By Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Canada

OTTAWA, Aug. 28, 2019 /CNW/ - Canada's oceans, lakes, and rivers are important to the millions of people, including Indigenous communities, that depend on them for work, food, and recreation and cultural purposes. To ensure these waters and the species that live in them are protected, in 2015 the Government of Canada committed to strengthening fish and fish habitat protections and incorporating modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act.

Today, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, announced an important milestone has been reached towards ensuring the protection and conservation of fish and fish habitat. On August 28, 2019, strengthened fish and fish habitat protection provisions under the modernized Fisheries Act, as well as regulations that support these provisions, officially come into force.

These changes include:

• protection for all fish and fish habitats;
• restoring the previous prohibition against the "harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat"; and,
• restoring a prohibition against causing "the death of fish by means other than fishing".

Updated guidance and information on these new provisions is available on Fisheries and Oceans Canada's website.

Quotes
"This is the culmination of a long journey to strengthen protections into the Fisheries Act. Canada is home to the world's longest coastline and our countless lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands hold one-fifth of the world's freshwater. With a modernized Fisheries Act, we now have the right tools in place to fully protect our fish and fish habitat from coast to coast to coast."

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

Quick Facts

• The Government of Canada announced its intention to propose amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2016. Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, was tabled in Parliament on February 6, 2018. The Bill received royal assent on June 21, 2019.
• In developing these new provisions, the Government of Canada consulted broadly with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous peoples, industry stakeholders, environmental non-government organizations, and the public to discuss planned amendments to the Fisheries Act.
• The coming into force of these provisions coincides with the coming into force of the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations, which will repeal and replace the existing Applications for Authorization under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations.
• Additional Fisheries Act amendments, to provide for a public registry of decisions made under the fish and fish habitat protection provisions, will be brought into force at a later date.

Associated Links
A modernized Fisheries Act for Canada
Projects Near Water
Canada Gazette II: Order Fixing August 28, 2019 as the Date on which Certain Provisions of that Act Come into Force
Canada Gazette II: Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations

​Stay Connected

• Follow Fisheries and Oceans Canada on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.
• Follow the Canadian Coast Guard on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.
• Subscribe to receive our news releases and more via RSS feeds. For more information or to subscribe, visit http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/rss-eng.htm.

By Ryan Prior
CNN

Alaska has been in the throes of an unprecedented heat wave this summer, and the heat stress is killing salmon in large numbers.

Scientists have observed die-offs of several varieties of Alaskan salmon, including sockeye, chum and pink salmon.

Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, director of the Yukon Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, told CNN she took a group of scientists on an expedition along Alaska's Koyokuk River at the end of July, after locals alerted her to salmon die-offs on the stream.

She and the other scientists counted 850 dead unspawned salmon on that expedition, although they estimated the total was likely four to 10 times larger.They looked for signs of lesions, parasites and infections, but came up empty. Nearly all the salmon they found had "beautiful eggs still inside them," she said. Because the die-off coincided with the heat wave, they concluded that heat stress was the cause of the mass deaths.

Quinn-Davidson said she'd been working as a scientist for eight years and had "never heard of anything to this extent before."

"I'm not sure people expected how large a die-off we'd see on these rivers," she said.

The heat wave is higher than climate change models predicted

The water temperatures have breaking records at the same time as the air temperatures, according to Sue Mauger, the science director for the Cook Inletkeeper.

Scientists have been tracking stream temperatures around the Cook Inlet, located south of Anchorage, since 2002. They've never recorded a temperature above 76 degrees Fahrenheit. Until now.

On July 7, a major salmon stream on the west side of the Cook Inlet registered 81.7 degrees.
Mauger said she and her team published a study in 2016, creating models outlining moderate and pessimistic projections for how climate change would drive temperatures in Alaska's streams.

"2019 exceeded the value we expected for the worst-case scenario in 2069," she said.
Mauger said that the warm temperatures are affecting salmon in various ways, depending on the stream.

"Physiologically, the fish can't get oxygen moving through their bellies," Mauger said. In other places in the state, the salmon "didn't have the energy to spawn and died with healthy eggs in their bellies."

Salmon under threat

Salmon populations are under stress from other angles as well.

Overfishing is threatening salmon further south in southwestern Canada and northwestern Washington. Orca whales, which are themselves endangered, feed on salmon.

With fewer salmon to eat, populations of orca whales have steadily declined over the past decades.

And last week the Environmental Protection Agency told staff scientists it would no longer oppose a mining project in Alaska that had the potential to devastate one of the world's most valuable wild salmon fisheries, just after President Trump met with Alaska's Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

But in other areas, things are looking up. "Salmon are very resilient. They've overcome a lot," said Mary Catharine Martin, a spokeswoman for the non-profit Salmon State.

