Category Archives: Canada

Mainstream Media, Former Politicians Finding Religion on BC Libs and Fish

March 19, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Christy Clark, Enbridge, Politics, rafe mair, Salmon, Stephen HarperRafe Mair

It’s wondrous to behold! So many have seen religion at the same time!

Vaughn Palmer of the Postmedia Sun has finally got religion and is openly questioning the Liberal government’s position on the use of Telus resources to help build the new roof on BC Place Stadium! One looks in vain to see any criticism of consequence over the deal to build the roof in the first place so that the jock world had a better playpen at taxpayers’ expense.

Where, oh where, has there been any coverage in Vaughn’s columns over the years on fish farms, private power development, Enbridge’s pipeline project and tanker traffic down our coast and increased tanker traffic through Vancouver Harbour?

Mike Smyth of the Postmedia Province has got religion at long last and is highly critical of the Clark government’s refusal of the $35 million Telus offered to have the jocks’ publicly financed sand box named for them.

Where, oh where, has there been any coverage in Mike’s columns over the years of fish farms, private power development, Enbridge’s pipeline project and tanker traffic down our coast and increased tanker traffic through Vancouver Harbour?

There’s a guy named Fletcher, I think, who works, I believe, for the David Black newspapers, who manages to kiss the establishment’s backside while anointing its feet – a daunting task which he has easily managed. I somehow doubt that he’ll see the light – although he did come out against the Enbridge pipeline not too long ago.

Tom Siddon, formerly Federal Fisheries Minister, has seen religion and is critical of his old party for removing “habitat” from the Fisheries Act. Here’s the story from the Edmonton Journal.

Siddon said the wording would turn fish into a commodity and overlook the importance of the broader ecosystem that, for instance, allows British Columbia’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.”

Wasn’t Siddon the federal Fisheries Minister when a so-called compromise was brokered between the senior governments and Alcan which agreed to lower the Nechako River – which Alcan’s Kemano II project would do despite a Department of Fisheries study condemning the project in no uncertain terms? A report of 1985 which didn’t see the light of day until it was leaked to me at the height of the battle in the 1990’s?

Here’s what I said during the fight against this hideous project. Scientists were giving evidence that the proposals were catastrophic to salmon runs. The deal was struck in the absence of all seven DFO scientists who had worked on the project and the commission was, in effect, given Alcan’s figures to work with. The chairman of the Settlement Group, Dr. David Strangway, wouldn’t know a sockeye salmon from a sea cucumber.

I strongly support what Mr. Siddon said last week and hope his former mates take him seriously. I say – in all seriousness – that we all should be like Mr. Siddon and ponder on positions we took in earlier times. As Emerson put it, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
As environmentalists, the Common Sense Canadian welcomes Mr. Siddon’s support. With his long government experience and his position as Fisheries Minister his words carry considerable weight.

When one looks at the entire picture of the Harper government in the environment, a thought occurs. That bunch are for fish farms, private river projects, pipelines carrying toxic gunk over 1,100kms of our pristine wilderness, huge tankers down our extremely dangerous coast, all without much meaningful public input.

It seems clear that our MPs join the Prime Minister in giving British Columbians the finger, leaving civil disobedience the only option left for thousands of British Columbians who condemn Harper’s wanton abandonment of our heritage.

May I respectfully suggest that you post on the fridge this list of 21 Conservative toadies who have abandoned their province to the Harper whip:

Ed Fast Abbotsford ed@edfast.ca
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.ca
John Weston – West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country Weston.J@parl.gc.ca

Audio: Damien Gillis Talks the Assault on Fish by Harper, BC Governments

March 18, 2012Canada, Fisheries, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, WATER, Western CanadaAquaculture, Audio, ipp, Politics, private river power, Salmon, Stephen Harper, Water and EnergyDamien Gillis

Get MP3 (55 MB)

