GUARDIAN
  • About
  • Watch the Trailer
  • RENT
  • SCREENINGS & AWARDS
  • NEWS
  • PRESS
  • Contact

STAY INFORMED
​on the state of
science & fisheries
in Canada


Inadequate environmental impact assessments and crippled environmental legislation are still governing the fate of the Canadian landscape--but that could soon change.

Despite Justin Trudeau's inaugural promise to reinvest in ocean science, restore the scientific capability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and use scientific evidence in environmental decision-making, liquefied natural gas projects continue to be approved without the amendments to environmental legislation Trudeau promised three years ago.

That being said, not all is lost. Amendments to the Fisheries Act and a newly-proposed Impact Assessment Act are currently being discussed in the Senate. Proposed amendments were introduced in February 2018 and passed the House of Commons in July 2018.

Soon after his inauguration, Justin Trudeau initiated a review of environmental and regulatory processes in response to rollbacks of environmental legislation under Stephen Harper. Over three years later, these promises may be coming to fruition.

Canada's next election is in October 2019.

Feds’ sweeping environment bill to take centre stage in Senate, and beyond, as Parliament returns

1/28/2019

 
By PETER MAZEREEUW      
Bill C-69, a bugaboo for conservative politicians and a target for environmentalists, is in for a long, rough ride in the Senate.
Senators will get back to work on the government’s controversial and sweeping environmental assessment bill, C-69, next week, as members of the Senate Environment Committee meet to debate a Conservative proposal to hold public hearings on the bill across the country.

Conservative Senators will use a Feb. 5 planning meeting to propose that the committee hold meetings on Bill C-69 in multiple cities. A majority of the members of the Senate Environment Committee have expressed concern with Bill C-69—which has been criticized by voices across the political and policy spectrum—but it’s not yet clear if the Conservatives will find enough support on the committee for a full cross-country tour.  

“Canadians need to be heard on this,” said Conservative Senator Don Plett (Landmark, Man.), the Conservative Senate whip who oversees committee work for his caucus in the Red Chamber, but does not have a seat on the Environment Committee.

“The only way Canadians will be heard on this is if we do a tour across most of the country and listen to everyday Canadians as to how they feel about this bill,” he said.

The meeting is currently listed on the Senate website as in-camera—which is not unusual for meetings to plan committee studies—but Sen. Plett said the Conservatives would ask that it be held in public.

Bill C-69 is the government’s attempt to deliver on a Liberal election promise to make the beleaguered environmental assessment process for resource projects “more credible,” and reverse Conservative-era changes to environmental and waterway navigation laws. It strips the National Energy Board of its primary role in approving environmental assessments, and creates a new entity, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, to fill that role. The bill would alter more than 30 existing laws altogether, and would check off one of the items on Environment Minister Catherine McKenna’s (Ottawa Centre, Ont.) mandate letter from the prime minister.

Bill C-69 has been roundly criticized by conservative Canadian politicians—including Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.), Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, and United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney in Alberta—as well as prominent voices on the political left, such as Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.). The House of Commons already passed more than 130 amendments to the bill in report stage, after Liberal MPs on the House Environment Committee worked with Ms. McKenna’s office to put together a raft of changes in response to concerns raised from industry, environmental groups, and Indigenous groups.

Many of the criticisms of C-69 have to do with clauses that allow the environment minister, with the approval of cabinet, to delay or put on hold the approval process for projects undergoing environmental assessments, or squash projects that he or she deems are not in the public interest, among other powers. The federal cabinet also has some discretion over the outcomes of environmental assessments under the current assessment process, and complaints about the previous government using it inappropriately led the Liberals to promise during the 2015 election campaign to “end the practice of having federal ministers interfere in the environmental assessment process.”

Chair cautious of tour expense, timeline

As a whipped caucus, the Senate Conservatives work more or less together on important bills. Conservative Sen. Michael MacDonald (Cape Breton, N.S.), the Senate’s Environment Committee deputy chair, told The Hill Times earlier this month that he considered C-69 to be the most important bill in the Senate, and the Senate Conservatives have been strongly critical of the bill thus far.

The Conservatives occupy six seats on the 14-member Senate Environment Committee. The Independent Senators Group occupies another six, Senate Liberal Jane Cordy has another, and the last seat is held by unaffiliated Senator David Richards (New Brunswick).

