Tag Archives: Salmon

Ex-Conservative Fisheries Minister Slams Harper’s Gutting of Fisheries Act

Canada, Politics, Western Canada, ,
Share

Read this story and listen to audio clip from CBC.ca on former Conservative Fisheries Minister Tom Siddon’s outspoken opposition to Stephen Harper’s proposed gutting of the habitat protections of the Fisheries Act in his omnibus Budget Bill. (May 1, 2012)

The former Tory minister responsible for the current Fisheries Act is openly criticizing his successor over proposed changes to the legislation.

Tom Siddon, who was minister of Fisheries and Oceans from 1985 until 1990 for Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives, says he is extremely concerned by the amendments being championed by Keith Ashfield, the current minister.

“The minister of fisheries is the one remaining and most powerful person in Canada to protect this marvelous, historically important resource we have in Canada – our fishery. That’s his job,” he said Tuesday during an interview for CBC Radio’s The Current.

Omnibus Bill C-38, which is before Parliament this week, covers an array of legislation, including changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, the National Pipeline Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Exploration Act. Although the changes to the Fisheries Act are not the only flashpoints, they have hit a nerve with critics.

Read story and listen to audio clip: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/05/01/tom-siddon-fisheries-act-criticism.html

Share
McNab Beach - just below a proposed gravel mine in Howe Sound

Gravel Mining Project Threatens Ecological, Recreational Treasure in Howe Sound

Mining, Urban & Transport, , ,
Share

“Anywhere else in the world, Howe Sound would be a great National Park”
 – Dr. Murray Newman, Former Executive Director – Vancouver Aquarium

A large part of the beauty and international appeal of British Columbia’s West Coast can be found in the natural environment of Howe Sound.  Over the past 20 years, Howe Sound has been the subject of millions of dollars in reclamation projects to restore its health, paid for by industry and you the taxpayer.  Regrettably an Alberta based company has proposed a large scale gravel mining and crushing facility at McNab creek that will set back these rehabilitation efforts, especially for local salmon populations.  This proposal comes at a time when the recovering health of the Sound has led to sightings of Pacific white-sided dolphins and grey and killer whales for the first time in decades. We should not allow this progress to be placed at risk.

The massive project as filed by Burnco Rock Products Ltd, envisions at least 1 million tonnes of gravel extracted per year from the creekbed area with spikes up to 4 million tonnes. During the project’s first phase, a 77 hectare industrial pit would be dug out of the McNab Creek estuary to depths of 55 metres below surface grade and more than 15 metres below the water table.

According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the proposed project is likely to result in the destruction of fish habitat which cannot be compensated elsewhere in the Sound.  In its comment on the project, the DFO stated that they “continue to have serious concerns about the extent of the impacts to fish and fish habitat that may result from this project” and concluded that “The project presents a high risk to Salmon and Salmon habitat.”

In addition to the risks to fish habitat, the project description indicates the site could be home to up to 20 species at risk, including a population of Roosevelt Elk that were transplanted to McNab Creek by the BC Ministry of Environment in 2001 in an effort to re-introduce the species to the area.  The McNab Creek estuary and surrounding waters are extensively used for recreational and commercial fishers, tourism operators, boaters, recreational property owners, numerous children’s camps and other compatible users – all placed in profound jeopardy by the Burnco proposal. 

Despite concerns voiced by DFO, local governments and local community groups, the Burnco project has recently begun a review by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

This unfortunate situation clearly illustrates the absence of a long term planning strategy for Howe Sound.  The need for a specific Howe Sound plan has been formally recognized by twelve local governments and First Nations representing the communities in the Sea to Sky corridor.   In September 2002, they signed a “Principles of Co-operation” Agreement which identified the importance of community involvement in the consideration of issues affecting Howe Sound and the need to “work together for the greater good because territorial lines on a map mean nothing in terms of sustainability”.  Notwithstanding the wishes of local governments and First Nations, the review of the Burnco project is proceeding without any long term planning process involving those interested parties.

If approved, the Burnco Mine proposal will cause permanent, irreversible damage to a unique natural estuary that is home to at risk species and will also endanger ongoing efforts to sustain marine biodiversity in Howe Sound. In addition, important jobs and significant economic activity and opportunity in recreational tourism and commercial fishery will be put at risk.

