Calgary Herald
By LICIA CORBELLA

On Wednesday afternoon, federal Bill C-69 passed second reading in the Senate by a vote of 56-29.
The response from the Alberta government on this troubling news?

Crickets. Deafening silence. Inaction on an epic scale.

Officially called the Impact Assessment Act, many people in the energy industry prefer to call it Justin Trudeau’s “No More Pipelines Law”. Deron Bilous, Alberta’s economic development and trade minister, said Bill C-69 will “doom our energy sector.”

Premier Rachel Notley’s NDP government argues it has done plenty to object to Bill C-69.

The facts state otherwise.

In August of 2017, Alberta Environment Minister Shannon Phillips and Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd wrote their federal counterparts a four-page letter initially raising concerns about what was then called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It’s not a bad letter but lacks any sense of urgency or alarm.

On Feb. 8, Bill C-69 was tabled in the House of Commons and by March 19 it passed second reading and headed to the House of Commons’ environment committee. Ten days later, United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney sent a letter to Notley suggesting that the entire legislature unite against Bill C-69. She never responded.

Eventually, Kenney put forward a motion condemning Bill C-69 in the Edmonton legislature. Notley’s government voted against the motion.

From March 22 to May 22, the environment committee held 14 meetings in Ottawa. It was during this time that Chris Bloomer, president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, told the committee: “It is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built under the Impact Assessment Act, much less attract energy investment to Canada.”

The committee had 150 briefs submitted and 117 witnesses appeared. Even though Alberta has the most to lose from this bill, no one from the Alberta government bothered to testify. Not even a brief was submitted before the committee.

This missed opportunity is inexcusable and a gross dereliction of duty considering the significant effect this legislation will have on Alberta if passed.

On May 29, the bill cleared the committee and headed back to the House. Two days later, Alberta sent a letter to three federal ministers, stating: “Alberta also requests that these timelines accommodate government-to-government dialogue and we need to see a plan by June 30, 2018, on how this will occur.”

There’s no evidence of any dialogue occurring. In fact, on June 20, Bill C-69 passed third reading in the House and headed to the Senate. Surely, by now, Notley should have gone nuclear on Bill C-69.

Instead, Notley’s government sent a technical brief to the feds. Then, silence about this disastrous bill from the Alberta government ensued for many months.

On Aug. 15, at the annual Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference in Iqaluit, the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario protested Bill C-69. McCuaig-Boyd, however, did not publicly raise any objections about Bill C-69 when she had a national audience.

In early September, Alberta business leaders associated with a group called Suits and Boots launched a public campaign to fight Bill C-69.

Finally, on Sept. 25, possibly because of Suits and Boots’ action and resulting media coverage, Notley announced that she would send Phillips and McCuaig-Boyd to Ottawa to lobby the Senate for changes.

On Oct. 9, the Alberta government sent a technical document to the feds about the bill and, on the same day, Notley sent Trudeau the most strongly worded letter to date about the bill.

On Oct. 24, Phillips met with about 100 senators to discuss Bill C-69. Waiting so late into the process is obviously highly risky.

And Notley’s government is claiming it’s done a good job on this file?

“Unlike Jason Kenney,” Mike McKinnon, a spokesman for the energy minister, wrote Thursday, “we are out there every day fighting for things that matter to Albertans like getting the Trans Mountain pipeline built and fixing Bill C-69. We still intend to formally go before the Senate committee to deliver that message.”

There is so much wrong with the above statement. But it gets worse.

“This is too important to get wrong,” continued McKinnon. “We’ve seen what happens when this process fails with the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision and we saw it happen when the Harper-Kenney Conservatives made a complete mess of pipeline approvals with Northern Gateway. As the Premier said on Nov. 28, this is one of the biggest public policy failures of the last generation. It is unforgivable.”

Talk about misplaced blame. Northern Gateway was vetoed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Notley never objected to that devastating act.

In fact, she was in favour of killing Northern Gateway. On April 24, 2015, during an editorial board meeting with the Herald, Notley said she was opposed to Northern Gateway:

“I think Gateway is not the right decision. I think there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there. And I think there’s genuine concerns by the Indigenous communities . . . . And so, I don’t think it’s a particularly good use of our time,” said Notley.

Now, she and her spokespeople are trying to lay the blame on the Harper government that approved it? It’s galling.

As Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers president and CEO Tim McMillan said Thursday: “Bill C-69, as it’s currently written, will devastate not just Alberta’s energy industry but industry across Canada.”

