the destruction of fish habitat was much more widespread and that did not change until the Federal Court cases in Alberta and Saskatchewan which directed DFO to protect all habitats in Canada (Rafferty Alameda and Old Man River decisions). The gain of the habitat provisions being implemented properly in all area of BC and then across Canada just before 2000 was a great advancement in arresting the rapid net loss of fish habitat. Also the rest of Canada then better bought into the concepts of no net loss as specified in the 1986 National Habitat Policy and some degree of sustainable development was accomplished. However, despite those gains, no net loss was never fully achieved and as of today we are still in an era of slow net loss of fish habitat across Canada. How will the loss of Section 35 from the Fisheries Act as planned by the Harper Government in March 2012 change that unsatisfactory record?

3. In the Fraser River Estuary the airport, and the North Fraser, Fraser River and Vancouver Port Authorities were often uncaring and used to destroy habitat without thought especially by the filling in of habitat for more industrial lands. The two harbour commissions were openly hostile to DFO and even challenged their right to be on the river in their patrol boats without harbour authority permission! Hostility couldn’t have been greater.

In 1979 charges were laid against the Fraser River Harbour Commission for pollution and then destruction of fish habitat in that they ran the dirtiest landfill operation in Canada and wantonly polluted the river and destroyed habitat. After they were charged they greatly changed their attitudes and began to cooperate with DFO and the harbour master said; that they had to change their ways because section35 of the act was binding on all parties including the Federal Crown Corporations and the they noted that the new Fraser river Estuary Management Plan (FREMP) cooperative agreement and the DFO decentralizing of habitat staff made it possible to work with DFO in a positive manner. However, it was the court case that provided the shock therapy that forced the harbour commissions to accept a reasonable degree of environmental responsibilities.

4. As part of a new relationship with the harbour commissions, Otto Langer (Head of Habitat Management for Fraser River, Northern BC and the Yukon) applied the no net loss concept to his area of responsibility in 1983 – three years before the policy was implemented. As part of a new approach to the then FREMP initiative, Langer directed the development of a simple but effective color coding to habitats along the North Arm of the Fraser River and then for the main arm of the river up to Pitt Lake. This habitat zoning was to better define how Sect 35 and the habitat policy was to be implemented.

In this new habitat zoning approach, Red mean that that habitat was valuable and sensitive and had to be protected in perpetuity. Yellow meant that it was of some value but development could occur in that habitat area but it was subject to no net loss (NNL) and any compensation habitat has to be then coded Red. Finally habitat that had been ruined over the years was color coded Green i.e. development should go into those areas and only good environmental practices were required for any construction or works in that habitat type. To the developer Red meant 'stop': Yellow meant proceed with caution and Green meant – go for development in those poor habat areas. If you were to destroy habitat compensation formulas were develop i.e. replace mudflat at a 1:1 ratio. Marsh was to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio and riparian habitat at a1:1 linear ratio.

This plan gave all developers and habitat practitioners in business and government full certainty of what was expected of the habitat section of the Fisheries Act and from the new National Habitat Policy.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 26, 2012, 03:36:35 PM

This system was very successful and it also incorporated a harbour clean up plan and a novel habitat banking scheme that was the first in Canada. The system worked so well it was then extended into the Fraser River Harbour Commission area and then into Vancouver harbour and then into many estuaries in BC and even in river habitats in Prince George and Kamloops. It was also presented nationally and some jurisdiction in Ontario followed that example. This was all made possible by a basic habitat protection law and a policy that allowed flexibility for DFO and industry to interpret and apply that simple concept of habitat protection. It was one of the first plans to implement sustainable development and it gave the certainty to industry that they always wanted and resolved most DFO - harbour – city development conflicts. The many cities along the Fraser River then voluntarily altered their land zoning to support this habitat protection system.

None of this would have been possible without the HADD provisions being in the Act and the application of that law was assisted by the National Habitat policy. The Minster of DFO (Tom Siddon) and the DM was impressed by this new approach of cooperative resource management that they insisted that a slide how had to be developed for education of other authorities across Canada – it was called Habitat Forever!  It pioneered the model of NNL in Canada.