Independent Senator Paula Simons (Alberta), who sits on the committee for the ISG, told The Hill Times last week that C-69 was “a very problematic piece of legislation” for Albertans, while Sen. Richards voted against the bill at second reading in the Senate. That means at least eight of the 14 committee members have, or had, serious concerns about Bill C-69.

Sen. Simons, however, also said she was concerned that a “full scale national tour” would be expensive, difficult to organize in a short period of time, and may take up too much time.

“I want to ensure we leave time to get the bill before the Senate, and then back before the Commons,” she said.

“I think it’s possible we might be able to hold  a couple of hearings outside of Ottawa,” she said.

Independent Senator Rosa Galvez (Bedford, Que.), the chair of the Senate Environment Committee, said she was “not against travelling,” but wanted to see strong arguments for why the expense was necessary, and why those who wish to testify in front of the committee could not come to Ottawa to do so instead. She also said she wanted to ensure the tour would not be used for “political reasons.”

Senators can also organize their own meetings during break weeks with people or organizations from the region they represent who have an interest in the bill, she said.

When asked about the proposed tour, Independent Senator Yuen Pau Woo (B.C.), who sits on the committee and serves as the “facilitator” atop the Senate ISG, told The Hill Times in an emailed statement that “It should be possible for all relevant witnesses to travel to Ottawa or to deliver their testimony by video conference.”

“Individual senators have already received lots of input from interested parties so there is no shortage of material for our review of the bill.”

Unaffiliated Sen. Richards, who sat for a short time as a member of the ISG but has often voted the same way as the Conservatives, declined to comment on the bill.

It is rare but not unprecedented for a parliamentary committee to hold cross-country hearings. The House International Trade Committee visited eight Canadian cities during a marathon 2016 study of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, as the government decided what to do with the agreement, which had been negotiated by its Conservative predecessor.

‘Kill the bill’

The six Senate Conservatives on the committee will work to drastically alter the bill, and “we are not going to do anything to speed [the study] up, for sure,” said Sen. Plett.

“This bill needs major, major amendments. First of all our preference, of course, would be to kill the bill,” said Sen. Plett.

“Canadians have been told very clearly by the prime minister, he has no intention of calling an early election. Which means that we will in all likelihood be there until about June 21, and maybe later.”

“We don’t want to be obstructionist…if we cannot defeat this bill in its entirety, we want to do whatever we can to improve this bill. That will be done by amendment proposals, and hopefully we can get some passed.”

Sen. Galvez—who holds a PhD in environmental engineering and worked as an expert on pollution control before entering the Senate—said she had concerns related to three aspects of the bill: discretionary powers for the minister, clarity for industry, and public consultations for environmental assessments. She also said leaving the current regulatory regime in place is “not acceptable,” and that it was “killing the economy.”

Sen. Simons, the Independent from Alberta, will also be working on ways to amend C-69.

“I’ve been totally immersing myself in the fine detail of this bill. To me it’s a very flawed piece of legislation,” she said, adding she had met with lobbyists and interest groups representing the natural resource industry and environmental advocates.

Sen. Simons said she was concerned the bill would bring in a regulatory system for hydrocarbon and renewable resource projects that would be “unintelligible,” and “not reliable.” She also said she was worried about the broad discretionary powers afforded to the minister, and a “laundry list of things that must be considered for every project” that could open the door to litigation or confusion among the parties involved.  

“I think this bill can be saved, but not without a lot of hard work.”

Sen. Simons said she wants the bill to be dealt with before the election.  

“For me, dawdling and dragging it out, and hoping to kill it by letting it die on the Order Paper, I don’t think that’s a good strategic option for Albertans. There may be some Conservative Senators who disagree, who see letting it die on the Order Paper as the best possible outcome…In my conversations with people in industry, that doesn’t seem to be the preferred option.”

Sen. Plett said seeing the bill die on the Order Paper when Parliament rises in the spring “is hopefully not something that we’re going to need to do. It would be our preference that the bill be brought to a vote before that. But listen, if the government is going to be entirely uncooperative, and not listen to amendments, then we are going to do whatever is in our toolbox to do.”
READ MORE: https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/01/28/environment-bill-takes-centre-stage-senate-beyond-parliament-returns/185209

Most marine refuges in Canada don’t meet global standards: study

1/23/2019

 
By Holly Lake
iPolitics

Most marine refuges in Canada don’t meet globally accepted protection standards — some of which this country had a hand in creating.

