iPolitics
By Charlie Pinkerton

Sustaining Canada’s waters dominates the list of responsibilities for the Trudeau government’s new Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Jonathan Wilkinson.

The North Vancouver MP is also charged with driving innovation in Canada’s fishing and aquaculture economy and upgrading the Coast Guard fleet.

“With the world’s longest coastline, Canada must have a world-leading plan to protect it and marine species at risk,” says the minister’s new mandate letter.

The minster is directed to implement and develop the Oceans Protection Plan, advance Bill C-68 – the reform of the Fisheries Act, which aims to restore lost protections, to achieve the government’s goal of protecting 10 per cent of its marine and coastal areas by 2020, protect Canada’s fresh water, restore salmon stocks in the Fraser River, create a healthy future for Pacific salmon by  2019 the International Year of the Salmon and to formalize the moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s North Coast.

Trudeau asks Wilkinson to “include initiatives that create and sustain good middle class jobs, leverage new technologies, and ensure the long-term sustainability of Canada’s oceans economy.”

As for outfitting Canada’s Coast Guard, Wilkinson is asked to work with the Minister of Procurement to ensure Canada’s waters are safely navigable. The Coast Guard is to also maintain shipping routes, defend Canadian sovereignty and support exploration. Canada’s Coast Guard has several procurements underway in a range of different stages. The largest of these is a new $1.3 billion Polar Icebreaker, for which the government plans to award a contract in 2021. It will be built in Vancouver and will be Canada’s largest icebreaker and one of the most powerful in the world, according to the government’s plan.

Wilkinson was appointed to the position last month as part of the prime minister’s cabinet shuffle.
​
Dominic LeBlanc held the role before his move to Intergovernmental Affairs and Northern Development. LeBlanc’s move from the file came after the so-called ClamScam controversy, in which a lucrative surf clam licence was awarded to a company with ties to several Liberal MPs including LeBlanc himself. The department has cancelled the licence.

​WATERCANADA
By Katherine Balpataky

On Wednesday, the House of Commons passed a newly updated Fisheries Act that now aims to protect fish populations and safeguard fish habitat.
Bill C-68, introduced in February, is now headed to the Senate. The proposed legislation directs the minister of fisheries and oceans to manage fish stocks sustainably, restoring the protections that were lost with changes that were made in 2012.
These protections include a requirement to consider impacts on Indigenous rights and people, the ability to quickly put in place short-term measures to respond to threats to fish that may suddenly arise, and ecosystem-based management, and additional funding for enforcement.
A new public registry with information about licenses and project decisions that address the issue of transparency was also included in the Act.
Sigrid Kuehnemund, vice-president of ocean conservation for WWF-Canada, said, “Decades of unsustainable fishing practices have shrunk many marine species populations, resulting in biodiversity loss and economic loss for coastal communities. In the face of such loss, it is essential for any modern fisheries legislation to go beyond protecting existing fish habitat and to ensure the recovery and rebuilding of fish populations. If implemented and supported by strong regulations that set targets and timelines for rebuilding stocks, this act will be an important step to ensuring the long-term sustainability of fish populations and fisheries in Canada.”
Elizabeth Hendriks, vice-president of freshwater conservation for WWF-Canada noted that the modernized Act also protects the flow of water, which is key to healthy river systems and aquatic species.
“A naturally flowing river is a key feature of a healthy river, and it is a huge win for nature that this is recognized in the new proposed Fisheries Act,” saidHendriks. “When we disrupt flow by blocking it with a dam or changing runoff with nearby forestry practices, we risk disrupting the entire ecosystem, driving wildlife declines, and community impacts.”