5. In the mid 1970 the City of Delta wanted to develop a new fisherman’s marina. It was to be built in a habitat area of the Fraser Estuary. It was approved subject to compensation. Prior to that, the city built a 16 acre sewage lagoon in a high value fish habitat area – no need to abide by the Fisheries Act in the mid 1960s as related to habitat protection. As part of Sect 35 and NNL requirements, when Delta directed their sewage to a sewage treatment plant in about 1987 it returned the sewage lagoon back into fish habitat in 1990 and DFO did the various studies an d breaching of the lagoon dykes to return it to fish habitat – a true win-win application of Section 35 and the NNL habitat policy.

6. In 1985 the large international developer Grovesnor International wanted to develop the last part of its Annacis Island property. Much of the undeveloped part of this island in the Fraser River Estuary had fish channel through it and the company’s initial works were seen as a destruction of fish habitat. However, instead of taking the matter to court DFO and the company began discussions and it was determined that the wetlands at the tip of the island would be given to the City of Delta as passive parkland and maintained as fish habitat in perpetuity. Also Grovesnor would clean up the logs on the marsh around that new conservation park and put up a log barrier to keep logs off of the marsh. In addition to compensate for internal channel loss, the company agreed to dredge a new liner canal along he north side of the island and have a setback for industry to protect the riparian vegetation. This channel has now operated as excellent habitat for over 25 years and they were able to develop their property as more or less planned.

7. The BC Highways Department came a long ways with the development of the HADD law. They were considered with some of the railway companies to be especially backwards in caring about fish habitat However with the development of the Coquihalla Highway, the Vancouver Island Highway and the Annacis Bridge many conflicts that could not have been resolvable prior to 1976 were addressed and few real conflicts occurred.

In the Coquihalla  and Vancouver Island Highways, many storm detention ponds were developed to keep sediment out of salmon streams and the loss of significant amounts of stream in many locations was avoided by the building of bridges or giant bottomless culverts that allowed the stream to flow across the highway unhindered and the habitat value were retained. These new passes under the freeways also became key wildlife passage crossings for bear, deer, etc. In the Alex Fraser Bridge in metro Vancouver, habitat lost was compensated by the building of two salmon rearing lagoons on the north and south footings of the bridge and where the bride footings impinged on the river, groins were build along the footing walls to break-up laminar flow that could obstruct upstream fish passage of salmon in the world's largest salmon stream.

8. CN Rail was always very difficult to deal with and refused to work with DFO to protect streams in that they felt railways were a national security issue and nothing else mattered. However with ‘Section 35 and their double tracking work in the 1980s, they did extensive studies related to where the fish are and how their projects would harm fish and they developed many fish compensation works from Surrey Bend to Petty Creek on the North Thompson. As with BC Highways, they also hired biological consultants to design the works and monitor their success.

9. Within the City of Richmond (Child of the Fraser) there are several applications of the NNL policy as allowed by Sect 35(!) of the Fisheries Act. When the city wanted to develop its Gary Point Park they develop three rock lookout locations over looking the Fraser River and the ocean. In that his work destroyed fish habitat, charges were almost forthcoming. However it was agreed that they could replace that lost habitat by building pocket marshes at the downstream end of the park and all legal action was averted.

The City has applied this principle on several other projects so as to replace or hedge against any loss of fish habitat including the No. 2 Road Bridge at theVancouver International Airport. Here the City dredged out a sand fill that destroyed habitat over 40 years ago and built a salmon rearing lagoon that is also well used by waterfowl. Such works have become the norm and few industries question the need for planning to avoid loss to fish habitat and if necessary are prepared to build compensation fish habitat.

C. Conclusions and some lose –lose examples:

Having the Habitat section (35(1) put into the Fisheries Act in 1976 was a giant step forward and it allowed for the development of a sustainable method of protecting habitat as noted above and the eventual National Habitat Policy that gave good flexibility  for DFO and developers when working in and around fish habitat. This approach reduced the conflicts that always occurred in the past, allowed the development of much better
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 26, 2012, 03:37:31 PM
working relationship and facilitated solutions an expedited project reviews and construction projects.