Listen to Damien Gillis and CHLY’s “A Sense of Justice” host Rae Kornberger’s recent wide-ranging discussion on the war being waged against fish by both the Canadian and BC Governments. The pair cover everything from Stephen Harper’s underhanded plan to gut the fisheries act in order to pave the way for oil pipelines and other major industrial projects that would harm fish habitat, to news on the impacts of salmon farms and private river diversion projects on wild fish. (March 14, 2012 – 46 min)

How BC Could Counteract Harper’s Gutting of Environmental Protections for Enbridge

March 16, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, Politics, Salmon, Stephen HarperRafe Mair

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 its 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 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, as I’ve said, 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:

Tories Pushing to Gut Environmental Assessment Act

March 15, 2012Canada, PoliticsPoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on the Harper Conservatives push to gut the federal environmental assessment act. (March 14, 2012)

Conservative and opposition MPs crossed swords Tuesday over recommendations to “modernize” environ-mental assessments in Canada that could speed up approvals of projects, while weakening reviews of potential environ-mental effects.

The controversial recommendations were introduced Tues-day in the House of Commons by a committee of MPs that is reviewing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, adopted by the government of former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Michelle Rempel, a Calgary-based Conservative MP, said the 20 recommendations in the report could help the country avoid losing economic opportunities to lengthy reviews that need to be more “efficient” and “effective.”

But she was unable to say exactly how proposed changes would have affected a recent case in which a federal review rejected a proposal to turn a fishing lake into a dumping ground for a new mine after the project was approved by the provincial government in B.C.

“I think it’s important to note that the committee’s report provides recommendations to the government to explore and where there are opportunities to leverage provincial processes that are working, we should examine those,” said Rempel, the lead Conservative MP on the committee and parliamentary secretary to Environment Minister Peter Kent. “This is something for the government to respond to and I look forward to receiving that response and reviewing it.”

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie described the report as a work of “fiction” that avoided credible testimony during hearings and instead quoted from statements made by Conservative MPs who want to “gut” environmental protection legislation in Canada.

She also noted that Conservative MPs on the commit-tee shut down the review after only nine days of hearings, pre-venting an adequate review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as required by the legislation.

Dianne Watts Calls for Light Rail in Surrey

March 15, 2012Canada, Politics, Urban & TransportPolitics, Transportation and Urban PlanningCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts’ call for building light rail in Surrey as a cost-effective solution to long-term vehicle congestion as her community continues its rapid growth. (March 13, 2012)

METRO VANCOUVER — Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts is renewing her call for light rail transit south of the Fraser River, arguing rapid buses or a costly SkyTrain line to Langley won’t reduce increasing gridlock on city streets.

Watts said city taxpayers give $160 million every year to TransLink, but the city is not getting the transit service it needs to meet a growing population that is set to reach 750,000 by 2040.

In the past five years, the city’s population has grown 18.5 per cent — more than three times the national average of 5.9-per-cent growth in metropolitan areas. About one-third of the population is under the age of 19.

“When we’re faced with the growth we’ve had exponentially we see the challenges in that,” Watts told a packed crowd at her annual state-of-the-city address at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel.

Using the same stage backdrop — depicting a light rapid transit train — as last year, Watts said light rail is not a “request of the month” and she won’t give up fighting for it. She noted three light rail train lines could be built for less than the cost of a $2-billion SkyTrain extension to Langley.

Just adding more buses won’t be efficient enough, she argued, and rapid buses are “not 21st century.” A SkyTrain to Langley, she said, would run through Green Timbers Park and cut Fleetwood Town Centre in half. This would hamper the city’s goal of encouraging denser town centres, she said, and would only offer service between Vancouver and Langley when 80 per cent of transit trips in Surrey are expected to be in the city itself. Watts said that by 2040, the number of vehicle licences issued to Surrey residents is expected to increase by 50 per cent, while road capacity will rise 12 per cent, meaning a 40-per-cent boost in congestion and gridlock.

The city is in line for a B-Line bus service along King George Highway from White Rock to Guildford, buses from White Rock to Langley and a rapid bus along Highway 1 over the new Port Mann Bridge. A new Pattullo Bridge is also included in the TransLink plan. A study on a potential rapid transit line extension to Langley, linking to the King George station, is also underway. But Watts insists this should be light rail and not SkyTrain, because it will help shape and connect communities across Surrey’s vast land base.