Notley and her government have completely mishandled Bill C-69.
​
In this case, silence is deadly

Canadian Press
Joan Bryden

OTTAWA — Conservative senators are being accused of deliberately stalling Liberal government legislation to keep it in the public eye for political benefit.

That's particularly true of Bill C-69, new rules for environmental assessments of energy projects, which has drawn the wrath of Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provincial governments that fear it will scare off investment in projects like pipelines by setting up too many regulatory hurdles.

"This is a bill that could generate a lot of political attention and it is in the interests of some senators to use the bill as political hay," Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, leader of the Independent Senators' Group, said in an interview.

The argument over getting bills through the Senate broke into the open in the red chamber Thursday, just hours before MPs and senators ended their last sitting in Parliament's iconic Centre Block for at least 10 years. Both chambers were slated to resume work on Jan. 28, housed in temporary new quarters while Centre Block undergoes a massive restoration.

But senators agreed Thursday to delay until Feb. 19 the move into their new home in Ottawa's old railway station, giving workers time to fix a ceiling gap that was causing "disruptive noise levels" so bad that they would affect the Senate's operations, including plans to provide for the first time live broadcasts of Senate proceedings. Senate staff didn't detect the design problem until they started running practice sessions to prepare for senators' arrival.

While the full Senate won't sit until Feb. 19, senators unanimously approved a motion that Senate committees should resume work on Jan. 28, as originally planned. But Woo said Conservative senators seem intent on ensuring that committee work is also put off for three more weeks.

Senate committees can't begin studying bills until their three-member steering committees recommend a schedule for hearings and propose a witness list. But Independent senators complain that Conservative steering committee members are suddenly saying they're too busy to meet, making it impossible to set the agendas for the committees.

Accusations 'total hogwash': Tory leader in senateWoo claims their objective is twofold: to drag out controversy over contentious bills and to enable Conservative senators to claim the bills that eventually pass are flawed because there wasn't enough time to thoroughly examine them.

"To the extent that any given government bill can be used as a partisan talking point, it is in the interests of the Opposition to drag out the conversation for as long as possible — not only to have messaging around the bill but to also give the impression that there wasn't enough time to properly review the bill," he said.

Sen. Larry Smith, the Conservative leader in the upper house, dismissed that accusation.

"We don't give commands that people can't go to meetings. That's total hogwash. That is what I call partisanship," Smith said in an interview.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau indicated at last week's first ministers meeting that he's counting on the Senate to propose some amendments to Bill C-69, which had been stalled at second reading in the upper house thanks to procedural manoeuvres by Tory senators. Senators voted Wednesday to send the bill to their energy and environment committee for detailed examination.

On Thursday, the committee's chair, Independent Sen. Rosa Galvez, complained in the chamber that she's been unable to get the Conservative member of the steering committee to show up for a meeting. In the past, she said steering committees have met by phone or email, but Conservatives are now insisting on meeting in person.

Conservative Sen. Don Plett retorted that all three members of a steering committee must be present for it to meet and accused Galvez of not wanting to follow rules she doesn't like. He also accused her of proposing a one-sided witness list. He acknowledged that Conservatives are opposed to the bill but insisted they want to hear from both sides of the debate.
Galvez in turn said she found Plett's tone "extremely aggressive."

Independent Sen. Paula Simons, a recently appointed Alberta senator, said she's been hearing from hundreds of Albertans who are "begging" for the committee to begin its examination of the bill as soon as possible. She noted that all three members of the steering committee were in the chamber as she spoke.

"Would it not be possible for the sake of the thousands of Albertans who are terribly concerned about C-69 for you to find some way for the steering committee to meet so that we could serve the people of Alberta and Canada and get to this bill?"

Smith said later the problem is that some inexperienced, Independent senators don't understand the rules of the Senate.

"What we want to make sure is that chairs of committees make sure that they assemble their steering committees before taking action or gathering data or information without the input of the steering committee. It's more of an organizational issue."
​
Asked if he anticipates that Senate committees will get back to work on Jan. 28, Smith said: "That's up to each of the chairs to be able to mobilize their people."

GlobalNews
By Adam Toy

An Alberta senator is pulling back the curtain on why Canada’s Senate voted to return Bill C-69 — a bill to overhaul the energy project review process — to committee for amendments during the bill’s second reading.

“I did not vote to pass this legislation,” Sen. Paula Simons told Rob Breakenridge on 770 CHQR. “I would not vote in favour of C-69 as written, and I’ve said that literally from the first day I got here.

“I voted in a procedural motion to send the bill to committee because it’s at committee that bills get scrutinized, revised and amended, and that’s what needs to happen to Bill C-69.”

