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.

By Gloria Dickie 
HAKAI MAGAZINE

​In 2013, a mass of unusually warm water appeared in the Gulf of Alaska. Over the next three years, the Blob, as it became known, spread more than 3,200 kilometers, reaching down to Mexico. This freak marine heatwave, combined with a strong El Niño, drastically affected the Pacific Ocean ecosystem killing thousands of animals and changing the distribution of species along the coast.

It’s been three years since the Blob dissipated, and researchers are taking stock of its long-term impacts on fish and other wildlife.

Last month, Laurie Weitkamp, a fisheries biologist with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and her colleagues released a report detailing how the Blob affected species found in the northern California Current ecosystem, which runs from the Canadian border to southern Oregon. The report shows that the mass of warm water helped some and hurt others. Between 2013 and 2017, for instance, the populations of animals accustomed to warm water, such as mackerel, squid, hake, and rockfish, ballooned. Many jellyfish species also had a strong showing.

One of the strongest effects of the Blob was the explosion of California market squid along the Oregon coast. In 2018, fishers in Oregon landed more than three million kilograms of market squid, shattering the previous record of a mere 1.2 million kilograms in 2016. Meanwhile, fewer squid swam in the waters off California, their usual stronghold.

Troy Buell, the fisheries management program leader at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, says the boom was likely the result of more squid being born in Oregon waters rather than animals moving up from the Golden State. Squid fishers, however, did migrate north to cash in.

But other species have struggled in the wake of the Blob. “When fish hatch out of their eggs, they absorb their yolk sac and have to start feeding,” says Weitkamp. But if their food isn’t there, “they’re screwed.” For many young fish, their favorite food was wiped out by the heat or shifted elsewhere.

As a result, there is now a void in the populations of some species that were in their larval stages when the Blob hit its crescendo. Species that should be along the Pacific coast or returning to inland waterways simply aren’t. And that’s taking a toll on the ecosystem and on commercial fisheries.

Chinook salmon, for example, are often harvested when they are around three or four years old, meaning that the salmon that went out to sea in 2015 should have returned home this year. As a result of the Blob, says Weitkamp, the Columbia River has “the lowest spring return ever of chinook this year.” In response, Washington State has suspended summer chinook fishing.

This July, British Columbia, also suffering low returns of sockeye salmon due to the Blob, closed the recreational sockeye fishery on the Skeena River. The return of sockeye and pink salmon to the Fraser River this year is also uncertain.

Alaska, meanwhile, is a story of contrasts. Pacific cod crashed around 2017, and the shrimping industry has struggled, too. But in 2018, Bristol Bay, in southwest Alaska, saw the highest return of sockeye salmon ever recorded. “It’s so strange,” says Weitkamp. “It’s so unpredictable.”

There have been less obvious consequences of the Blob, too. Scientists believe that the availability of prey for humpback whales has changed around California. “There’s now a lack of krill, so the whales are feeding on anchovies closer to shore, which is also where there is more overlap with crab gear,” says Buell. This change in feeding habits may be contributing to a recent spike in whale entanglements.
​
It’s unclear how long the consequences of the Blob might last or when the next Blob might hit.

By Gabriel Friedman
FINANCIAL POST

The Senate on Thursday night passed controversial legislation that overhauls the environmental review process, a bill that is likely to draw court challenges and remain a topic of discussion as campaigning for the upcoming federal election heats up.

“I must say that I’m fairly comfortable supporting Bill C-69 as it stands today, especially because it may be one of the major issues in the next election campaign,” said Eric Forest, an independent senator from Quebec.

Though it was staunchly opposed in the energy sector, the bill drew support from mining trade organizations.
C-69, which passed 57 to 37, has a broad range of consequences and was designed to ensure that companies moving forward on major construction projects have a “social licence.”

To that end, it creates new requirements for public consultation including on climate change, gender and other issues. But it also has broader consequences, including the creation of a national Impact Assessment Agency that will oversee project evaluations.

