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 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

​SHANNON LOUGH
Coast Mountain News

As the federal government reviews the Fisheries Act, two North Coast B.C. residents flew to Ottawa to present how they think the act should be improved.

There are eight key areas to Bill C-68 and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is listed as number two.

John Helin, mayor of the Lax Kw’alaams Band near Prince Rupert, painted a grim picture of his Indigenous community as he spoke to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans – how members are struggling to make a living, and his experience with fisheries enforcement officers “racially profiling” members.

“We have a fleet of 70-80 gillnetters that can’t make a living anymore fishing for salmon. We have a fish plant in my community that at its peak, employs up 100 members in the village and we’re having a lot of challenges keeping that operation going,” Helin said.

To keep the fish plant going, they’ve diversified by processing groundfish, but he said with all the other fisheries coming into the area, they’ve lost an opportunity.

“There was a herring fishery in our day in the 70s and 80s, a seine herring fishery, and it wiped out that fish. To this day, that stock doesn’t come back. So herring is a staple, not just for people, but for other fish in the sea that feed off herring. So it’s alarming to us when DFO allows one guy to go out fishing and everyone else agrees to tie up,” Helin said.

Helin said the band wants to sign a comprehensive fisheries agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but had never done so since losing a fisheries case. He said it’s resulted in members being targeted on the water.

“It got so bad where one of the fisheries enforcement guys boarded my son’s boat, he was fishing my boat, and he had his 10-year-old kid on the boat, and this guy pulls his gun on the deck of my son’s boat without provocation. That went to court and it was tossed out. That shows how we’re treated in our own traditionally territory,” he said.

“When you talk about reconciliation, consultation, they’re just empty words for us. So hopefully coming before committees like this, we can make the improvements that we want.”

Earlier in the day, third-generation fisherwoman, fisheries biologist and Prince Rupert resident Chelsey Ellis presented her suggested amendments to Bill C-68, saying more and more licenses and quota are being transferred from fishermen and away from coastal communities.

“For the few young fish harvesters trying to persevere, it’s getting harder to earn a living and find a safe, reliable and professional crew to work with,” Ellis said, adding young people are not joining the industry because they don’t see a future in it.
​
She called for measures to prioritize and incentivize licenses and quota for “those taking the risks and working long hard hours” to harvest Canadian seafood, and the promotion of independence of owner-operator enterprises within all commercial fisheries.

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.”