Simons said that during her brief time as a senator, she has heard concerns about the bill from people both for and against proposed large-scale energy projects like the Trans Mountain expansion.

“A lot of people on every side feel that there is a lack of clarity in the wording of the bill about what projects go on the project list for evaluation, about how we balance economic impacts versus social and environmental impacts and about the power of the minister to step in and trump whatever non-partisan, apolitical regulatory process is supposed to be. And I’m hearing that across the board,” Simons said.

Despite strong objections from Canada’s energy industries — including oil and gas — Simons said none of the industry groups she’s heard from want the bill to be killed during the legislative process.

“I’m also hearing from major industry groups — from CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers), from CEPA (Canadian Energy Pipeline Association), from Husky, from Imperial, from Suncor — that they don’t want the bill killed outright because they say to go back to the drawing board will just create more confusion and uncertainty for investors,” Simons continued.

“Industry representatives have said to me that they don’t want to spike the whole thing and start over because that will just create years more of uncertainty. They’re asking for amendments.”
READ MORE: Alberta environment minister says federal energy bill C-69 inadequate in current form

Early in her tenure as senator, the former journalist noted that there were no Albertans on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
“I thought that was a huge problem,” she said.

A self-avowed non-partisan, Simons joined the committee to represent her fellow Albertans alongside another recently named Alberta politician, Sen. Patti LaBoucane-Benson.

“It’s an all-party committee. There’s one Liberal on the committee and six Conservatives, and everybody else is either Independent or what they call ‘unaffiliated,’” explained Simons.

“This is not a rubber-stamp committee. This is a legitimate standing committee that is going to hold public hearings. Today at our meeting, we discussed holding some of those public hearings in Alberta so people can actually see what we do. This is not a kangaroo court.”

Simons also says now is the time for Albertans of all political stripes to stand together to make sure Bill C-69 benefits not only Alberta’s oil and gas sector but other large-scale energy projects in the future.

“We need to be united as Albertans in saying: ‘This is not good legislation, and not just for Alberta’s oil industry. It’s problematic legislation for all kinds of major developments, whether that’s hydro dams, whether that’s tidal power, whether that’s offshore wind.
​
“This is too important for us to play petty, partisan politics with. We need a regulatory regime that protects our environment, that honours our Indigenous treaty obligations and that creates investor confidence so we can have good projects with international capital and with the sensible development of not just oil and gas — all across our industry sectors.”

By BOB WEBER
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Half the country’s chinook salmon populations are endangered and most of the rest are in decline, according to a science committee that monitors the health of wildlife populations.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada reported Monday that of Canada’s 16 chinook populations, eight are endangered, four are threatened and one is considered of special concern.

Only one, located in British Columbia’s Thompson River, is considered stable. The condition of two populations is unknown.

Endangered is the committee’s most serious ranking, suggesting the population is in danger of being wiped out.

“There are some where there is thought to be fewer than 200 fish still remaining,” said committee member and Simon Fraser University fisheries biologist John Neilson.

“At that level, there would be concern about those stocks. That’s why we’re sounding the alarm.”

Chinook salmon are both a major fishery in British Columbia and central to the lives and culture of Indigenous people. Neilson said the new assessment is the most comprehensive the committee has ever done on the fish.

“From other studies and general knowledge on the state of salmon in B.C., there’s a lot of concern,” Neilson said. “These are populations that are at the high end of needing some attention.”

Scientists believe the problem occurs during the part of their lives the salmon spend in the ocean.

Some believe growing numbers of seals and sea lions, which feed on the fish, are behind the declines. Others say the warming and acidifying ocean is starting to affect the food web the salmon depend on.

“It’s a complex story,” said Neilson.

It’s time the federal government use its power to protect the fish and its habitat, he added.
“Our suggestion is that government act quickly.”

The Species At Risk Act allows the federal government to issue emergency protection orders which allow Ottawa to control activity in critical habitat normally governed by the provinces.
The federal government has used the power twice before for the western chorus frog and the sage grouse.

Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said she hadn’t yet seen the assessment but would follow up on its concerns.

“We understand that it is critically important to protect and conserve our native wildlife. We need to fulfill our obligations under the Species At Risk Act.”

She said some measures have already been taken to protect and rebuild chinook salmon stocks.
The committee also released assessments of two other species.

It recommended no change be applied to polar bears, now considered to be a species of special concern.

It also looked at the black ash tree, a common urban tree in civic parks in Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. It found that over the last 20 years, an invasive species called the emerald ash borer has killed about two billion ash trees in the Great Lakes Region.
​
The black ash is now considered threatened, the committee found.