That’s the finding of a new report published Wednesday by SeaBlue Canada, a coalition of six national conservation organizations that includes the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Ecology Action Centre, Oceans North, West Coast Environmental Law, and the World Wildlife Fund Canada.

While Canada has come a long way in a short time, having designated 7.9 per cent of its oceans as protected since 2015, the report shows stronger standards are needed to better protect biodiversity. SeaBlue found that only 40 per cent of the areas closed under the federal Fisheries Act met the highly protected marine refuge criteria. The other 60 per cent need improvements to meet international standards.

Even when measured against Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)’s own guidance, 27 per cent of marine refuges were unlikely to meet the criteria to be counted as protected.

The group reviewed all 54 areas protected through the Fisheries Act and assessed how these areas met DFO’s own criteria, as well as those set by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and guidance adopted last fall at the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD).

Canada is a party to the convention, which set a target in 2010 to protect 10 per cent of the world’s marine areas by 2020. This was to be accomplished by creating marine protected areas (MPAs), as well as what’s known as other effective area-based measures (OECMs). Initially, little guidance existed to determine those other measures, since they’re different from full MPAs, and not protected under MPA legislation.

(In Canada, marine refuges can be established relatively quickly, compared to a marine protected area, which can currently take between five and 10 years to create under the Oceans Act and National Marine Conservation Areas Act.)

In recent years, however, CBD has been trying to come up with guidance for refuges, and, last fall, it was adopted when parties to the Convention gathered in Egypt. Meeting CBD criteria determines if a site can count as “protected” at an international level. Among the criteria? That a refuge should be effective.

“Effective protection of biodiversity sort of precludes industrial activity,” said Susanna Fuller of Oceans North, a co-author of the report.

And yet, of the 7.9 per cent of marine areas Canada has protected, more than half are marine refuges created through measures in the Fisheries Act. That means that while the impact of commercial fishing is restricted in many of them, the legislation can’t prohibit mining or oil and gas activity.

“That’s our biggest problem in Canada,” Fuller said. “It doesn’t make any sense to preclude one industrial activity and allow another that has similar impacts.”

Last November, new oil and gas leases were awarded by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for areas that fall within the Northeast Newfoundland Slope Conservation Area. Designated in December 2017 by the federal government, it’s one of the largest marine refuges in Canadian waters — and the largest single closure on Canada’s East Coast — covering 46,833 sq. kilometres.

The refuge was created under the Fisheries Act, and prohibits all bottom-contact fishing activities within its boundary to protect sensitive sponges and corals — which are considered vital fish habitat.

This past December, criticism was swift after the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board launched the bidding process for two exploration licences to look for oil in the waters around the province’s iconic Sable Island. That process was launched just days after Parks Canada finished a survey of how to manage a national park reserve there.

“Let’s just say Atlantic Canada is being a bit recalcitrant on the federal government’s objectives (for) marine conservation,” Fuller said. “They see it as inhibiting economic development, but we can well protect 10 per cent of the ocean and still have sustainable economic development.”

Given that the fishing industry has worked with government and conservation organizations to set aside areas for protection, Fuller said SeaBlue Canada is recommending protected areas be off-limits to other industrial activities that threaten fish and fish habitat. That’s key to maintaining the trust not only of the fishing industry, but of Canadians as a whole.

“It’s (adding) insult to injury that oil and gas is allowed in where the fishing industry isn’t. It’s not a predictable regulatory regime,” she said. “We wouldn’t protect an area of forest from clear-cutting and then allow mining. So let’s do things in a comprehensive manner in the marine environment.”

Bill C-68, the overhaul of the Fisheries Act that’s currently before the Senate, may help in that regard. It restores habitat protection provisions, which could extend to any activity that destroys habitat.

Fuller said oil companies don’t even want to drill in protected areas, necessarily, but their boundaries don’t show up on oil and gas leasing maps.

“Making those boundaries clear would be a step in the right direction. Then companies could decide if they want to bid on areas with fisheries closures.”

The report found that some types of marine refuges are more likely to meet international standards than others. When it comes to protecting corals and sponges, Canada is doing well. What’s known as sensitive benthic-area closures were more likely to meet protection standards than multi-species and single-species closures. They’re meant to protect the seafloor and make up 84 per cent of marine refuges.

“There has been major, major progress on that, which is great,” Fuller said. “They’re protected from all bottom fishing. How do we make sure they’re protected from other habit-destructive activities?”