NDP Press Release on Enbridge, Tankers

March 15, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Jan. 10, 2012

NEW DEMOCRATS STAND UP FOR COAST, OPPOSE ENBRIDGE PIPELINE

VICTORIA— As Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge tar sands pipeline begin today, New Democrat MLAs are reaffirming their opposition to the proposal due to serious environmental risks, including crude oil supertankers, and a lack of lasting benefits for people in the region.

“In the communities I represent, a clean environment is part of our way of life,” said Robin Austin, MLA for Skeena. “What I’ve heard my constituents say is that our world famous salmon runs are more important than anything Enbridge has to offer. The people I represent live here and make their lives here. It’s not just a squiggle on a map or a line item on a spreadsheet.”

While discussing the Enbridge tar sands pipeline Liberal premier Christy Clark claimed that “British Columbia’s coast does not just belong to British Columbia,” a view which North Coast MLA Gary Coons says is dangerous and misleading.

“Premier Clark ignores the fact that British Columbians in the northwest would see their livelihoods destroyed and B.C. taxpayers would be left to spend billions to clean up any mess created by Enbridge. It will be the Haida, the Haisla, the Gitga’at, and other First Nations who will lose their breadbasket. It will be the fishers in Prince Rupert who will be left high and dry. It will be the northwest bed and breakfasts and guide outfitters who will go out of business,” said Coons.

Stikine MLA Doug Donaldson said his constituents are concerned that if the pipeline is allowed to go through, it will only be a matter of time before there is a catastrophic pipeline rupture or oil tanker disaster.

“I am very concerned that Premier Clark doesn’t grasp the reality of tanker traffic along our coast. Last February, she compared the north coast to the St. Lawrence and said she didn’t ‘know why we’d ban them necessarily off the west coast’ Well – we have news for the premier. The north coast is not the St. Lawrence,” said Donaldson.

Northwest MLAs Austin, Coons and Donaldson will be making presentations to the review panel as will New Democrat Environment critic Rob Fleming. New Democrats have long opposed the Enbridge tar sands pipeline because it provides few long-term benefits while posing serious risks to the B.C. environment and economy.

Harper’s Underhanded Gutting of Fisheries Act Designed to Help Enbridge and Co.

March 14, 2012Canada, Fisheries, Politics, Western CanadaPolitics, Salmon, Stephen HarperRafe Mair

Here, ladies and gentlemen, are your Conservative MPs and their contacts:

Edward Fast – Abbotsford ed@edfast.ca
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.ca
John Weston – West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country Weston.J@parl.gc.ca

Otto Langer is a highly respected fisheries expert who had a long distinguished career with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and got fed up with the politicization of the DFO. He was hardly alone – back in the early 90s at the time of the Kemano II fight, there were a number of DFO officers who left DFO by early retirement, being shuffled elsewhere, denied a deserved promotion, etc. One of them, Dr. Gordon Hartman (who like Otto Langer is an honoured contributor with the Common Sense Canadian) during the Kemano II scrap, along with several of his colleagues, gave those in the trenches the ammunition they needed. Alcan called them the “dissident scientists”, a sobriquet they wore with pride.

That time was when the reigning Tories, Mulroney the PM and Thomas Siddon Minister of Fisheries refused to hold public hearings mandated by statute, ignored a condemnatory report by DFO scientists, and gave the Alcan project the go-ahead. The DFO has never been the same since and let me give you a glaring example: the DFO is mandated to protect our Pacific Salmon and at the same time is mandated to shill for fish farms!

Mr. Langer has received and made public the news that under the Budget Omnibus Bill, the Fisheries Act will no longer protect fish habitat! You can read the statement from Langer that touched off this controversy here. Not only are they putting fish habitat in the hands of the pipeline builders and other despoilers of fish habitat, they are trying to slip this through in an omnibus bill to avoid a full debate.