By Staff The Canadian Press

Atlantic herring is a hearty source of protein for people and marine mammals alike, but like a startling number of Canada’s fish stocks, the plan to rebuild the depleted herring population is currently one big question mark.

That’s a conclusion reached by advocacy group Oceana Canada, which published its second annual fisheries audit Tuesday — a report card assessing the health of Canada’s fish stocks.

The report found Canada has a lot of work to do to reverse the decline of its fish stocks, and it needs to pick up the pace.

Oceana’s science director Robert Rangeley said he hopes the audit is a “wake-up call” for better fisheries management.

“My biggest fear is one of complacency,” said Rangeley. “We’re still hovering around one-third of our fish stocks (that) are healthy, which is very poor performance for the 194 stocks that are so important for coastal communities.”

Only 34 per cent of Canada’s fish stocks are considered healthy. Twenty-nine per cent are in a critical or cautious zone, and perhaps most alarmingly, 37 per cent of stocks don’t have sufficient data to assign a health status.

Some, like Pacific herring in Haida Gwaii, slipped into the critical red zone this year.

The numbers are indicative of the slow policy implementation that plagues management of Canada’s fisheries, Rangeley said. The Oceana team expected to see more stocks move from the uncertain zone into one of the other categories this year, but in fact, the needle barely moved.

On the legislative front, the House of Commons passed revisions in June that will strengthen the Fisheries Act, including direction on rebuilding depleted stocks. If it becomes law and is supported by strong regulations, this could signal a turning point in the health of Canada’s fisheries.

Rangeley said government transparency has improved in recent years, giving his team access to the audit’s necessary data. But scientific reporting and assessment of stocks is slow and incomplete. Scientific and planning documents are often published late, or not at all.

Slow scientific publication means some stocks haven’t been assessed in years – and with the impacts of climate change affecting the ocean at a swift pace, it means some of the health assessments are becoming too outdated to plan around how to help improve the stock.
Of the 26 stocks that are assessed as critically depleted, only three have rebuilding plans in place. And even when those plans are published, the report notes that they are often based on out-of-date scientific assessments.

Atlantic Canada’s fin fish are most heavily represented among the critical stocks.
Rangeley said invertebrates like lobster and crab are more likely in good health than at-risk fin fish like cod and herring. However, rebuilding plans to bring struggling stocks back to health are notoriously slow to appear.

Perhaps the most famous example is the infamous cod moratorium in 1992 that devastated Newfoundland’s fishing communities. Twenty-six years on, there’s no plan in place to rebuild the Northern cod stock.

It’s not just an issue for the depleted stocks, said Rangeley. He recommends that a sense of urgency is applied to stocks in the cautious zone as well as the critical zone, because the more depleted they get, the harder it is to rebuild.

“It’s just a biological reality,” Rangeley said. “Knock ’em down too far for too long, the effort takes so much longer and it’s such a lost opportunity for a valuable seafood industry to just let such a waste occur.”

Striking the balance between a healthy ocean ecosystem and an economically viable, renewable food industry for small communities is not impossible, and it’s been done before, said Rangeley.

To run the fisheries right, more vigilance is required, the report said.

Some form of catch monitoring is in place for more than half of Canada’s stocks but the methods often don’t give a complete assessment of the catch, leading to big data gaps. And 159 stocks don’t have fishing mortality estimates, making it nearly impossible to set sustainable limits on the industry.
​
The report recommends investing in science and management capacity, assessing stocks regularly and developing up-to-date, well-enforced rebuilding plans.
It also highlights the importance of timely reporting, and calls for a national ‘fishery monitoring policy’ that would compel all commercial fisheries to sufficiently keep track of yearly catches.

Good planning, Rangeley said, is essential to getting Canada’s fisheries back to a healthy, sustainable level for oceans and for people.
“You can sustainably harvest seafood indefinitely if you get it right, and we’re not,” he said.

By OCEANA
​
TORONTO, Nov. 13, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The federal government is not meeting its commitments to sustainably manage and restore Canada’s fish populations, resulting in a less resilient and secure seafood industry, according to the latest report from Oceana Canada, a leading ocean advocacy organization.

Oceana Canada’s annual Fishery Audit reports on the state of fish stocks and tracks progress on how well the government is meeting its policy and management commitments. This year’s report reveals that recent investments made in federal fisheries science capacity have not yet yielded measurable change in fisheries management or stock health, and the organization is calling on the government to deliver on its commitments.