The legislation grew out of a Liberal campaign promise in 2015 to overhaul the environmental review process; and earlier this month, Senator Grant Mitchell, formerly leader of Alberta’s Liberal Party and now sitting as an independent, said that C-69, which he sponsored, replaces an environmental review process that had stopped working.

“It had failed to get critical projects built,” Mitchell told the Senate on June 17. “It did not have the trust of Indigenous peoples nor the public at large and, as a result, had been mired in litigation that had so unsettled investors it had to be fixed.”

He added that the House of Commons had accepted 62 amendments from the Senate outright and 37 with some modifications, which is an “historic record” and the greatest number since it started being tracked in the 1940s.

The centre of opposition to the bill has been the oil and gas industry in Alberta, where Premier Jason Kenney said on Friday he would file a court challenge to the law, calling it a violation of provinces’ constitutional right to control the development of natural resources.

“It inserts massive new uncertainty into the federal environmental approval process for major projects, leading energy industry groups to say that no future pipeline will ever be proposed under this regime,” Kenney said in a statement.

Chris Bloomer, president and chief executive of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said that his organization had put forward a package of amendments it felt were necessary to make the bill palatable.
​
The Liberals rejected most of his organization’s suggested amendments, leaving him feeling like their concerns had been “glossed over,”  said Bloomer.

Unlike the Liberals, he argued that the old environmental review process — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012 — has been working.

“There were things about the CEAA 2012 legislation that needed to be fixed,” said Bloomer, “but fundamentally these were renovations, not burning down the house.”

Still, he said it is difficult to point to specific problems with C-69, and instead said that the legislation has too many vague clauses and elements. That will end up injecting uncertainty into the environmental review process, which will deter investment in pipeline projects in Canada, said Bloomer.

In a prediction, he said, “It’s highly unlikely that you’re going to see, beyond what we see on the table now, major new projects put forward.”

But there was even stronger opposition from a group called Suits and Boots, founded and led by Rick Peterson, a former leadership candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada, who led a campaign to kill the bill outright.
Peterson acknowledged that the bill did contain some good provisions, but said it also had “some real killers.”

“To me, the biggest risk is the litigation risk — going to court all the time,” he said.

In some ways, that concern echoes Liberals’ stated reason for overhauling the environment legislation, with Mitchell saying that projects had been “mired in litigation.”

Most notably, that included the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which faced 18 court challenges.

Anna Johnston, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, who was appointed to sit on an advisory committee to assist with the process, said the new bill is an improvement in many ways.

As an example, she said it introduces a new planning phase so that companies must consult the public early on, designed to ensure that all project impacts that need to be studied are identified at the outset.

She also said it requires companies to assess their impact on gender: For instance, when a mining company, which has a largely male workforce, sets up in a remote area, it evaluate its potential impact on women in the nearby community.

“Unlike what a lot of opponents would have you believe, it’s not earth shattering, it’s not a whole new approach,” said Johnston.

The bill sets out which projects are subject to the federal environmental review, and Johnston said many projects are not covered, and predicted only a handful of projects per year would be covered.
​
“Bill C-69 — it’s a compromise, it’s not a perfect bill,” said Johnston.

By Holly Lake 
HAKAI MAGAZINE

​Canada has the longest coastline in the world, yet it has long been a lax outlier in fisheries management. But with an overhaul of the federal Fisheries Act now complete, the sense among advocates and fisheries experts is that the tide is about to turn.

The passage of Bill C-68 on June 21 means that for the first time since the Fisheries Act was enacted in 1868, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is required to manage fish stocks sustainably and put rebuilding plans in place for those that are depleted.

Josh Laughren, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization Oceana Canada, says that in 20 years we may look back and see the new criteria around sustainable management and rebuilding stocks as a transformational change.

“We’ve put our money where our mouth is,” says Jonathan Wilkinson, minister of fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, noting that the federal government has already committed CAN $107-million to support the work. “It raises the bar in making sure that decision-making is based on science and evidence.”

Laughren says if this act had been in place in the 1980s and implemented as written, Canada could have avoided the collapse of the northern cod fishery in the early 1990s. “The history of Atlantic Canada would be different.”