Despite the above example of how things can and should work, the policy of Net Gain / No Net Loss has not been overly successful and as of 2012 the habitat base across Canada is still losing habitat on a Slow Net Loss basis. This is confirmed by testimony by witnesses at the 20111 Cohen Inquiry and by numerous studies I and my staff have done over the years in and outside of DFO. HADD and the Policy did create a framework that has allowed industry and government to have certainty and it was key step towards defining a better approach that had to be adopted so as all parties could find win-win solutions.

Many habitat projects built by industry as compensation habitat have failed over the years and inadequate assurances were built into the success of such projects. Generally habitat is better built where the forces of the landscape and the hydrology of the local waterway make it possible. Building habitat in unnatural conditions is often high risk. Key to preventing damage to habitat is to locate a project away from key and sensitive habitat sites.

Setbacks to the above approach began to haunt the DFO and the process after about 2000 when enforcement fell into political disfavor and large staff cuts were to be made and they would not have the staff to promote education, awareness and above all review the many project applications (referrals) that needed early and prompt review to insure the plans of industry and the needs of the Fisheries Act, DFO and public expectations could be met.

Further another setback ironically was the development of CEAA and project tracking systems for the benefit of Ottawa to track what was happening across Canada. DFO staff had to spend much time behind computers and spend many resources to develop modern data keeping systems and the biologists became separated from dialogue with industry and did less and less field work an became more divorced from fish and fish habitat.

 CEAA, despite its intent and strengths, became a system that forced a great deal of paper work that added little to habitat projection. It did create a gain for public transparency and project tracking. However, the process seemed to become more important than the fish and the fish habitat and at time it was abused by consultants and even DFO staff as to save effort in following the intent of the CEAA scoping, process and tracking requirements.

When DFO is to issue a Ministerial authorization to harmfully alter, disrupt or destroy habitat, that is a law trigger under CEAA and that seems to be the thorny issue that most complaints are mainly about. This is the real issue in the Harper government in 2012. CEAA is an overly paper producing assessment and tracking system and that causes a great deal of work in terms of the basic level Project Screenings of minor impacts to the Comprehensive Study Reviews to the Public Panel Reviews. What isn’t appreciated by the government and industry is that DFO often has gone out their way to insist that a HADD project is not a significant habitat impact so as to not trigger a time consuming CEAA review.

The above are some of weakness in the habitat protection and CEAA review system in Canada. Many projects that harm habitat deserve public consultation and intensive reviews are sold short just to reduce workload and address the complaints of industry and the politicians. Also it is key to emphasize that Government has undermined CEAA by delegating it to various Crown Corporations like the national harbours (putting the wolf in charge of the sheep) and has a counter productive and outrageous system of exclusions as to what needs to be reviewed and what is exempted from proper reviews.

 Reviews are most often based on the size of a project and not on its potential impacts. This is a bureaucratic and very absurd approach to determine environmental assessment and protection priorities!  I will conclude by giving two examples where habitat protection has or is being greatly short changed so as to avoid a proper application of HADD and CEAA and that is to the detriment of fish, fish habitat and the public interest.

1. Jet Fuel in the Fraser River. In 1988 the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) applied to have barges of cheaper US jet fuel enters the Fraser River so as to supply airlines at YVR. Although this was before CEAA, the federal governments FEARO process insisted that the project had to undergo a Public Panel Review. This panel concluded that this project created too great a risk to the Fraser River Estuary and its fish and wildlife resources and it was rejected.

In 2010 this same VAFFC applied to now ship Panamax tankers of foreign jet fuel to YVR by means of the Fraser River where they would have to build an offload facility and a large tank farm on the banks of the river. Despite the precedent of 1989, the federal new process was so watered own that Comprehensive Study or Public Panel Review was not required although the project is now probably 100 times larger and of much greater risk.

Further CEAA for this area has been delegated to Port Metro Vancouver by the government and PMV will financially benefit from the project approval. Since a proper CEAA was not triggered the VAFFC voluntarily applied to the Province for a voluntary review of what is a project that affects several federal mandates. Considering the clear federal roles related to habitat and pollution and the common sense application of CEAA the environmental and public safety considerations are now being greatly compromised. The level of review and protection evident in 2012 is no where near as comprehensive as some 23 years ago. Why is that and why would anyone want to further water down an ineffective application of Sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act or CEAA?