Currently, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) review of the project is underway and the initial public comment period on the proposed project closed on February 3, 2012.  CEAA is reviewing the project description and is expected to issue the draft Environmental Impact Study guidelines shortly.  The draft guidelines will be subject to public comment and there is expected to be further opportunity for public participation at other stages in the review.  A companion review will also be conducted at the Provincial level and the BC Environmental Assessment Office is expected to initiate the process by the issuance of the draft Application Information Requirements (AIR) later this spring.  There will be public comment solicited on the AIR.  There is expected to be further opportunities for public participation during the Provincial review process although no timeline for public participation has been published at this time.

It is critical that members of the public and community groups make their voices heard during both the Federal and Provincial review processes.  Information on the Federal CEAA review can be obtained at www.ceaa.gc.ca and on the BC EAO review at www.eao.gov.bc.ca. 

Further developments regarding the next steps in this review process and details of how to make your views known will be posted at futureofhowesound.org.  To be kept informed of the status of the review process, join our mailing list for ongoing updates.

Les Morton is a representative of the Future of Howe Sound Society.

Share

Mark Hume on Alexandra Morton’s Quixotic Battle Against Salmon Farms

Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, ,
Share

Read this profile by the Globe and Mail’s Mark Hume of marine biologist Alexandra Morton’s decades-long struggle against the Norwegian open net salmon farming industry. (April 20, 2012)

Alexandra Morton sits at her kitchen table and tries to ignore the e-mails pouring in to the laptop open in front of her. She is looking out the picture window at Rough Bay, which is tranquil this morning, reflecting a vivid blue sky and the snow-capped mountains of northern Vancouver Island.

 “That’s where I want to be,” she says wistfully, as if the sea, which washes ashore 10 metres from her tiny cabin on Malcolm Island, is somehow unreachable because of the life she has chosen.

Her idea of a perfect day is to rise at dawn and head out in her boat, Blackfish Sound, wandering until she finds a tide line where a rich seam in the ocean currents is marked by a ribbon of flotsam. Then she turns off the engine and drifts with a hydrophone hung over the side of the boat.

“You can hear herring. They sound like lemons being squished. You can hear the whisk, whisk, whisk of otter feet,” she says. “You can hear whales, and you can even hear the rocks rolling on the pebble beaches.”

But the days when she can escape to that idyllic world are few, says Ms. Morton, who is tied to her computer, afraid that if she rests, she may fail at her self-appointed task of removing open-net salmon pens from coastal waters.

Read story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/one-womans-struggle-to-save-bcs-wild-salmon/article2409621/  

Share

Tests Confirm New Salmon Virus in Canadian Farmed Salmon Marketplace

Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, ,
Share

Read this story from The Province on the confirmation of piscine rheovirus in farmed salmon sold in BC supermarkets. (April 14, 2012)

A newly identified Norwegian virus that affects salmon has made its way into Canadian markets, with test results confirming the presence of the virus in 44 out of 45 farmed salmon bought from Vancouver supermarkets.

The piscine reovirus, which causes heart and skeletal muscle inflammation in salmon, was found in fish bought by advocacy group SalmonAreSacred.org. The stores’ seafood departments told the group the fish were B.C.-raised farmed salmon, SalmonAreSacred said in a news release.

Alexandra Morton, the biologist who discovered the infected fish, questioned if that information from store staff was accurate.

The virus is considered a “major challenge” in Norway, infecting more than 400 farms since its first appearance in 1999. Since then, it has also spread to the U.K, and as of last year, Chile.

“If they were imported, that is a huge concern,” said Morton.

The origin of the infected fish, which has yet to be confirmed, will dictate whether the Canadian fish industry is at risk or if imports need a more thorough scanning process. The virus has not yet been found in Canadian farmed or wild fish populations, Morton suggested, but she is fearful it will show up.

Based on the diversity in the shape and size of the fish, Morton’s impression is that they’re coming from different farms.

“I bought these fish from several different stores on several different days and they all are coming up positive with the virus,” she said. “They also looked different — long and skinny in some stores and quite large in others.”