First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
64-65-66-67 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017-2018

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

AS PASSED
BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
JUNE 20, 2018​

RECOMMENDATION
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence”.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,

(a) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act;

(b) add a purpose clause and considerations for decision-making under that Act;

(c) empower the Minister to establish advisory panels and to set fees, including for the provision of regulatory processes;

(d) provide measures for the protection of fish and fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, including in ecologically significant areas, as well as measures relating to the modernization of the regulatory framework such as authorization of projects, establishment of standards and codes of practice, creation of fish habitat banks by a proponent of a project and establishment of a public registry;

(e) empower the Governor in Council to make new regulations, including regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks and importation of fish;

(f) empower the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity;

(g) empower the Minister to make fisheries management orders prohibiting or limiting fishing for a period of 45 days to address a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish;

(h) prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, unless authorized by the Minister, including when the cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care; and

(i) update and strengthen enforcement powers, as well as establish an alternative measures agreements regime; and

(j) provide for the implementation of various measures relating to the maintenance or rebuilding of fish stocks.
​
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

READ MORE: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-68/third-reading

By OCEANA Canada

TORONTO, June 20, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, the new proposed Fisheries Act, Bill C-68, was passed by the House of Commons and will now be studied in the Senate. The Bill includes a historic change in how Canada manages our fisheries: for the first time since the Fisheries Act was enacted in 1868, this Bill would direct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to manage fish stocks sustainably, and to put rebuilding plans in place for depleted stocks.

“The new amendments in Bill C-68 are a big step forward. If backed by strong regulations, this proposed Act could put Canada’s fisheries on a path to abundance and provide greater economic benefits to communities,” said Josh Laughren, Executive Director, Oceana Canada.

"Thanks to Minister LeBlanc’s leadership, the new provisions bring Canada closer to modern fisheries management laws in other leading fishing nations.”

While applauding the Bill, Oceana Canada noted there could still be stormy waters ahead. Bill C-68 allows the Minister to exempt stocks from rebuilding and sustainability requirements if it is deemed that there are adverse socio-economic or cultural impacts, as long as the reasons are made public. 

“We applaud the transparency of decision making,” said Laughren. “However, we must ensure that the exceptions allowed in the proposed Act are rarely made and only for good reason, when absolutely necessary. Strong regulations, providing guidance on the use of exceptions and outlining requirements for science-based targets and timelines for fisheries rebuilding, are essential for this proposed Act to succeed in restoring Canada’s fisheries.”

Oceana Canada is calling on the Senate to quickly take up consideration of the Bill, and to support the new provisions for rebuilding and sustainably managing Canada’s fisheries, for the long-term benefit of our oceans and all who rely upon them.

In the fall of 2017, Oceana Canada released the 2017 Fisheries Audit that revealed that Canadian fisheries are in trouble: only one third of stocks are considered healthy and 13 per cent are in critical condition. Research shows that successfully rebuilding fish stocks occurs in jurisdictions where rebuilding plans are mandatory for overfished stocks. Oceana Canada will continue its work to ensure rebuilding is strongly mandated in the Fisheries Act amendments.

For more information, please contact: Kara-Ann Miel, Communications Director, Oceana Canada, 647-535-6326, kmiel@oceana.ca
​
About Oceana Canada
Oceana Canada was established as an independent charity in 2015 and is part of the largest international advocacy group dedicated solely to ocean conservation.
Canada has the longest coastline in the world, with an ocean surface area of 7.1 million square kilometres, or 70 per cent of its landmass. Oceana Canada believes that Canada has a national and global obligation to manage our natural resources responsibly and help ensure a sustainable source of protein for the world’s growing population. Oceana Canada works with civil society, academics, fishers, Indigenous Peoples and the federal government to return Canada’s formerly vibrant oceans to health and abundance. By restoring Canada’s oceans, we can strengthen our communities, reap greater economic and nutritional benefits, and protect our future. oceana.ca.

First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
64-65-66-67 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017-2018

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

​AS PASSED
BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
JUNE 20, 2018

RECOMMENDATION

Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

SUMMARY
Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act

(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;

(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;

(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;

(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;

(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;

(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;

(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;

(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;

(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;

(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;

(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;

(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and

(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.

Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.

The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,

(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;

(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;

(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;

(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;

(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;

(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;

(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and

(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.

Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.

Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,

(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;

(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;

(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;

(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water;

(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;

(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;

(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;

(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;

(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
​
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

iPolitics
By Holly Lake

For the first time since the Fisheries Act was created in 1868, there are provisions within it that focus on the rebuilding of fish stocks. But as they’re currently worded, they fall short of what international experience has shown is required to actually help a stock rebuild.