2. Fraser River Gravel Mining. Prior to 1967 the Fraser River and tributary streams such as the Coquitlam River was treated as gravel pits. In the 1960s a large run of pink salmon in the Coquitlam River was eliminated by gravel mining of its spawning beds. Building contractors even complained about the concrete coming from the Coquitlam River in that it smelled of rotten salmon eggs! To stop this uncontrolled destruction of
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 26, 2012, 03:38:29 PM
spawning habitat, DFO brought in the BC Gravel Removal Order and that was later replaced by Section 35(1) (HADD) in the Fisheries Act in 1976.

However the politics of gravel mining changed greatly in about 2006 and DFO were encouraged for political reason to allow gravel mining in the key spawning areas of the Lower Fraser River by First Nations to allow them a source of money to better improve their relations with DFO. Then the BC Government joined the fray and took the lead in gravel mining in the name of flood control works DFO seemed politically determined that they could not elevate the project to a proper CEAA review despite the fact that BC wanted to mine millions of cubic meters of gravel out of the river that were then made available for commercial gravel sales.

DFO authorized HADDS but exempted the Province form any habitat compensation works or any comprehensive studies or cumulative impact studies as would be the intent of CEAA. To rationalize their actions DFO had a consultant put together hundreds of pages of CEAA directed rationale of why there would be impacts but why they would be ignored and why compensation habitat did not have to be created and why public consultation was not necessary.

This project showed how the habitat section of the Fisheries Act and CEAA could be and was being abused by political considerations and how the intent of CEAA could be largely ignored. The public simply did not accept that and this project caused many nasty and needless confects and a dismal working relationship between the various parties. If the true intent of the legislation was delivered upon, this could have been avoided! This is an example of how political tampering with the processes developed over the past 35 years in respect to Sect 35, the Habitat Policy and CEAA could be subverted and the setback to fish habitat protection, cooperation and fairly timely project review and approvals can be set back greatly.

In this project, no gravel has been mined in the past two years due to the price of gravel sales and a plan to develop a proper environmental management plan for this section of the river has again been delayed by another decade and has caused great stress between parties that must work together in a cooperative manner to find solutions not political gain.


D. Conclusions:

•   The Habitat provisions in the Fisheries Act were sadly lacking before 1976 and habitat loss across Canada was great.
•   The passage of Section 35 to the Fisheries act (HADD habitat protection provision) allowed the orderly protection and management of fish habitat across Canada with a lead taken in BC.
•   The habitat law was supported by the National Habitat policy of 1986 with one of its underlying principles of a no net loss of habitat productive capacity.
•   Section 35 and the Habitat Policy have worked well when applied in an organized and diligent manner by well trained and experienced practitioners.
•   Despite the above conclusion, Section 35 and its habitat policy has not been applied in a diligent and disciplined manner so as to stem the continuous loss of fish habitats across Canada.
•   The greatest confusion caused to Canada’s fish habitat law is the implementation of CEAA with its very time consuming tasks of project tracking etc and it irrational regulations that allow many projects to be excluded from a proper environmental review.
•   The triggering of CEAA by the harmful alternation of fish habitat is an essential environmental protection tool in Canada that can, if diligently applied, protect fish for future generations and protect the public interest.
•   Any modernization of Canada’s fish habitat protection approaches must more look at process and regulations rather than attacking the basis of the law i.e. Section 35 of the Fisheries Act as a problem that hampers development in Canada.
•   Better fish habitat protection is essential and it can be achieved with a more efficient approval process.
•   The expectations the public have cannot be met with the present processes, staff skill levels, government will and the resources allocated to do the job.   
•   As DFO used to say "No Habitat – No Fish!"


 

Otto E. Langer MSc
Fishery Biologist and Aquatic Ecologist
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 28, 2012, 01:37:36 PM
Thank you for writing to share your concerns about the Conservative government's plan to remove fish habitat protection from Section 35 of the Fisheries Act.