She said the salmon could have come from a number of places, including Norway, Chile and Eastern Canada, although there is no proof of the virus’ existence there.

Morton explained that identifying the source of the salmon, whether imported or not, is “very important,” as the disease itself could live in just an egg.

“These are questions that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be answering, and potentially the supermarket.”

She said the solution that the industry should be imposing is to identify the source of the disease, temporarily contain it, then kill off the infected fish — all in a transparent process.

Share
BCIT Rivers Institue Chair Emeritus Mark Angelo

Prominent BCIT Conservationists Team Up to Save “Heart of the Fraser”

Fisheries, Mining, , ,
Share

World Rivers Day founder and Chair Emeritus of BCIT’s Rivers Institute Mark Angelo and prominent fish biologist and BCIT professor Dr. Marvin Rosenau have launched a dynamic new initiative to conserve the enormous ecological values of a critical stretch of the Fraser River just East of Vancouver. Known as the Gravel Reach or, “Heart of the Fraser” for its prime spawning habitat – home to dozens of species of salmon, trout, sturgeon and other lesser known but ecologically significant fish – the region between Mission and Hope is threatened by a laundry list of industrial impacts. That’s why these two conservationists, along with their students and the support of a number of other environmental organizations have developed an innovative new program to help protect it.

Watch this short video on the launch of the program:

The “Shared Vision” document for the program – whose sponsors also include the Nature Trust of BC, the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and the North Growth Foundation – describes the nature of the threat to this critical ecosystem and what is required to protect it:

Political, corporate, and public efforts must be coordinated and applied in order to counter the rapid disappearance of one of the most diverse and valuable aquatic and lowland ecosystems in British Columbia. Our goal is to identify, conserve, protect and restore key portions of the Gravel Reach in order to sustain and secure the biological and ecological integrity of the area…The lower Fraser River riparian lowlands continue to rapidly disappear due to continued encroachment through land development, agriculture, and industrial activities that include extensive resource extraction (i.e., logging and mining).

See videos below on gravel mining in this stretch of the Fraser River – including a talk by Dr. Marvin Rosenau.

This important stretch of habitat, which “functions in a biologically rich and diverse manner because of the extensive lateral and vertical inundation of islands, gravel bars, and the riparian/terrestrial ecosystems over the period of the hydrological year,” is home to an unmatched collection of fish and wildlife values. A list of these values contained in the program’s “Shared Vision” document gives one a sense of just what’s at stake here:

“These attributes include:

  • the largest-single spawning run of salmon in British Columbia, and perhaps North America (these are pink salmon which reproduce in the main channel of the Gravel Reach and may well exceed 10 million fish on the spawning grounds in some years);
  • the largest population of white sturgeon in North America not influenced by dams or aquaculture (white sturgeon are the largest and longest-living freshwater fish in North America — they can attain lengths in excess of 6 meters, weights of over 600 kilograms, and they can live for over 150 years);
  • a spawning stock of Pacific eulachon, which up until only a few decades ago was one of the largest runs of eulachon in British Columbia; this small, anadromous smelt leaves the marine environment to spawn in the lower Fraser River in April and May and all individuals die after spawning; the oil- and protein-rich carcasses provide a significant source of food and nutrients for the aquatic, avian, and terrestrial ecosystems of the Gravel Reach, and are an important, traditional food of Fraser River First Nations communities;
  • a migration corridor for some of the largest spawning runs of sockeye salmon in North America (most of these originate from upstream populations);
  • juvenile-feeding habitat for local-chum and migratory-chinook salmon stocks that rear along gravel bars and within side channels;
  • spawning habitat for local chum salmon stocks in the large side channels, which in some years may exceed 1 million returning adult fish;
  • habitat that supports approximately 30 different species of fish, including at least eight fishes that are considered to be at-risk: cutthroat trout, bull char (both resident and anadromous), Dolly Varden char, eulachon, white sturgeon, green sturgeon, mountain sucker, and brassy minnow.