These are the same bastards that have already privately approved the Enbridge pipeline by super tankers down our coast through the most perilous passage in the world.

No, it’s true that the policy has not yet been approved, but every utterance by Minister Joe Oliver and the Prime Minister has made it clear that they regard the Federal-Provincial Environmental Assessment process as a waste of time and that they should get done with it as soon as possible. They know that the BC government won’t raise a finger because the Clark government is grovelling and ass-kissing through the Prime Minister’s office over the $1.6 billion we owe the feds over the bungled HST mess.

The Federal government also supports the Independent Power Producers destruction of our rivers with amendments to the Navigable Waters Act and, yes, with money. West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country voters ought to ask their MP John Weston why he gave a nice bit of change to Plutonic Power (General Electric in drag) to help them ruin our rivers.

And, of course, the federal government supports the fish farms that are the ruination of our Pacific Salmon, the very soul of the province.

Read those names, ladies and gentlemen, and note that they, supposedly fellow citizens of BC, will destroy fish habitat, approve a ruinous pipeline by Enbridge through the Rockies, the Coast Range and the Great Bear Rain Forest, will fully support Oil tankers down the Inner Passage while increasing Tanker traffic through Vancouver Harbour, help big business ruin our rivers (made nice and easy with protection of habitat gone) and, like the barker in the amusement park, shill for giant Norwegian companies trashing our salmon with their fish farms.

There they are folks – the men and women you sent to Ottawa to look after our affairs.

Postscript – please go to our website and check out our list of contributors.

NDP Fisheries Critic Takes Harper Government to Task Over Leaked Changes to Fisheries Act

March 13, 2012Canada, Fisheries, PoliticsPolitics, Salmon, Stephen HarperDamien Gillis

Federal NDP Fisheries Critic Fin Donnelly took the Harper Government to task in Question Period earlier today over its plan to slip significant changes to the Fisheries Act into its omnibus bill. The changes – leaked yesterday to retired senior DFO scientist and manager Otto Langer – would water down key habitat protections contained in section 35 of the Act.

Donnelly raised the matter in Ottawa today, stating, “It appears the Conservatives are planning to bury sweeping changes to the Fisheries Act in the upcoming budget. The Minister uses the word ‘modernize’. But removing habitat protection from the Fisheries Act will set Canada back decades. The Minister must come clean. Is the Minister planning to change Section 35 of the Fisheries Act in the next budget? Is the plan to eliminate the protection of fish habitat in Canada and effectively gut the law? Yes or no?”

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Keith Ashfield responded, “Of course, there’s been absolutely no decision made with regard to this issue. I’ll note that Canada is blessed with an abundant array of natural resources, of which we should be proud and which we take seriously and responsibly to conserve and protect.”

In a statement published earlier today by The Common Sense Canadian, veteran fisheries scientist Otto Langer – who first raised alarm bells over the proposed changes – explained:

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.

The amendments to section 35 revolve around two key policy changes. The first seeks to divide fish into two separate classes – those which are “important” and deserving of protection and those which are not. The new act would read, “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.” (emphasis added).

Mr. Langer expressed his concerns about this important change: “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.”

The second key change is the removal of the word habitat from this section of the Act altogether. Mr. Langer notes, “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.“

Fisheries Critic Donnelly is concerned these changes are designed to clear the way for industrial projects favoured the Harper Government. In a press release following the above exchange in the House, he stated, “The Conservative government is systematically dismantling environmental protection and regulation. By eliminating provisions to protect fish habitat, they can push through their agenda of pipelines, oil super tankers, mega mines and other projects that harm the environment.”

The issue has attracted significant attention in the media and environmental community today, adding yet another controversy to the Harper Government’s omnibus bill.

Veteran Fisheries Scientist Warns Harper Government Watering Down Habitat Protections in Omnibus Bill

March 13, 2012Canada, Fisheries, Politics, Western CanadaPolitics, Salmon, Stephen HarperOtto Langer

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.

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; Co-recipient of 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. Has been retired for past 7 years and does 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.