At a time when the government should be strengthening habitat protection, the Conservatives aim to gut one of the strongest environmental laws in the country.

These changes will set Canada back decades.

By eliminating provisions to protect fish habitat, the Conservatives will be better positioned to fast track their agenda of pipelines, oil super tankers, mega mines and other major industrial projects.

With the stroke of a pen, this government would wipe out decades of progress and condemn future generations to a less diverse environment. The Conservative plan to ram this key change through the budget omnibus bill is reprehensible.

Canada’s New Democrats are strongly opposed to these changes.

As the Official Opposition Critic for Fisheries & Oceans, I have raised this issue with the Minister both in Question Period and in Committee (read more here). It’s clear the Minister is considering these changes to the Fisheries Act and regards fish habitat regulations as an ‘irritant’.

Canada’s New Democrats will continue to advocate for protection of our fisheries and oceans, and will oppose any move to gut DFO’s responsibility to protect fish and fish habitat.

Many people are asking what more they can do to stop the Conservative government’s destructive plan.

Please consider printing off the attached petition and collecting as many signatures as possible, which I can table in the House of Commons. I have also launched an online petition, which you may wish to circulate to your friends and family.

Thank you again for raising your voice on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Fin Donnelly
Member of Parliament
New Westminster–Coquitlam & Port Moody
Official Opposition Critic for Fisheries & Oceans
www.FinDonnelly.ca
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 29, 2012, 02:40:49 PM
For Immediate Release - March 29, 2012
Federal Budget Greases the Skids for Oil Spills and Fish Kills

VANCOUVER - Corporations and polluters could reap the rewards of today's federal Budget and the follow-up legislation, which will weaken the environmental assessment process. The Budget includes major cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and eliminates the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The changes to the environmental assessment process explicitly aim to help speed up approval of tar sands pipelines like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. This will put the Canadian people at increased risk of oil spills, polluted rivers and fish kills, as well as lost wildlife.

“Energy giant Kinder Morgan had said they would formally submit their application to the National Energy Board to twin their tar sands pipeline by the end of this month, but now they’ve delayed,” said Ben West, the Wilderness Committee's Healthy Communities Campaigner. “It seems to me that Kinder Morgan could be waiting to take advantage of a weakened review process,” said West.  

Prime Minister Harper has made it clear that his government wants to ease the approval process for oil pipelines, in the midst of unprecedented levels of opposition against the Enbridge project and other plans to expand tar sands exports. “The federal government has complained for many months about the length of the review process in the case of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, and so now it appears set to try and cut back environmental review to make it easier for future projects, like Kinder Morgan’s planned pipeline expansion,” said West.  

“We're incredibly concerned that the federal government is gutting environmental protection for the wilderness and wildlife that Canadians cherish,” said Gwen Barlee, Policy Director for the Wilderness Committee, responding to the Budget presented today by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

“Private power projects, which do great damage to BC’s wild rivers and fish, could also exploit these changes, as could the proposed New Prosperity Mine project near Fish Lake,” said Barlee. "British Columbians value and will stand up for wild salmon, old-growth forests and clean air and fresh water and it is obvious Ottawa doesn't understand that."

 
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on March 29, 2012, 05:03:04 PM
From Maple Ridge News.
Absent from the budget are policy documents spelling out changes to the Fisheries Act, removing habitat protection from the act. Word of a leaked document indicating that stirred up controversy, including local environmental groups opposed to any such change.



“That’s why you shouldn’t believe everything you see in a leaked document,” Kamp said.



However, the government could still make changes to the act later, though he had no timeline.



“But they’re not in this budget.”



According to the Wilderness Committee however,  follow-up legislation to budget will weaken the environmental assessment process.



“The budget includes major cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and eliminates the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy,” says a release.



It says the changes are aimed to speed up approval of the Enbridge pipeline
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: skaha on March 29, 2012, 07:03:53 PM
--the way to speed up approval of projects is to have more trained staff available to do the proper review.... I am sure I can guess which departments will be targeted for staff cuts. 
 