There are also many other non-fish species of animals living in the Fraser River Gravel Reach that are found in complex combinations occurring nowhere else in Canada, including:

  • aquatic mammals (seals, sea-lions, river beaver, martin);
  • large terrestrial/aquatic omnivores including black (and the occasional grizzly) bear;
  • other large vertebrates include blacktail and whitetail deer, cougar, coyote;
  • extensive populations of various species of rarer birds including red-tail hawk, green and great blue heron, bald eagle, assorted dabbling ducks, wood duck, purple martin, sandhill crane, turkey vultures;
  • the Pacific water shrew (a species at risk);
  • amphibians such as the Oregon spotted frog, western red-backed salamander, and the Pacific giant salamander.”

Besides the work of BCIT students continuing to research and map the fish and habitat values of the Gravel Reach, the program is seeking to develop a “Lower Fraser River Ecosystem” working group, comprised of program participants, First Nations, representatives of all levels of government, NGOs and other key stakeholders. The goal of this team would be to advance these conservation objectives through the following tools:

  • outright purchase of private properties – Nature Trust or other such entity to manage in perpetuity;
  • donations of private land into a protected area envelope;
  • evaluation of existing Crown forests within this area to ascertain if a more advantageous land allocation arrangement might be offered to forest companies which would allow the reversion of some sensitive habitats into non-harvestable lands, and subsequent protection;
  • conversion of existing, non-used Crown lands into Section 108 reserves, protected areas, and/or Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s);
  • restrictive-covenant agreements on non-purchasable lands; and
  • alternative options for protecting First Nation lands need to be explored such as the purchasing of outside-of-dike properties, to be added to existing titles, in exchange for not undertaking development on the lowland riparian lands, or the restoration of currently impacted FN properties.

It’s an ambitious program – but given what’s at stake in this rich ecosystem, what it represents to the people of British Columbia, and the dire challenges it faces for survival, it would also appear a necessary one.

The Common Sense Canadian will endeavour to keep its readers updated as to the progress of the “Heart of the Fraser Initiative” as it evolves.

Videos on Gravel Mining the Heart of the Fraser:

 

Share
BC Conservative Party Leader John Cummins and his new MLA, John van Dongen (photo: Adrian Lam/Postmedia)

Conservatives’ Van Dongen Grab Raises Questions About Cummins’ Integrity

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oceans, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

The resignation of John Van Dongen from the Liberal caucus to become an instant one-man Conservative caucus has, for me at any rate, put the focus on John Cummins.
 
Let’s look at Mr Cummins’ record and positions.
 
Mr. Cummins’ claim to fame is his integrity – his record of standing up for BC and his constituency in the House of Commons and paying for this integrity by permanently putting himself offside with Stephen Harper thus disqualifying himself from cabinet.
 
What was the issue that came up time after time in Cummins’ parliamentary career?
 
No prize for saying BC’s wild salmon. He flouted the law in the cause, risking jail. He fought against First Nations accusing them of illegal fishing. Whenever the subject of BC salmon was raised you would find John Cummins fighting for the symbol and very soul of our province – our wild salmon. I shared platforms at protests with him. On the question of fish farms Cummins stated that there were serious problems that had to be addressed.
 
This raises two questions – the first was raised by Charlie Smith in the Georgia Straight in the March 27 edition which I sent in a mail-out and is posted on Facebook, namely, how does Mr. Cummins welcome to his new caucus a man who was so steadfast in his defence of fish farmers he even warned them when the enforcement officers were coming and had to resign in consequence?
 
Is that the Cummins integrity we hear so much about?
 
I go further, why didn’t either Cummins or Van Dongen deal publicly with this apparent major conflict on a huge issue – why was it left to Smith?
 
This is small potatoes and will no doubt be brushed aside by noting that fish farms are now a federal matter.
 
Let’s go to the main issue that will keep Cummins contained within the boundaries of the far right – the Enbridge pipeline and the consequent tanker traffic down our beautiful yet extremely hazardous coast as well as through Vancouver.
 