In addition to aligning with international standards and passing Bill C-68, the report says each marine refuge must be monitored and managed to ensure biodiversity is being conserved. It also says smaller areas that only protect a single species should be removed from consideration by protection targets, because they don’t contribute to the overall protection of biodiversity.

SeaBlue also wants a review of the Atlantic Offshore Accord Agreements so that oil and gas exploration and development is restricted from areas that are closed to protect fish and fish habitat.

In October, the National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards issued its final report, which said no oil and gas development, seabed mining, or bottom-trawling fishing should be allowed within the boundaries of MPAs. The panel didn’t recommend extending that same protection to refuges. Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson hasn’t responded to the report, but told iPolitics in December it was coming soon.

“I think there is a will to make some improvement,” Fuller said. “Canada always said, when there was international guidance, they would look at it.”

Jocelyn Lubczuk, Wilkinson’s press secretary, confirmed that. She noted Canada has played a leadership role in developing the CBD’s guidance by sharing DFO’s science-based criteria for what qualifies as a marine refuge, which helped shape what was adopted at the CBD conference in November 2018.

“As a party to the CBD, Canada has committed to further aligning our conservation efforts with those that have been internationally adopted,” she said.

Over the next few months, DFO’s marine refuge standards and criteria will be reviewed, while also considering recommendations made by the MPA advisory panel.

As for whether there needs to be some give from the oil and gas industry to help ensure federal protection efforts succeed, as Fuller suggested, Lubczuk said a key criterion of DFO’s operational guidance is that conservation objectives must be clear, and any permitted activity can’t conflict with those objectives. Each marine refuge will be evaluated regularly to ensure that continues over time.

“Oil and gas activities in marine refuges will continue to be subject to regional or project-specific assessments, as well as regulatory decisions from the offshore board responsible,” she said.

From a legacy perspective, Fuller said the best thing to do is act on SeaBlue’s recommendations.
​
“Other countries have protected a great share of their ocean. Let’s make sure (that) what Canada does, it does it well. We can lead (by) doing it well.”

READ MORE: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/01/23/most-marine-refuges-in-canada-dont-meet-global-standards-study/

Demonstrations block traffic in support of Indigenous pipeline protesters in B.C.

1/9/2019

 
CTVNews.ca's Josh Dehaas, with files from CTV's Kevin Gallagher in Ottawa and Melanie Nagy in Vancouver 

Protesters delayed a speech by the prime minister in Ottawa and blocked traffic in Toronto and Vancouver on Tuesday, after RCMP moved in on an Indigenous blockade to enforce an injunction that would allow a pipeline to proceed in northern British Columbia.

The rallies came one day after RCMP arrested 14 people at the blockade site southwest of Houston, B.C., where members of the Gidimt'en clan of Wet'suwet'en First Nation are trying to stop construction of Coastal GasLink’s pipeline from going ahead.

RCMP were expected to dismantle another camp nearby on Tuesday. Police have blocked members of the public including the media from accessing that camp, saying that the “temporary exclusion zone” is required for “privacy and safety.”

They said in a written statement on Monday that police “facilitated a meeting between hereditary chiefs and (Coastal GasLink) in the hopes that this could be resolved without police involvement,” but “it was determined that the matter could not be resolved.”

The pipeline would bring natural gas from near Dawson Creek to a port on the coast in Kitimat, where it would then be liquefied before being exported. It’s part of a $40-billion project that was approved by the federal and provincial governments in October. Elected chiefs have given their support, but some hereditary chiefs have not.

Chief: ‘Where’s our Indigenous rights?’

One of those hereditary chiefs, John Ridsdale, told CTV News Channel on Tuesday that he is opposed to the project on his traditional territory because it his “responsibility to look after the land.”
“We need clean water, clean air, clean land,” he said.

“This is how we teach our children for the future to look after this,” he added.

Ridsdale said that the chiefs are “hurt” by actions of Coastal GasLink, and he accused the RCMP of being “puppets (of) industry and a government that won’t stand up for Indigenous rights.”

Ridsdale said that a 72-year-old woman was among those arrested. She was released but the 13 other people arrested were taken to Prince George, he said.

“We didn’t expect such an extreme action,” he added. “We did expect some to show up but the forces that they used, the amazing numbers that they used, the tactics that they used, were actually something we did not expect as peaceful people.”