Alaska's Bristol Bay, the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, is annually seeing boom times for salmon returns, and in 2016 celebrated the 2 billionth salmon caught in its waters, after more than a century of commercial fishing.
​
"That's very good," she said. "Salmon have sustained the way of life of the people of Alaska for thousands of years."​

By KASHMIRA GANDER 
NEWSWEEK

Levels of methane—the second biggest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide—have spiked in the atmosphere in the past decade. And a study says fracking in North America could be partly to blame.

The gas is linked to climate change, as well as ground-level ozone levels that can harm agriculture. It can also trigger a range of health problems, including chest pains, as well as reducing lung function and worsening conditions such as bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.

In the last half of the 20th, century levels of methane in the atmosphere rose. They then plateaued, and spiking in 2008. Robert W. Howarth of Cornell University, who published a study in the journal Biogeosciences, investigated fracking as a potential culprit.

Hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, is the process of extracting gas and oil from shale sedimentary rock using pressurized liquid. The method is controversial and has been linked to contaminated drinking water in the U.S, methane gas escaping from wells into the atmosphere and earthquakes.

First performed in 1949, the fracking industry has boomed in the past decade or so. Between 2005 and 2015, global rates of fracking went from producing 31 billion cubic meters per year to 435 billion, according to Howarth. Of this, 89 percent occurred in the U.S., and 10 percent in Canada. The U.S Department of Energy forecasts production will spike to 1500 billion cubic meters per year by 2040.

For the new study, Howarth looked at existing research on the levels of certain carbon isotopes of atmospheric methane to find a potential source, and created an equation to investigate the link.

Methane is a compound made up of carbon and hydrogen. While methane released in the late 20th century was enriched with the carbon isotope 13C, Howarth highlights methane released in recent years features lower levels. That's because the methane in shale gas has depleted levels of the isotope when compared with conventional natural gas or fossil fuels such as coal, he explained.

This leads Howarth to conclude: "The commercialization of shale gas and oil in the 21st century has dramatically increased global methane emissions."

If trends of releasing methane continue, he said, this will "significantly increase global warming and undercut efforts" to meet the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to keep post-industrial revolution global temperatures below 2 C.

Howarth urged those involved in the energy industries to "move as quickly as possible away from natural gas, reducing both carbon dioxide and methane emissions."

The good news, argued Howarth, is that climate reacts quicker to methane than carbon dioxide, meaning cutting emissions of the gas emissions "could provide an opportunity to immediately slow the rate of global warming."

This could help the commitment of the Paris Agreement be met.

Howarth said in a statement: "This recent increase in methane is massive. It's globally significant. It's contributed to some of the increase in global warming we've seen and shale gas is a major player."

"If we can stop pouring methane into the atmosphere, it will dissipate. It goes away pretty quickly, compared to carbon dioxide. It's the low-hanging fruit to slow global warming."

Researchers not involved in the study welcomed Howarth's efforts, but pointed out some limitations. 

Grant Allen, professor of atmospheric physics at the U.K.'s University of Manchester, commented: "A wide range of different methane fluxes from different source types (e.g. fossil fuels, agriculture, wildfires and wetlands) can all simultaneously explain the observed trend in methane (and carbon isotopes of methane) within the limits of uncertainty in our knowledge of their carbon-isotopic fingerprints and estimates of total methane emitted from each source type.

"Other work has also proposed a role for changing chemical sinks of methane in the atmosphere. The jury is still out on the relative importance of all of these sources in explaining methane's rise."

Allen continued: "However, this paper makes a very important point—some sources of methane are within our gift to control, other (natural sources) are not as easily targeted. Controlling emissions from fracking, and fossil fuels in general, represents a potential policy quick fix to stemming the rise of methane still further."

Quentin Fisher, professor of petroleum geoengineering at the U.K.'s University of Leeds, said he was "deeply skeptical" about the study.

"The results are extremely sensitive to highly questionable assumptions regarding the isotopic composition of methane found in shale. The arguments made by previous studies that increase in methane in the atmosphere is from biogenic sources, such as release from wetlands and agriculture or burning of biomass, seem far more convincing."

"It's also the case that the study itself admits that even if the increased methane concentrations were from shale that they are not a direct result of the hydraulic fracturing process," he argued.
​
"For example, the USA has an aging gas transportation network, which results in significant methane leakages."