Instead, cod stocks were depleted, triggering a moratorium on fishing in 1992. The federal government still has no recovery plan in place for the species.

Like Laughren, Wilkinson believes the changes are overdue.

“These kinds of things should have been done a long time ago,” Wilkinson says. “We should have been resourcing them more effectively.”

The new act also restores protections for fish habitats that were gutted in 2012 by the previous Conservative government, increases requirements for monitoring and reporting, requires Indigenous knowledge to be incorporated into decisions, and mandates a review of the act every five years.

Wilkinson says when it comes to addressing the challenges facing global fisheries, Canada is now “at the forefront.” Laughren, however, says it’s more that Canada is now in the conversation.

Until now, for example, Canada’s fisheries minister had full discretion to authorize fishing without limits. There were no provisions in the act to prevent overfishing or mandate actions on troubled stocks. It was a unique power in fisheries management and conservation.

In contrast, Chile, New Zealand, Japan, the European Union, and the United States have long had legal restrictions and requirements limiting fisheries managers’ discretion.

Most of these jurisdictions have also had requirements to prevent overfishing. New Zealand’s Fisheries Act and the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy go even further, imposing binding requirements to rebuild depleted stocks and base decisions on the best available science.

While Canada had policies on evidence-based decision-making and sustainable fisheries, until now, they were not enshrined in law.

“We now have [legislation] that says the purpose of fisheries management is to keep stocks healthy and return them there if they’re not healthy,” Laughren says.

However, the United States is still ahead in terms of the government’s legal obligations, he says. The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates annual reports to Congress about which stocks are overfished, how to determine if stocks are close to being overfished, and how overfishing will affect stocks.

“Then they have to outline what they will do about it,” Laughren says, noting that management plans must include clear targets and timelines, and a failure to meet them often lands the government in court.

“[The Magnuson-Stevens Act] is far more prescriptive than [Canada’s] Fisheries Act. And there’s evidence it works,” says Laughren. “The US has 45 rebuilt stocks since that law was put in place in 1976.”

In Canada, of 26 critically depleted stocks, only five have rebuilding plans. Further, only 34 percent of fish populations in Canada are healthy, and more than 13 percent are critically depleted.

Like Laughren, Susanna Fuller, a marine biologist and senior project planner with Canadian nonprofit Oceans North, thinks the new act is something to celebrate. But they’re both looking to the act’s regulations, which are still to come, to provide prescriptive timelines, targets, and directions—details that are rolled into the law itself south of the border.

“In Canada, our regulations actually do mean a lot,” Fuller says. “I think that whether or not we’re in line with other countries is going to be very much in the implementation of the act. We’ll find that out over the next while as regulations roll out.”

While Canada now has legislation that is on par with other fishing nations, and is unique in that the act’s habitat protection provisions apply to all fish and habitats covering all aquatic ecosystems, Fuller says no country is really managing fisheries sustainably, none has met global targets on rebuilding stocks, and none is employing an ecosystem-based approach to management.

Fuller says that the law now enables Canada to possibly meet some of its international commitments around sustainable fisheries management, but adds that whether the planet gets real fisheries management and biodiversity protection in the face of climate change is another question entirely.

“Quite frankly, no one is making the really hard decisions.”

SOURCE: https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/canada-has-a-new-fisheries-act-how-does-it-stack-up/

By Jolson Lim
iPOLITICS

​With time ticking away on the 42nd Parliament, the Senate last night passed the Liberal government’s controversial legislation overhauling environmental assessment practices in the country along with a flurry of other government bills.

A ceremony will be held in the upper chamber on Friday afternoon to give 21 bills recently passed royal assent, formally making them into law.

Among bills senators passed yesterday was Bill C-69, which passed a motion by a vote of 57 to 37 in support of the House of Commons message on the Senate’s amendments.

READ MORE: Liberals reject 90 per cent of Senate Conservative amendments to C-69

The government had agreed to accept 99 Senate amendments to the bill that would change the way large energy projects are regulated in Canada, stripping out proposed changes put forward by Conservative senators that tilted in favour of the interests of the oil and gas sector.