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: Sandy on March 29, 2012, 09:09:23 PM
Skaha, that is my arguement as well. The slowing of the wheel is simply due to there are not being enough folks to do the job.
Dilution of enviromental standards is not the solution!
 The Tories are trying to ram this through and it is out in the open that the BC kinda not liberals are going to help them. Problem is that no one is paying attention to the majority of BC's population . The Liberals have long since lost their mandate of the people.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: silver ghost on April 04, 2012, 12:54:06 AM
so is it safe to say... as it stands now, there have been no amendments made to the fisheries act?
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on April 07, 2012, 03:44:18 PM
http://thecanadian.org/item/1426-budget-2012-war-on-environment-going-well-harper-enbridge-mark-brooks
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on April 26, 2012, 06:31:15 AM
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Fisheries+overhaul+could+speed+major+project+approvals/6511981/story.html
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: skaha on April 26, 2012, 10:10:18 AM
--I have been frustrated by the implementation of the fisheries act. While trying to clean out silt from spawning beds. This work is done just prior to the opening of fish ladders to allow fish to spawn. The in stream work window is very short... as the work has to be done a few days prior to opening of the fish ladders. It involved use of hand rakes which of course disturbs the fine silt which then gets flushed a short distance...ie less than 1 km to the lake.  This work has been done for several years. A different Biologist sponsor of the project decided that it could not go ahead as the creek bed was being disturbed during spawn period. Our point was as always the disturbance was required in order to allow fish to spawn. Another professional suggested the work be done at freshet.. again we pointed out it was the deposits made a freshet that we were removing. With persistence we were able to get hold of the original Biologist proponent of the project who explained the disturbance was required to enhance the success of spawning. Further it was found that reluctance to approve was based on the fact that people in the area would phone the local office and ask why the creek was dirty for a few hours. No one that could remember over the years that anyone who was told the reasons was against the project.
--Every 3 to 5 years spawn gravel has to be added by a machine.. again as this in stream work which is done just prior to spawn... timing is critical... and as it is at a time when in stream work would generally be closed, the work requires an exemption.. involving a site visit.

--From all this you may think I am complaining about the fisheries act... I am not.. I believe when an exemption is required that is it with good reason and reasonable to have the required on site visit. The work has not in the past be turned down after a site visit..The issue is getting someone of authority to visit the site with short notice to allow the project to proceed under the correct conditions and intent of the project.


--My example though is I am sure similar to the speaking notes given to MP's to explane why the act needs changing.  What we need is knowledgeable  people on the ground.
--It is a reasonable approach that a project would default to the most strict regulation if no site visit is done. This is the approach in forestry.. when a company is building an road and comes across a creek... it is assumed to have fish in it, thus fish passage and stream work windows apply unless the creek is assessed and deemed to have no fish. It is the companies option.. if time is important they may take measures to build a crossing as if fish were present or they may do the assessment which may result into a less expensive project.

--I think it is a good idea to assign a specific group of staff to deal with major projects, however , like in forestry the default for work that is not inspected should default  to the highest standard.. non inspection in a timely mannor should not be considered an automatic approval.   
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on April 27, 2012, 08:01:27 PM
A press release from MP Mark Strahl. The Chilliwack Progress is doing a story on this and I was asked for comments too, will post if it runs.

Strahl promises action on fish habitat regulations
 
Chilliwack—Mark Strahl, MP for Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, hosted a successful roundtable discussion regarding fisheries habitat and Species at Risk Act (SARA) regulations on Wednesday.  He was joined by his colleagues, MP Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries) and MP Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment) and the Mayors of Chilliwack, Hope, Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs, as well as other local officials.
 
“As I’ve met with local mayors, councillors and officials, one of the common themes that continually comes up is frustration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and concerns about SARA legislation,” said Strahl.  “Our government has signalled a desire to bring a common sense approach to DFO and SARA regulations, and I wanted my colleagues to hear firsthand how the current heavy handed approach of the bureaucracy is affecting my constituents.”
 
An example of the problems with the current regulatory system included a municipality receiving approval to clean out half of a drainage ditch but refusal for the other half.  The municipality had to fight the bureaucracy to convince them that they needed to clean the whole ditch in order to have any benefit to the project.
 