By Paulina Adamson, Tony Crossman, Terri-Lee Oleniuk
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
JDSUPRA

The federal government’s long-awaited overhaul of key environmental laws (Bill C-69, which implements the new Impact Assessment Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act and related regulations) will take effect on August 28, 2019. The Impact Assessment Act will replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, (CEAA 2012) overhauling the federal environmental assessment (now impact assessment) system. The new regime includes a revised list of activities that will trigger an impact assessment (see the Physical Activities Regulations (Project List)); and some other details of how the impact assessment process will work.

For more information on Bill C-69, please see our February 2018 Blakes Bulletin: Federal Government Overhauls Canadian Environmental Legislation and June 2019 Blakes Bulletin: Federal Government Passes Controversial Environmental Legislation and Tanker Ban.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT TRIGGERS: THE PROJECT LIST

The federal government has released an unofficial version of the Project List with an official version to be published on August 21, 2019, prior to coming into force on August 28, 2019. While the Project List maintains many of the existing categories in CEAA 2012, the list also expands the categories of projects subject to an impact assessment. For example, there is a new trigger for in-situ oil sands extraction facilities or expansions of in-situ oil sands extraction facilities if the facility is located in a province that has not limited the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by oil sands sites in that province or, if a greenhouse gas emissions limit exists, but has been reached. Further, many of the thresholds of projects caught by CEAA 2012 have changed. While new thresholds have been introduced (i.e., more projects will be caught), somewhat surprisingly, other thresholds have increased (meaning fewer of these categories of projects will be caught). For example, the trigger for assessment of a new pipeline is now 75 km or more of new right of way, as opposed to 40 km under the CEAA 2012 regime.

After much speculation, discussion and consultation, the publication of the Project List provides some greater certainty to project proponents regarding whether an impact assessment will be required. However, considerable uncertainty remains as the Minister has the ability to, on request or on his or her own initiative, designate a physical activity that is not contained in the Project List if the Minister is of the opinion either that the activity “may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or adverse direct or incidental effects, or public concerns related to those effects warrant the designation”. It remains to be seen what public concerns may warrant such a designation.

PROJECTS THAT DON’T REQUIRE ASSESSMENT, TIME LIMITS AND REQUIRED INFORMATION

The federal government has also released an unofficial version of the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulation (IMTLR). Time limits under the Impact Assessment Act may be suspended (1) upon the proponent’s request; (2) to undertake additional studies or collect additional information related to changes in the design, construction or operation plans for a designated project; and (3) for the collection of certain fees and costs if they are not paid by the proponent within the required time limits. The IMTLR also sets out what information is required to be provided by proponents in the initial description of a designated project. The required information includes a list of all Indigenous groups that may be affected by the project, a summary of engagement undertaken with Indigenous Peoples and the key issues raised during the engagement.

Still to come is clarification of what projects will not require an impact assessment. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is currently seeking input on a ministerial order that will designate proposed classes of projects on federal lands and outside Canada that will only cause insignificant adverse environmental effects and will not be required to undergo an impact assessment. Comments will be accepted until August 21, 2019.

COMMENTARY
​
The overhaul of federal environmental laws has been many years in the making, with the most significant being the new impact assessment regime. The release of draft regulations, including the Project List, provide some clarity on the new impact assessment system. However, the Impact Assessment Act contains many discretionary provisions and new mandatory considerations that leave many questions unanswered about how the new system will work in practice.

By Fatima Syed
CANADA'S NATIONAL OBSERVER

Environmental groups have given Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government a passing grade on its efforts to restore protections to Canada's natural habitats, which the Liberals say are in jeopardy if the Conservatives return to power following this fall's federal election.

Nature Canada has created a report card — in consultation with Freshwater Alliance and other environmental law groups such as Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Centre Québécois du droit de l’environnement — to assess the Trudeau government's efforts to restore public trust and transparency in Canada's environmental legislation.

"The overall takeaway (is) that the government has done a pretty good job — better in some areas, worse in some," said Stephen Hazell, director of policy and general counsel at Nature Canada.

The report card is the first of its kind, according to Hazell. It examines six major changes to four major environmental laws passed in 2019 — averaging roughly a B grade across the board.

Hazell said the grading in Nature Canada's report card was assessed based on what the environmental community thought was needed to deal with each of the issues at hand, and the extent to which the government fulfilled its 2017 promises.

"We did it partly because there had been such a flurry of environmental laws enacted by Parliament in 2019," Hazell said in an interview. "The last time there was anything similar was 2012 with the Conservatives... when they basically trashed all environmental regulations.

"This sort of thing doesn’t happen very often," he added. "It's very rare that you get a government that’s as interested in dealing with environmental law issues as the Trudeau government was in 2019."