“The government is falling behind on commitments, including the development of rebuilding plans, which threatens the long-term health of the industry,” said Dr. Robert Rangeley, Oceana Canada’s director of science. “This is a crucial time for oceans and fisheries. Rebuilding abundance in our fisheries will make them more resilient to climate change and other cumulative environmental changes, so they can continue to be a sustainable source of protein and support the livelihoods of those who rely on them.”

The report states that only 34 per cent of Canada’s fish stocks are known to be healthy. Just over 13 per cent of stocks, including the iconic Northern cod, are critically depleted, requiring immediate rebuilding actions.
​
Of the 26 critically depleted stocks, only three have rebuilding plans in place; all three plans do not include the recommended content based on global best practices, such as targets and timelines for recovery. In addition, more than 37 per cent of Canada’s most important fisheries lack adequate data to assess their status.

“It takes time for fish populations to rebuild, so stock health will change slightly each year. However, with management changes we expect to see more healthy stocks, fewer critical stocks, and fewer stocks with insufficient information,” said Rangeley. “Most importantly, we expect to see improvements in the metrics that assess how well the government is implementing policy and meeting commitments, such as completing rebuilding plans for critical stocks.”

Rangeley adds that if the federal government keeps its commitments, several fisheries management metrics would improve dramatically, including an over 40 per cent increase in the number of critically depleted stocks with rebuilding plans.

“Putting rebuilding plans in place to allow overfished stocks to recover has been proven to deliver results,” says Rangeley. “In the U.S., rebuilding plans became mandatory 20 years ago and 43 stocks have recovered generating an average of 50 per cent more revenue than when they were overfished.”

A proposed new Fisheries Act, Bill C-68, is now before the Senate. This Bill sets an expectation that stocks must be managed to healthy levels. If supported by strong regulations, it could set Canada’s fisheries on a path to abundance.

The 2018 Fishery Audit outlines key recommendations to the government that will support better management of Canada’s fisheries, including passing and implementing a new Fisheries Act, completing rebuilding plans, filling in data gaps and finalizing the Fishery Monitoring Policy.

The full report can be read online at FisheryAudit.ca.

For more information, please contact: David Berry, Pilot PMR, 416-462-0199 x248, 416-738-8730, david.berry@pilotpmr.com  
​
About Oceana Canada
Oceana Canada is an independent charity and part of the largest international advocacy group dedicated solely to ocean conservation. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, with an ocean surface area of 7.1 million square kilometres, or 70 per cent of its landmass. Oceana Canada believes that Canada has a national and global obligation to manage our natural resources responsibly and help ensure a sustainable source of protein for the world’s growing population. Oceana Canada works with civil society, academics, fishers, Indigenous Peoples and the federal government to return Canada’s formerly vibrant oceans to health and abundance. By restoring Canada’s oceans, we can strengthen our communities, reap greater economic and nutritional benefits, and protect our future.

iPolitics
By Holly Lake.

Oceana Canada has released its 2018 fishery audit, and it’s fair to say many of this country’s fish stocks are floundering.

This is the non-profit’s second annual report on the health of Canada’s fisheries, which also assessed efforts to maintain and rebuild them. It found that, in 2018, only about a third (34 per cent) of stocks can be considered healthy — slightly less than in 2017. The number of critical stocks remains the same at 13.4 per cent, while almost 16 per cent are in the “cautious” zone.

“They’re hovering on the brink of dropping down into that critical zone,” 
said Robert Rangeley, director of science at Oceana Canada.

Of Canada’s 26 critically endangered stocks — nearly all of which are in Atlantic Canada — only three have published rebuilding plans.

While there’s been some improvement, a lack of sufficient data means the status of 37 per cent of stocks remains uncertain. For 72 stocks, there wasn’t enough information to assign them a health status.

“We know the stocks in our fisheries aren’t doing well; there’s no question,” Rangeley said. “Unfortunately, it’s not a good news story.”

That said, it’s not all bad news. There’s been progress on investment that’s aiming to turn the tide.

“It’s pretty clear that DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) has put in effort over the last few years,” he said. “They’ve made significant investments in science and in transparency. They’ve committed to departmental work plans, and that’s not only transparency, it’s accountability.”

For that transparency to be fully realized, science information must be made publicly available in a timely fashion. The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) oversees the publication of information related to the management of fisheries and oceans, but, in 2017, fewer than 10 per cent of documents that should have been released following CSAS meetings were published on time.

The report found almost half of the documents were published late: on average, 137.3 days later than CSAS policy timelines call for. More than 40 per cent of expected documents have still not been published.

“How do we manage with that lack of information?” asked Rangeley.