The chief thanked the hundreds of people who showed up at rallies to ask Canada to demand that the RCMP cease enforcing the court order.

“Where’s our human rights? Where’s our Indigenous rights?” he said. “They always talk about reconciliation,” he went on. “If yesterday was any form of what reconciliation looks like in the governments’ eyes, I don’t want any part of it.”

Bellegarde: ‘Honour the rights and title’

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde also criticized the enforcement action, saying in a written statement that “reconciliation will not be achieved through force.”

“Real consensus will be built when the parties, with very different views, come together in a meaningful and productive dialogue,” his statement goes on.

“If this was really about the 'rule of law' then governments would be honouring the rights and title of First Nations in their traditional territories, which are recognized by Canada's own courts,” Bellegarde added.

One of Tuesday’s largest protests began on Parliament Hill and proceeded through downtown Ottawa. A meeting between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a number of First Nations negotiators unrelated to the protest was delayed after demonstrators pushed their way into the building.

In Toronto, hundreds of protesters rallied in front of city hall before marching through the streets blocking traffic. Some held banners with skulls drawn on them and the words “no pipelines.”

In Vancouver, police were forced to shut down roads as hundreds marched through the city’s downtown chanting, drumming and carrying placards.

There were also rallies in support of the Indigenous blockaders in Edmonton, Montreal, Prince George, B.C., and North Bay, Ont.

One man at the North Bay protest told CTV Northern Ontario demonstrators want “peace and dialogue” and want politicians to demand that the RCMP “not move in and forcibly remove sovereign people from their own land.”

Protests in support of oil and gas

Meanwhile, a different kind of protest was held in Regina, where oil and gas industry workers who are facing the prospect of layoffs want to see more pipelines proceed.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe attended the rally, which he said was about defending the “quality of life” that Canadians enjoy thanks to natural resources development.

“You are here today because you care about our resource sector, you care about our province and you care about our nation,” Moe told the cheering crowd.

The Regina rally was organized by Canada Action, a group that has now held dozens of rallies in support of pipelines. Canada Action argues that the Coastal GasLink pipeline will help to reduce carbon emissions by allowing developing Asian countries to transition power production from coal to cleaner natural gas.

In Calgary, members of Canada Action showed up to counter a protest in support of the blockade. They shouted “build that pipe, build that pipe” and demanded the Trudeau government scrap Bill C-69, which they say would make pipeline approvals more difficult.

Sean Alexander was one of them. “People in Calgary, people in the energy sector ... are tired of sitting back and listening to this small minority get a voice over ours,” he told CTV Calgary.

The ministers in charge of Indigenous affairs both turned down a request from CTV Power Play to offer their views on the RCMP’s enforcement.

Cullen: ‘Time for Trudeau to engage’

NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who represents the northern B.C. riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, told Power Play that he tried to visit protesters on Monday but was blocked by RCMP.

“We have a clash here between the traditional Indigenous government which has existed for thousands of years and the laws and the governance in Canada,” Cullen said. “Mr. Trudeau has promised to recognize those two things. That’s what reconciliation means, I think,” he added.

Cullen said that aboriginal “rights and title” must be recognized in this case and that the federal government needs to “get involved in a meaningful way.”

“The prime minister was skiing in B.C. last week in Whistler. He’s going to be here tomorrow, we believe, in Kamloops,” Cullen added. “It’s time for him to engage.”
​
The 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline would supply natural gas for the LNG Canada project, which is a joint venture between Shell, PETRONAS, PetroChina, Mitsubishi Corporation and KOGAS.
READ MORE: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/demonstrations-block-traffic-in-support-of-indigenous-pipeline-protesters-in-b-c-1.4244872

    THIS BLOG ...

    is an archive of news on science and environmental legislation in Canada with a particular focus on marine and freshwater ecosystems and LNG.

    Archives

    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    February 2018

    Categories

    All
    Bill C-48
    Bill C 68
    Bill C 69
    British Columbia
    Canada
    Climate Change
    Convention On Biological Diversity
    DFO
    Environmental Legislation
    Fisheries Act
    Fish Populations
    House Of Commons
    Impact Assessment Act
    IUCN
    LNG
    Marine Protected Areas
    Marine Refuges
    National Energy Board
    Salmon

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • About
  • Watch the Trailer
  • RENT
  • SCREENINGS & AWARDS
  • NEWS
  • PRESS
  • Contact