Decline of Climate Change Acceptance Scares Leading Scientists

March 11, 2012Canada, Climate Change, Politics, Western Canadaclimate change, PoliticsRay Grigg

Dr. Nina Federoff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said at a recent gathering of the AAAS in Vancouver that she is “scared to death” about the public’s declining acceptance of global warming and the growing influence of well-funded skeptics who are spreading misinformation about climate change (Times-Colonist, Feb. 27/12).

“I’m very worried,” she confided to reporters, noting leaked documents from the influential Heartland Institute of Chicago that reveal it is planning a program for US public schools intended to discredit the evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is creating world-wide environmental threats.

Dr. Federoff, of course, is from America where right-wing politics and religious fundamentalism have reacted so negatively to the reason and empiricism so crucial to scientific thought. Public support for the science of climate change is waning in the US, she noted, “even as the scientific consensus has increased.”

The AAAS meeting in Vancouver also provided Canadian scientists with an opportunity to voice their concern about this country’s version of the American problem. They complain that Canada’s federal government has been “muzzling” the scientists it employs, forcing them to vet any communication with the media through a complex process of centralized control that usually ends with no interviews at all, or with versions that are sufficiently sanitized to be politically comfortable. Dr. Andrew Weaver, Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, has expressed exasperation with this constraint on the public’s access to scientific information. While his colleague in the US, Dr. James Hansen – one of the foremost experts in the world on climate change – has even resorted to the extreme of civil disobedience to highlight his concern about government inaction and obstruction.

Although complaint and exasperation are more restrained responses than civil disobedience, they are stages on the way to being “very worried” and “scared to death”. Perhaps Dr. Federoff is just being more emotionally honest than many of her colleagues, simply revealing what the habit of scientific objectivity keeps them from expressing so candidly. But is being “scared to death” a legitimate response? What does she know about climate change that would provoke such fear?

Part of her fear may stem from living in America where the debilitating effect of a strong anti-science sentiment is keeping one of the principle political and economic forces on the planet from actively joining a world-wide effort to combat global climate change. If this critically important environmental issue is to be seriously addressed, it will need America’s full support. And, if the past is prelude to the future, this is not likely to happen anytime soon.

The implications are sobering given the consensus of scientific evidence about the environmental consequences of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Unless this science is fundamentally flawed, unless a technological miracle suddenly supplies massive amounts of clean energy, or unless a revolution in public opinion radically alters the disposition of global politics, the prognosis for climate normality is sobering.

Here is our present situation, as outlined by the International Energy Agency (IEA), “widely considered as one of the most conservative in outlook” (Guardian Weekly, Nov. 18/11). Global emissions already consume 80 percent of the carbon allotment calculated to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million, the concentration that scientists predict will increase global temperatures above a critical 2°C tipping point. By 2015, at least 90 percent of this allotment will be used by energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, it will be all used, according to the IEA’s estimations, and we will have surpassed the critical 2°C tipping point (Ibid.).

Now juxtapose this assessment with the results of last December’s United Nations’ climate talks in Durban, South Africa. International negotiations for emission reductions will occur until 2015 and then unspecified targets – perhaps neither binding nor enforceable – will be in place by 2020.

In response to this tardy and vague objective, Fatih Birol, chief economist for the IEA, echoed Dr. Federoff’s words. “The door is closing,” he warned. “I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [level of carbon dioxide for safety]. The door will be closed forever” (Ibid.).

We the public, the people of Canada and the world, must decide if this stark assessment is real, imaginary or the fabricated concoction of some global conspiracy intent on undermining the momentum of an economic, industrial and technological system that has been materially successful beyond our imagination. And we must weigh this success against the precious little time we have to halt immeasurable environmental mayhem. Then this decision must be conveyed to our leaders, by whatever political system we have, either to effect the rapid change required to avert a crisis, or to live with the risk and continue as if the scientific assessment of our situation is faulty. It’s a sobering decision.

Perhaps, in making this decision, we might each ask ourselves why Nina Federoff is “scared to death”.