As part of recommendations in the environment commissioner’s 2016 fisheries audit, DFO now creates and publishes annual work plans with priorities and timelines. While these chart a clear course, the department has not met the plans’ prescribed timelines. The report found that only 25 per cent of the work-plan deliverables were completed in the past year.

“We have an unprecedented commitment with these work plans. They’re good plans, so get on with them,” Rangeley said. “When they’re completed, we’ll have more rebuilding plans.”

Fisheries monitoring also remains a real concern, including determining just how many fish are being taken out of the ocean and how many are being caught as bycatch.

Bycatch are the unwanted fish and other marine creatures caught during commercial fishing for a different species.

“If you don’t know what’s there and you don’t know what you’re taking out, the science is pretty wobbly,” Rangeley said.

Keeping track can be done through at-sea or electronic monitoring, mandatory logbooks or dockside monitoring. It’s widely acknowledged that current monitoring tools are weak and inconsistent. A fishery-monitoring policy has been drafted by DFO to address these questions and is now in public consultation. He said “it’s desperately needed” and should clarify what’s coming out of the water.

The federal government has been paying a great deal of attention to the ocean recently, including using its chairing of the G7 to create a blueprint for healthy oceans. Rangeley said Oceana Canada welcomes that, but Canada is still not following some best practices, including legally mandating the creation of rebuilding plans for critical stocks.

But if a revamp of the Fisheries Act — which is now in the Senate — passes, it will set fisheries management in this country on a course correction. Provisions in the bill direct the minister of fisheries and oceans to manage fish stocks sustainably and to put rebuilding plans in place for depleted stocks.

[READ MORE: Fisheries Act overhaul clears House of Commons]

Although it’s clear from the data that stocks are underperforming, Rangeley said there’s no reason things have to stay that way — nor should they, given that fish are an important part of the ocean ecosystem. A healthy ocean is productive, and provides a renewable source of protein for the planet. Key to keeping the ocean healthy is getting the harvest levels right. To do that, rather than manage species in isolation, we should be lessening the stress on them from climate change and pollution.

In a statement, DFO said it welcomed the fishery audit and will be reviewing its recommendations.

The department pointed to several investments that are starting to strengthen ocean protections, including its Oceans Protection Plan, which includes dozens of projects to restore lost habitat, as well as the $197 million announced in Budget 2016 for ocean and freshwater science, which is enhancing DFO’s ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions to support the sustainable management of Canada’s fisheries.

“This funding has increased our capacity to do research, monitoring and carry out state-of-the-art stock assessments,” reads the statement.

Work continues on that front to complete and update Integrated Fisheries Management Plans by developing precautionary reference points and harvest-control rules. Plans are also underway to rebuild major fish stocks in the critical zone, as well as the monitoring policy Rangeley eagerly awaits.

“The department has committed to expedite work in these areas, and will continue to make public our work plans to complete this work,” the statement said.

On the legislative front, in addition to rebuilding depleted stocks, the department says Bill C-68 is intended to promote the restoration of degraded habitat.

Rangeley said the investments are welcome, but they need to continue, along with a sense of urgency.

“We think there’s a huge opportunity to have more diverse fisheries and more value from it.
“I know there’s better science and better management that can be done to get our critical stocks on the path of rebuilding; it’s been proven in other jurisdictions. We know how to do this, the federal government knows how to do this.”
​
Investing in the ocean is justifiable, he added. “It’s just so valuable to the health of the planet. As the country with the longest coastline in the world, we’ve got to look after our bit.”

iPOLITICS
By Holly Lake. Published on Oct 19, 2018 4:28pm
​
A bill that would change how fisheries are managed in this country has splashed down in the Senate.
Introduced in February and passed by the House of Commons in June, Bill C-68 aims to restore protections that were gutted by the previous Conservative government in 2012 and incorporate new safeguards to protect fish and their habitat.

But it goes beyond restoring what was.

For the first time since the Act was enacted in 1868, the proposed legislation directs the minister of fisheries and oceans to manage fish stocks sustainably and to put rebuilding plans in place for depleted stocks.

In the upper chamber, it’s being sponsored by Independent Sen. Dan Christmas. He spoke this week of his “deep and abiding connection to the ocean and to the creatures who abound in its waters,” and made clear that he’s viewing the legislation and its proposed amendments through “independent eyes.”

“This bill is important to me; Canada’s fisheries are important to me; and as a Cape Bretoner, the ocean is important to me and, indeed, to the Mi’kmaq nation,” he said.

“As an Independent Mi’kmaq senator, I feel compelled to say that I follow no party ideology. I see this endeavour through a lens that supports improvements to law and policy that can yield benefits to the sea, its marine inhabitants and the people whose living comes from the oceans.”