It included amendments that would reduce the scope of cabinet power in deciding to approve resource projects.

Conservative politicians across Canada and the oil and gas sector condemned the passage of Bill C-69, which they worried would make it nearly impossible to get approvals needed on new resource projects.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said he would repeal the legislation if his party forms government in the upcoming fall election.

“This is a sad day for Canada,” Scheer said in a statement. “With the passage of Bill C-69, Justin Trudeau finally has his law that will phase out Canada’s oil and gas industry.”

The piece of legislation had faced a rocky road through the upper chamber, with senators proposing an unprecedented 188 amendments at third reading.

Meanwhile, environmental groups, who had worried that the bill would be watered down amid the Senate turbulence, praised the passage of Bill C-69.

“The government should be commended for remaining committed to strengthening environmental oversight in the face of misinformation and fear-mongering from the oil and gas industry and some provincial leaders,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence.

“For the first time, a project’s impact on climate change will be considered during the review process.”

The Senate also passed the Liberal government’s budget implementation bill, Bill C-97, at third reading last night without any amendments. It includes controversial changes to asylum eligibility requirements and measures to boost Canada’s struggling journalism sector.

READ MORE: Oil tanker ban bill to become law

The only government bill left to be passed is Bill C-98, which would create a new complaints board for the Canadian Border Services Agency. It currently sits at first reading in the Senate.

While senators passed a motion late last night that would adjourn the Senate until September following today’s royal assent ceremony, the body can be recalled back in the summer in order to pass this bill. Bills are not formally scrubbed off the order paper until the election writ is dropped.

The Senate will also be needed to vote on legislation ratifying the new North American trade agreement, if the government chooses to proceed with doing so. Ratification of the trade deal currently faces headwinds in the U.S. Congress, with Democrats wanting changes regarding labour and environmental protections.

The government’s legislation banning oil tanker traffic from the northern British Columbia coast (C-48), reforming Canada’s current prison system (C-83), and reducing delays in criminal proceedings and eliminating peremptory jury challenges (C-75) were also passed in the Senate yesterday evening.

Unlike Bill C-69, which received the vote of moderate senators including Sen. Paula Simons, Bill C-48 was passed with only a narrow 49 to 46 vote, with one abstention.

Earlier yesterday, legislation meant to protect and preserve Indigenous languages (C-91) and reforming Indigenous child and family welfare services (C-92) had also passed.

As well, legislation that would provide more federal power to impose safeguard measures in order to protect Canada’s steel industry from dumping (C-101) and providing money for the public service for the 2019-20 fiscal year (C-102) was also passed.

SOURCE: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/06/21/senate-passes-bill-c-69-in-a-scramble-to-approve-last-remaining-government-bills/

By Fisheries and Oceans Canada
​NEWS RELEASE

Ottawa, Ontario - Canada’s oceans, lakes and rivers are important to the millions of people and Indigenous communities that depend on them for work, food, and recreation. However, changes that were made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 challenged our ability to protect fish and fish habitat. Canadians, including Indigenous peoples as well as industry and environmental groups, expressed concerns with these changes and how they were made. That is why, in 2016 the Government of Canada took action to strengthen and restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act.

Today, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, announced that Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act passed Parliament.

Bill C-68 reflects the views of Canadians and will help ensure our fisheries can continue to grow Canada’s economy, protect our ecosystems and sustain coastal communities. Further, this bill will see the end to whales in captivity as well as the banning of shark finning and the import and export of shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass.
​
A modernized Fisheries Act will benefit all of Canada:

• For our environment, it will provide strong protections for all fish and fish habitat, and will put a priority on rebuilding fish stocks and restoring habitat.
• For industry, it will bring more clarity around project development.
• For Indigenous peoples, it will strengthen their role in project reviews, monitoring and habitat decisions.
• For our communities, it will keep the benefits of fishing in the hands of independent fish harvesters and their local area.

Following the passage through the Senate, Bill C-68 now awaits Royal Assent before it can officially become an act of Parliament and become law. Once a modernized Fisheries Act is in place, we can better support the sustainability of Canada’s marine resources for future generations.