Some questions for Mr Cummins:

  1. It is a mathematical certainty that the pipeline will have ruptures and spills – do you agree? If not, are you saying that it won’t happen?
  2. Enbridge has an appalling accident record – 811 since 1998 – does this not concern you?
  3. Are you aware that the pipeline would cross over 1,000 rivers and streams, most of which have fish in them, many tributaries of major spawning rivers and creeks with at least three being essential to large runs of spawning salmon? Assuming that you are aware, where is your concern for the fish you claim to love so much?
  4. Are you aware that the 1,100km line passes through the Rockies and Coast ranges thence through the Great Bear Rainforest? Assuming you are aware, how does Enbridge fix a leak or rupture? How does Enbridge get men and machines into the afflicted area when it’s only accessible by helicopter?
  5. Are you aware that Enbridge has admitted that there will be spills and have set up clean-up protocols even though they’ll not do any good? Are you aware of the fact that even if Enbridge could get to the site, there’s bugger all they can do? Have you examined the Kalamazoo case where 20 months later Enbridge is still trying to clean up a spill – which they categorized as minor – exposing that even though it happened in a populous state by a highway it never will be cleaned up? Do you know about this Mr. Cummins?
  6. Are you aware that Environment Canada, scarcely filled with eco-freaks, has said that there will be tanker accidents on a regular basis with a major one every 10 years?
  7. Here’s what long time fisherman in the area, John Brajcich has to say:

With our family’s 80 plus years of fishing in the Whale Channel area we have firsthand knowledge of tides, weather, types of fish and bird life. The area from Kitamaat to Hecate Straits is designated Area 6, by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and is the most consistent salmon producing region in British Columbia with runs in the odd and even years.

In Area 6 there is:

  1. Within the Central coast area 128 salmon bearing streams
  2. Kitasu Bay to McInnes Island is a major herring spawning  ground
  3. All 5 species of salmon, herring, crab, mussels, clams, abalone, prawns, eulachons, pilchards, hake, geoduck, mackerel, halibut cod, pollock, otters, eagles and many birds, plus whales and porpoises
  4. Tides that fluctuate over 20 feet causing currents of up to 5 knots
  5. Being a region of heavy snow and glaciers there are very strong freshets from May to the end of July
  6. The outflow winds from Douglas Channel can be extreme during summer and winter
  7. Weather in Hecate Straits – because of strong complex currents, waves have been recorded up to 30 metres. The highest wind gusts recorded for November, December, January, February and March is 180 -190-plus km per hour.

If a ship enters Laredo Channel from Hecate Straits at McInnes Island the tanker would have Lenard Shoal and Moody Bank at the bottom of Aristazabl Island. On the east side of Aristazabl Island there are 2 very  dangerous rocks known as Wilson and Moorhouse. Campania Sound is also a very treacherous body of water from Dupont Island to Hecate Straits.

There are many rocks and to name a few, Bortwick, Cort, Ness, Evans, Cliff and Janion also Yares Shoal. This area is a minefield of reefs. These rocks are spread out between Rennison Island, Banks Island and Campania Island. This route would be extremely dangerous to tanker traffic. Using the Otter Pass route, Nepean rock becomes a very prominent problem for ships’ travel.

On the question of damage Mr  Brajcich says:

Should a major oil spill occur I feel an oil boom would not be able to contain it because of the velocity of the current in this area and the oil could travel 20-50 miles in one 6 hour tide. This area is not the Mediterranean or a lagoon.
 
If a spill occurred in Laredo Channel the herring spawning area at Kitasu Bay to Price Island could be totally destroyed, possibly forever. The eel grass which the herring need to spawn on could be wiped out. Some years over 10,000 tons of herring spawn in this area.
 
A spill at freshet time would be the  most devastating. Due to the differences of its viscosity, salt water is heavier and would be lower and the fresh water being lighter, becomes a shallow layer at the surface. The juvenile salmon live in this fresh water layer as they  migrate to sea. The juvenile salmon jump like raindrops and if they were migrating in a spill area the oil could wipe out an entire run. Some streams could become barren of salmon.

Do you accept that evidence, Mr. Cummins? If not, where do you quarrel with your fellow commercial fisherman’s evidence?

Let me be blunt.
 
With the forgoing, how can you possibly support the Enbridge pipeline and tanker traffic of more than 200 per year out of the port of Kitimat?
 
How can you possibly expect the public of BC to vote for a man and a party that approves the certainty of massive damage to our beautiful wilderness accompanied by huge, irreparable damage to our coast and destruction of hundreds of thousands of BC wild salmon – likely permanently.
 