The Fisheries Act is one of Canada’s oldest laws. With the proposed overhaul, fisheries management could be headed for a course correction in this country.

Before 2012, the Act protected all fish and fish habitat in Canada. That changed when the Harper government introduced omnibus legislation that did away with a prohibition against the “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” The goal was to make life easier for farmers, and spare them having to navigate a sea of red tape to alter what they deemed to be insignificant bodies of water on their land.

As a result, protections were extended only to fish that were part of commercial, recreational or Indigenous fisheries.

This proposed overhaul would give Canada the kind of modern fisheries-management laws other leading fishing nations have in place.

In addition to restored protections for fish habitat and better integrated management, it includes enhanced regulation and enforcement, increased monitoring and reporting, as well as more certainty and clarity of requirements for development projects.

The proposed amendments also require the minister to consider the traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples when making certain decisions, specifically those involving fish and fish habitat. The government has included a requirement that confidential Indigenous knowledge provided to the minister must be protected, something that has long been called for.

Christmas said the bill provides a constructive framework with practical mechanisms and tools to further the cause of reconciliation, and a more collaborative relationship based on the recognition of the nation-to-nation reality. It also sets the stage for Indigenous partnering agreements.

While he supports the bill and the improvements it’s looking to deliver, he noted it’s a bit of a road to travel.
“As a proud Mi’kmaq and a friend of the late Donald Marshall Jr., who championed our nation’s right to fish, it’s with a sense of duty that I stand before you to affirm the importance of safeguarding and protecting Indigenous rights through this important legislation,” Christmas told the Senate.
​
“(The Department of Fisheries and Oceans) is by no means renowned for its sensitivity to Indigenous peoples, practices and customs. … I’ll be watching closely to see whether the aims of these provisions will manifest the improvements they promise. The relationship between First Nations and DFO cannot yet be described as healthy or robust. I’m hopeful that it can be measurably improved.”

Rhianna Schmunk · CBC News · Posted: Oct 02, 2018 1:18 AM PT | Last Updated: October 2

LNG Canada chief executive says it will move 'immediately' into construction

Construction is going ahead on a massive, $40-billion liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C., hours after five primary investors from five different countries granted their approval for the joint venture.

The LNG Canada project will see a pipeline carrying natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a new processing plant on the coast in Kitimat. There, the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

• Just the FAQs on LNG Canada

The partners came to their decision at 9:18 p.m. PT on Monday. They are:

• Royal Dutch Shell.
• Mitsubishi Corp.
• The Malaysian-owned Petronas.
• PetroChina Co.
• Korean Gas Corp.

On Tuesday, LNG Canada CEO Andy Calitz said the company is "immediately, today, moving into construction" on the pipeline and plant.

He said project has already obtained all the necessary approvals to break ground, including from the National Energy Board, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, BC Hydro as well as 25 First Nations.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the announcement represents the single largest private sector investment in Canadian history.

"Today is a good day," he said Tuesday.

Political, First Nations leaders reactTrudeau, B.C. Premier John Horgan and other leaders held a news conference to make the official project announcement in Vancouver on Tuesday morning.

"It's certainly a great day for northern British Columbia," Horgan said.

"I can't tell you how proud I am. I can't stop smiling."

The B.C. ministries of Finance and Energy have estimated the project would generate $22 billion in direct government revenue over the next 40 years.

The project is also expected to employ as many as 10,000 people in its construction and up to 950 in full-time jobs.

The Kitimat plant will be within the traditional territory of the Haisla Nation. Trudeau thanked that nation, as well as others in B.C., for their "leadership" in getting the project approved.

Crystal Smith, chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, was emotional at Tuesday morning's announcement.

"On behalf of our entire nation, we extend our gratitude … for the investment being made in Haisla territory," she said.

"Haisla … history is unfolding before our eyes. We are having a share and we are having our say."

Environmental factorsTo help make the project happen, Horgan's government offered a break on the carbon tax as well as an exemption on provincial sales tax related to construction costs.

According to information provided by the province, LNG Canada would be the least greenhouse gas-intensive large LNG facility in the world.

B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver was skeptical the project would mesh with the province's climate plan.

Under the NDP and Greens' Confidence and Supply Agreement (CASA), the parties committed to reducing greenhouse gases by 40 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2050.

In a statement, Weaver called the LNG announcement a "profound disappointment," saying his party would not support the LNG legislation that would be required.
Horgan's minority NDP government is supported in the legislature by the B.C. Green Party​.