The Trudeau government proposed sweeping amendments to Canada’s environmental laws in 2017 to reverse a series of "very controversial" changes implemented by the Harper administration in 2012, which immediately cancelled about 3,000 environmental assessments.

During the 2015 election campaign, Trudeau committed to restoring credibility to the environmental assessment process and launched a series of advisory panels and consultations to help create new legislation.

One of his underlying goals was to manage environmental reviews under a transparent process that makes it easier for the public to participate, and urges federal officials to consider all economic, social and health effects of a project, including effects on Indigenous Peoples.

"Under Stephen Harper the protections for fish and fish habitat were lost when the Fisheries Act was revised in 2012," Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told National Observer in an email. "That was part of a broader agenda with respect to fisheries and the environment where we saw significant layoffs of scientists, significant layoffs of protection officers, the closures of Coast Guard facilities including the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and $100 million in operating budget reductions."

The Harper cuts to environmental protects also "gutted the scientific capacity of the department such that ideologies started to play far more of a role than science and evidence," he said.

Wilkinson thanked "the thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who participated in the consultations that were incredibly important in informing the changes" made to the Fisheries Act and other environmental legislation, calling them "a promise made and a promise kept."

Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna's office echoed similar sentiments, noting that the Trudeau government had "reform(ed) a broken system and restore(d) protections that Harper’s government gutted and (Conservative Leader) Andrew Scheer has promised to return to."

"The Conservatives made it harder, not easier, for major projects to be developed in Canada," Caroline Thériault, spokeswoman for McKenna, said in a statement to National Observer. "That’s why Canada urgently needed better rules, and why we’ve worked hard since Day 1 to restore public trust in how decisions about resource development and other major projects are made."

Tories argue Trudeau gets 'failing grade'

In an emailed statement to National Observer, Scheer’s spokesman disagreed with this characterization.
“Justin Trudeau’s report card on the environment gets a failing grade from everyday Canadians struggling to make ends meet and get ahead," wrote Daniel Schow.

"The Trudeau Liberal carbon tax increases the price of everything from home heating, gas and groceries while doing nothing to reduce emissions and meet our Paris targets.”

Hazell said the process to create the report card did find some flaws in the political process as it pertains to environmental legislation.

For instance, many of the changes to these bills were proposed by the Senate, the majority of which were "anti-environment," he argued.

"The Senate has become the problem. That’s the place where good environmental law would die if we didn’t have a government committed to this file," he said.

Hazell also said that, despite the passing grade report card, more work needs to be done.

In an Aug. 2 letter to Trudeau, a coalition of environmentalists including Hazell urged the prime minister to expand the project list subject to environmental assessments.

"We are keenly aware of the upcoming federal election, and (the) closing of a window of opportunity for dramatic action on the project list," the letter reads.

The report card

Here are the grades for the major environmental laws that were passed:

Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) — C

This act established a single federal agency to ensure public participation in the approval process of any energy project, pending cabinet approval. The new agency would look at the social and health aspects of a project, as well as the effects on the economy, environment and Indigenous Peoples.

It also included a "climate test" (how the project affects Canada's ability to meet its climate targets) — the first time such a thing has been included in federal legislation.

Hazell said they were disappointed the Senate brought an amendment that allowed the agency to select the members of the review panels, and only designated projects were subject to this agency. For example, it excluded pipeline assessments to those 75 kilometres or more.

Fisheries Act amendments (Bill C-68) — B+

The Liberal government reinstated this act after the Harper Conservatives axed it, thus restoring important protections for fish habitat. The act also created new requirements to rebuild depleted or threatened fish populations, and a more transparent process to approve any projects/activities that would harm fish or fish habitat.

The act also bans the import and export of shark fins, and includes a mandatory review every five years for any changes.

Hazell said environmentalists were disappointed in a provision removed by the Senate that ensured water flows would also be a protected habitat.

Canadian Navigable Waters Act (Bill C-69) — C+

This act extended protections for any project happening near navigable water, requiring all such projects to receive federal approval.

Canadian Energy Regulator Act (Bill C-69) — B

This act created the role of Canadian energy regulators and also established a group of independent commissioners responsible for timely and transparent project reviews and decision-making.

Oceans Act, Canada Petroleum Resources Act amendments (Bill C-55) — A

This was a straightforward bill, Hazell said, and accomplished what it was designed to: temporarily protecting Canada's oceans for up to five years as a step to permanent Marine Protected Area protection.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (Bill C-48) — B+

This act protected the northern British Columbia coast from major oil spills by banning tankers carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of crude oil from being in the area. A Senate committee voted against the bill, but it narrowly passed the full Senate in June.