“I’m so pleased this very important piece of legislation is one step closer to becoming law. 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. Our government is working hard to protect fish and fish habitat from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and the modernized Fisheries Act will do just that.”
- 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. The proposed Bill C-68 was tabled in Parliament on February 6, 2018.
• In developing Bill C-68, 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.

SOURCE: https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2019/06/the-modernized-fisheries-act-bill-c-68-passes-parliament.html

By Jesse Ferreras and Emily Mertz
GLOBAL NEWS

Canada’s senators have given the thumbs-up to Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, which sets up a new authority to assess industrial projects, such as pipelines, mines and inter-provincial highways, for their effects on public health, the environment and the economy.

Bill C-69 passed Thursday night by a vote of 57-37.

The bill is set to go to Royal Assent after a motion by Sen. Grant Mitchell to keep the Senate from insisting on amendments that the House of Commons didn’t agree to.

The move came after Senate passed 188 amendments to the bill earlier this month.

The governing Liberals accepted 99 of those amendments – 62 were accepted as they were written, and another 37 were accepted with several changes.

Conservative Sen. Richard Neufeld called C-69 “one of the most toxic, polarizing and divisive bills” he’s encountered in 10 years as a senator.

READ MORE: Provincial energy ministers condemn feds after majority of Bill C-69 amendments rejected

Energy ministers from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario said June 12 that many of the amendments that were struck down would have made Bill C-69 more palatable for the resource sector. They wanted the amendments taken as a complete package.

The federal government, however, said it believed some would have allowed a new Impact Assessment Agency to decide not to consider the impacts on Indigenous people or climate change when assessing a project. Other changes would have restricted limits on who can participate in an assessment hearing, as well as made it harder to challenge a project approval in court.

The prime minister responded June 12, saying the legislation is necessary to get energy projects built in Canada.

“The conservatives still seem to think that the way to get big projects built is to ignore Indigenous peoples and ignore environmental concerns,” Justin Trudeau said. “That didn’t work for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and it’s certainly not going to work now.

“That’s why we we had to change the process.”

The legislation split opinion among senators from Alberta.

Sen. Paula Simons voted in favour, tweeting that she “would and could never have supported it as it first came to us.”

“But tonight, we passed a dramatically different bill than the one that met me when we arrived here.”

Less enthusiastic about the bill’s passage was Sen. Doug Black.

“Tonight the Senate has chosen to keep the ‘closed for business’ sign in the window of Canada by adopting Bill C-69,” he tweeted.

This is bad for Canada and I will continue to work for our collective family business – the natural resource sector.”

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said it was “a bad day for our economy, and the Canadian federation.”

In a message on Twitter, Kenney said: “This means the No More Pipelines Law will become law.”

In a second tweet, Kenney thanked the 37 Senators who “voted for common sense by opposing C-69, including Alberta Senators Black, Tannas and McKoy,” and said he was “very disappointed that Alberta Senators Mitchell, Simons and Laboucane-Benson voted in favour of this bad version of a bill that will hurt our province.”

The federal environment minister had a different take on the bills’ passage.

Earlier Thursday, the Senate approved Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which will formalize a moratorium on oil tanker traffic of a certain size in waters from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the province’s border with Alaska.

It was a close vote, with 49 Senators voting in favour of the controversial bill, 46 voting against and one abstaining.

READ MORE: Canadian Senate passes B.C. tanker ban bill, prepping for it to come into law

The passage of the bill in the Senate means it will now proceed to Royal Assent and become law.

C-69 and C-48 were among a long list of bills the Senate pounded through late into the night Thursday as the chamber prepared to adjourn for the summer and the subsequent election.

But Canadians haven’t heard the last about the pair of bills. They’re both destined to be fodder for Liberals and Conservatives on the campaign trail to this fall’s election.
​
— With files from Global’s Adam MacVicar and The Canadian Press’ Mia Rabson

SOURCE: https://globalnews.ca/news/5415294/bill-c-69-passes-senate/