In another example, concern was raised that because of new creek side setback regulations imposed under SARA, an existing home backing onto a creek could not be rebuilt if it burned down, even if it was to be rebuilt on the existing foundation.
 
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Hon. Keith Ashfield, has recently stated that DFO’s fish habitat policy is under review.  Strahl will present him with the results of the roundtable discussion, and will also share them with Environment Minister, Peter Kent, who is responsible for the Species at Risk Act.
 
Strahl said the Government was not abandoning environmental fisheries protection, but would bring balance to the current system.
 
“I’ve spoken with the respective Ministers about ditch maintenance, fish habitat and the Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace SARA process,” said Strahl. “I’m pleased that Parliamentary Secretaries Kamp and Rempel were here to receive the message from my constituents as well and I look forward to working will all of them to bring a balanced, common sense approach to environmental protection and fish habitat policies.”
 
 
-30-
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on April 27, 2012, 08:11:01 PM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tories+unveil+revised+fisheries+deny+move+boost+pipelines/6528341/story.html
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: skaha on April 27, 2012, 09:55:09 PM
“As I’ve met with local mayors, councillors and officials, one of the common themes that continually comes up is frustration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and concerns about SARA legislation,” said Strahl.  “Our government has signalled a desire to bring a common sense approach to DFO and SARA regulations, and I wanted my colleagues to hear firsthand how the current heavy handed approach of the bureaucracy is affecting my constituents.”

--Government is in charge of the bureaucracy, if they, ( government) doesn't want a heavy handed approach just tell them. If your senior management does not have the ability to successfully  coach staff to get the desired results get rid of the useless senior managers.
-- You don't need to change the legislation.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on May 01, 2012, 02:04:12 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2229395261
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on May 01, 2012, 08:31:04 PM
Sent this to our MP Mark Strahl, others may wish to do the same to their MP.

Hi Mark,

I hope you will listen to this CBC braodcast and read this below and
advise your government that many as you know are very unhappy to the
proposed changes to the Fishery act, very depressing.

I would ask for an early response after you listen to this. I am in your
riding here in Chilliwack.

Regards,

Chris


May 1st The Current: changes to the Fisheries Act & the Environmental
Assessment Act... including Tom Siddon's (former Conservative Fisheries
Minister) scathing comments, also spin-Fisheries Minister Ashfield.
"Changes to the Fisheries Act. The budget bill before parliament has a
great many tentacles affecting everything from oil and gas exploration
to environmental assessment to fish. One outspoken critic, a former
Progressive Conservative fisheries minister calls it a return to the
Dark Ages.


http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2229395261

Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on May 02, 2012, 09:10:22 PM
Save Canada's Environmental Laws: go to http://www.envirolawsmatter.ca/

 

Canadians want strong environmental laws to protect our communities, ecosystems, health, and economy.

Tens of thousands of Canadians are urging the federal government to protect the safety and security of our families and of nature through strong environmental laws.

http://www.envirolawsmatter.ca/

Groups nationwide have endorsed a common set of principles that outline how Canada’s environmental laws can support a clean, healthy and sustainable future.

Find out more about Environmental Assessment for a healthy, secure and sustainable Canada.

See our issues & resources page for more information and our action centre to have your voice heard.

Please see our endorsers page for a list of organizations who support our principles for strong environmental laws.

Contact us if your organization would like to add your support to this effort.
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on May 06, 2012, 05:21:23 PM
http://www.straightgoods.ca/2012/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=391&Cookies=yes
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on May 11, 2012, 08:51:49 PM
http://elizabethmaymp.ca/parliament/speeches/2012/05/11/jobs-growth-and-long-term-prosperity-act-bill-c-38-20/
Title: Re: Harper plans for elimination of habitat protection: amendment to fisheries act
Post by: chris gadsden on May 16, 2012, 05:47:15 PM
Save Canada's Environmental Laws: go to http://www.envirolawsmatter.ca/

 

Canadians want strong environmental laws to protect our communities, ecosystems, health, and economy.

Tens of thousands of Canadians are urging the federal government to protect the safety and security of our families and of nature through strong environmental laws.

http://www.envirolawsmatter.ca/

Groups nationwide have endorsed a common set of principles that outline how Canada’s environmental laws can support a clean, healthy and sustainable future.