Let me tell you this, Mr. Cummins – you are a man I’ve long admired for the courageous stands you have taken on the preserving and enhancing of our BC salmon.
 
But that’s before you looked just like the political phoneys you used to fight so hard when you had a halo.

Share

Charlie Smith: Van Dongen, Cummins Differ on Fish Farms

Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western Canada, ,
Share

Read this article by Charlie Smith in the Georgia Straight on one key difference between BC Conservative Party Leader John Cummins and his new MLA and BC Liberal defector Jon Van Dongen. (March 27, 2012)

B.C. Conservative Leader John Cummins and his party’s new MLA, John van Dongen, were very chummy yesterday in front of the media.

And why not? Van Dongen, a former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister, had crossed the floor to the B.C. Conservatives just in time for crucial April 29 by-elections in Chilliwack-Hope and Port Moody–Coquitlam.

As I watched the televised news coverage last night, I was left with a question: how will these two fast friends get along when it comes to fish farming?

In 2003 as a member of the Commons fisheries committee, Cummins wrote a dissenting report attacking the federal role in aquaculture…

…As B.C.’s minister of agriculture, food and fisheries, van Dongen was the cabinet minister who lifted the provincial moratorium on fish farms in 2002.

In a widely distributed opinion editorial, van Dongen contradicted some of the points made by Cummins in his later report.

Read article: http://straight.com/article-645381/vancouver/can-john-cummins-and-bc-conservative-mla-john-van-dongen-agree-fish-farming

Share

Otto Langer Responds to Fisheries Minister’s Defence of Plan to Gut Fisheries Act

Canada, Fisheries, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

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 whatsoever and provides 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 is 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 a fish kill incident that DFO staff were preventing – not a destruction of habitat.

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 campground site seemed proper and should maybe be done again if the Jamboree Grounds owners do not install works to prevent this flood-caused 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 Natural 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 hurdles 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.

Share

Read Letter from 625 Canadian Scientists Urging Harper Not to Gut Fisheries Act

Canada, Fisheries, Politics,
Share

This past week 625 Canadian scientists onto signed a letter calling for the Harper Government to cease its plans to remove habitat protections from the Fisheries Act. The changes were first made public by Common Sense Canadian contributor Otto Langer, prompting many prominent voices across the nation and political spectrum to condemn the gutting of the Act – including former Conservative fisheries ministers John Fraser and Tom Siddon. Read the scientists’ letter below.

{pdf}http://thecanadian.org/https://commonsensecanadian.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Letter_from_Canadian_Scientists_to_Prime_Minister_Harper1.pdf|height:1100|width:850|app:google{/pdf}

If the viewer isn’t visible, you can view the PDF by clicking here.

Share

The Tyee on Turning Healthy, Fish-bearing Lakes into Mining Tailings Ponds

Fisheries, Mining,
Share

Read this story from TheTyee.ca on the use of a loophole int he Fisheries Act, called Schedule 2, that enables mining companies to turn healthy lakes into “tailing impoundment areas” for waste rock and tailings – saving them millions of dollars int he process.(March 23, 2012)

Under the little-known Schedule 2 of The Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, healthy wild lakes are being reclassified as “tailings impoundment areas.” The effluent regulations were created to protect Canadian waters, not destroy them. When the Liberal government revised the regulations in 2002, Schedule 2 was a last-minute grandfather clause to legitimize five already-polluted lakes.

 

Since 2006, the Harper government has used Schedule 2 to sanction the destruction of no less than eight healthy, wild lakes or water bodies, and grandfathered another six already-polluted ones. Mining companies stand to gain enormous cost savings via Schedule 2 “exceptions.” No need to build expensive tailings containments from scratch if the government will let you just dump your industrial waste in a nearby lake and be done with it.

 

Bizarrely, the mining industry would have Canadians believe that purposely destroying pure Canadian lakes is somehow environmentally responsible. Natural lakes make “safer” containments, they argue, than any structure they could build. This cynical doublespeak merely clouds the ugly truth — that Schedule 2 is a quick and dirty means to profit.

Read story: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/23/Lake-Killing/

Share