• Job creation and lingering activism: political experts weigh in on LNG tax breaks

• LNG, referendum set to dominate B.C. fall session
  ​

History of LNG in B.C.On Tuesday, Horgan acknowledged that the first discussions on LNG in B.C. began with a pitch for a plant in Prince Rupert in 1982.

He also acknowledged the previous B.C. Liberal government, specifically former minister Rich Coleman, for "tirelessly" lobbying for the project from 2011 onward.

In a Facebook post, Christy Clark, premier from 2011 to 2017 who helped lead the charge for the project, said Tuesday was "the single best day of my professional life."
"This is an achievement for our whole country," she wrote.

• Kitimat house prices starting to soar with LNG anticipation

Since her election defeat in 2017, Clark has retired from politics and joined the law firm Bennett Jones as a senior adviser in Vancouver. She has also since been appointed to the board of directors for Shaw Communications.

With files from The Canadian Press.

Written by Michael Connell on September 04, 2018. Posted in Environmental laws, Water

On August 28, 2018, Prime Minister Trudeau issued a fresh mandate letter to Canada’s new Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson, who was appointed on July 18, 2018.

The minster is directed to implement and develop the Oceans Protection Plan; to achieve the government’s goal of protecting 10 per cent of its marine and coastal areas by 2020; to implement the G7 Charlevoix Blueprint for Healthy Oceans, Seas and Resilient Coastal Communities and the G7 Ocean Plastics Charter; to protect Canada’s fresh water, restore salmon stocks in the Fraser River, and to create a healthy future for Pacific salmon by  2019; and to formalize the moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s North Coast.

Also included in this list of top priorities is to advance Bill C-68, the reform of the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 is currently in the Senate, where it passed first reading on June 20, 2018.

The Fisheries Act is one of the oldest pieces of federal legislation in Canada, and arguably the oldest piece of federal environmental legislation in Canada.

The mandate letter says that passage of the Bill C-68 will “restore lost protections, and incorporate modern safeguards so that fish and fish habitat are protected for future generations and so that Canada’s fisheries can continue to grow Canada’s economy and sustain coastal communities.”

The reference to “restor[ing] lost protections” is commonly understood as reversing the changes that the previous government made to the Act in 2012, specifically altering the Acts protection for fish and fish habitat in sections 32 and 35. At that time the government was heavily criticised by environmental groups for weakening the fish and fish habitat protections of the old Act.

The three iterations of these key fish and fish habitat provisions, are set out below:

Fish Habitat:

The pre-2012 definition:
S. 34(1): “fish habitat” means spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes;

Post-2012 definition:
S. 2(1) “fish habitat” means spawning grounds and any other areas, including nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

New Bill C-68 definition:
S. 2(1) “fish habitat”?means water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas;

Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Provisions:

The pre-2012 protections:
S. 32: No person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing except as authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act.
S. 35(1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

Post-2012 protections:
S. 35(1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harmto fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

S. 2(2) For the purposes of this Act, serious harm to fish is the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.

New Bill C-68 protections:
S. 34.4(1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity, other than fishing, that results in the death of fish.

S. 35(1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

Arguably, the major change in 2012 was to overtly link the fish and fish habitat protection provisions of the Act to the protection of “commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisher[ies].” This is clearly being undone by Bill C-68. In fact, the new Act includes a Purpose section that makes it clear that the powers of the Fisheries Act are for both (a) “the proper management and control of fisheries” and (b) “the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat”. That is, the powers of the Fisheries Act are not limited to regulating and protecting fisheries, rather the Act authorizes government action to protect fish and fish habitat as a purely environmental matter.

Other interesting amendments to the Act include a new section 2.5, which lists the considerations which may influence governmental decisions under the Act. These include: the application of a precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach; the sustainability of fisheries; scientific information; traditional Indigenous knowledge; social, economic and cultural factors in the management of fisheries; and the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.

Also of note, the new Act would explicitly permit “habitat banking”, which was described by the Minister when the Act was introduced as “an international best practice for offsetting project impacts where a freshwater or marine area is created, restored, or enhanced by working to improve fish habitat in advance of a project’s impact.” Habitat banks are areas where fish habitat has been created, restored or enhanced and then used to offset impacts to fish habitat from a future development.
​
Fisheries and Oceans Canada released a Consultation Paper titled “Approach to a key regulation under the proposed fish and fish habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act” which further explorers this concept of habitat banking, and is accepting comments from the public on the proposal until September 21, 2018.

SOURCE: ​https://bit.ly/2ALhwQZ