Find out more about Environmental Assessment for a healthy, secure and sustainable Canada.

See our issues & resources page for more information and our action centre to have your voice heard.

Please see our endorsers page for a list of organizations who support our principles for strong environmental laws.

Contact us if your organization would like to add your support to this effort.
I got a response today from Mark on this but in the meantime I had some input on this Chilliwack Progress article from yesterday.


Former MP charges Tory gov’t ‘gutting’ fisheries act
 Share this story
 
■Strong returns fuel sockeye fishery opening
■Vets' issue, Tory nomination opens election campaign here
■Former Chilliwack MP Strahl named Trudeau mentor
■Chilliwack's input sought for Tory budget
■Seal warning rankles Sto:lo fishery advisor
■Mark Strahl to seek Tory nomination
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress
Published: May 15, 2012 10:00 AM
Updated: May 15, 2012 10:04 AM

Former fisheries minister Tom Siddon is openly criticizing the Tory government’s “gutting” of the federal Fisheries Act by removing fish habitat protection measures.



And Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon MP Mark Strahl may have jumped from the frying pan into the fire when he held a one-sided “roundtable” last month that brought local mayors with a beef about fisheries regulations together with the parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister.



Chris Gadsden, a fisheries activist in Chilliwack, said he “applauded” Strahl for holding the roundtable meeting, but “he should also be sitting around this same table with environmental groups as well as First Nations to hear their concerns.”



“With all the talk lately about the proposed changes ... by not meeting with these groups it continues to raise concerns about the lack of transparency by government these days, both provincially and federally.”



Gadsden said one of the main reasons the BC Liberals lost the Chilliwack-Hope byelection “is losing touch with the voting public.”



“If Mr. Strahl, along with his fellow MPs visit the Fraser Valley again, he should consider meeting with those that sent him to Ottawa, to represent all of us.”



But Strahl defended the meeting, saying the roundtable was an “opportunity” for elected officials to share their concerns about fisheries regulations with Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission MP Randy Kamp, parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister, and with Calgary Centre MP Michelle Rempel, parliamentary secretary to the environment minister.



“I didn’t pretend it was a debate on the issues or it was a townhall meeting,” Strahl told The Progress.



He also said the government is not removing protection for fisheries habitat, but looking for a “common-sense” approach to preserving the environment and protecting species at risk.



“I wanted my (MP) colleagues to hear firsthand how the current heavy-handed approach of the bureaucracy is affecting my constituents,” Strahl said.



Farmers have been pushing for changes to the act for years, saying it doesn’t recognize the difference between fish-bearing streams and drainage ditches that need to be periodically cleared. Under the proposed changes, government would no longer protect all waterways that “may” contain fish.



Strahl said the aim is to focus the government’s limited environmental protection resources “on those areas that are the highest concern.”



Marvin Rosenau, a vocal fisheries critic, said he wasn’t surprised by Strahl’s one-sided roundtable meeting.



“Mark Strahl is leading the charge of eco-fascists intent on making the last dime off the backs of the last remnants of an absolutely spectacular eco-system,” he charged.



Rosenau, a former provincial biologist and now a fisheries instructor at BCIT, said an “extremely good” inventory has been collected on the ditches that farmers claim hold no fishery value.



“We know what goes on in those so-called non fish habitat ditches,” he said. “Essentially, what these farmers are doing is industrializing the landscape.”



He said some of the “engineered” ditches “are simply coho streams re-arranged for irrigation.”



“A massive and productive floodplain of fish and aquatic values ... has been drained, ditched, tiled and laser-levelled for agricultural profit,” he said.



“All we’ve got left is a tiny fraction of the vast schools of coho that once thrived in the floodplains of the Fraser River,” he said.



Siddon told reporters earlier this month that he is “appalled” by the Conservative government’s attempt to “gut the fisheries act under the radar” in Omnibus Bill C-38 that includes proposed changes to the National Pipeline Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Exploration Act.



A former Conservative MP, Siddon charged the Tory government is clearing the way for major economic projects by speeding up approval processes contained in the legislation.



rfreeman@theprogress.com