Simply, they must mandate that the federal government respond, not just consider responding.
That was the word from Josh Laughren, executive director of Oceana Canada, at the House fisheries committee earlier today. He said the language contained in Bill C-68 will also have to go further if it’s going to fulfil Canada’s international agreements and ensure this country’s laws are commensurate with other nations. 

“C-68 only requires the minister to consider whether there are some unspecified measures to rebuild stocks that, in his or her opinion are in the critical zone when making management decisions,” he said. “Let’s pause on that: consider whether there is some measure in place, once the stocks are already at or below levels which the government’s own policies explicitly state that they are never to reach.”

Laughren said some say they shouldn’t worry about this, as requirements will be set out in regulations, but he said the Act ought to provide clear guidance to those responsible for drafting the regulations and to stakeholders and rights holders on the intent of those regulations.

“What constitutes a ‘rebuilding measure’? If there are not measures to rebuild stocks, what then? And rebuild to what? To Maximum Sustainable Yield? To the Upper Reference Point? Or just back to the edge of the critical zone? In what time frame?”

He cited examples from European Union, New Zealand and Japan, where the word “shall” features prominently in the language around managing stocks. In the United States, the national standards for fishery conservation and management read: “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”

Further: “Any fishery management plan, with respect to any fishery, shall … contain the conservation and management measures … necessary and appropriate … to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.

“In each case, the intent of the legislation is clear,” Laughren said. “When stocks are in trouble, governments must respond – not consider responding.”

He said the need to rebuild fisheries has never been greater. Canada’s marine fish populations have declined by 55 per cent since 1970, and according to DFO’s most recently published numbers, there are only three rebuilding plans for the 21 stocks confirmed to be in the critical zone. 

That includes Northern cod, which despite the federal moratorium put in place in 1992 that devastated communities in Newfoundland, still has no rebuilding plan. DFO continues to allow directed fishing on the stock — and others — that fall within the critical zone.

“Nonetheless management decisions have continued to allow fishing levels to steadily increase on this fragile stock giving it the dubious privilege of being the largest groundfish fishery in Atlantic Canada, while under a moratorium,” Laughren said. 

DFO’s latest cod stock survey, which was announced in March, shows that the small improvement reported in recent years is already on the decline.

“It is our view that this historical lack of priority on rebuilding, despite policy commitments to implement rebuilding plans for depleted stocks, and to reducing fishing effort on stocks in the critical zone to as little as possible, is directly attributable to the lack of legislative guidance and legal duty,” he said. “This committee has the opportunity to fix that.”

In Europe, cod stocks were as collapsed as they are here. But unlike here, they’ve recovered in the North Sea in Norway and in the Barents Sea, Laughren noted.

The difference? A legal duty to act and create rebuilding plans work — and they can make a big impact, he said. Since the United States legally required the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks, 44 stocks have been classified as rebuilt since 2000, generating on average 50 per cent more revenue than when they were overfished. That’s why Oceana Canada is calling for a legal requirement to develop rebuilding plans when stocks have fallen into the critical zone to be included in the Fisheries Act, as well as targets and timelines for rebuilding.

“Countries that have this positive legal duty to act have healthier, more stable fisheries than those that do not. Surely, that’s what we all want,” he said.

Liberal MP Ken McDonald, who represents the riding of Avalon in Newfoundland, said talk of the moratorium hits hard when you’re from the province.

“The fishery is so important, economically and socially to some 500 communities in Newfoundland alone, what do you say to those people who depend on the bit of quota they do have to be a make or break year, cod being in the critical state that it is. Do we cut it off completely? How do you balance that with the community and the survival of the stock?”

Laughren said overfishing of stocks including cod has done far more to hurt communities than any conservation has.

“These are tough decisions. The idea of developing a proper plan and setting your goals in advance actually means you need to have that discussion. It’s a tough one, but have it before, not after you reach these thresholds.”

Right now, all involved are awaiting word from Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc on the fishery in the face of the 30 per cent stock decline.

“No one has any sense of where he’s going to go on it because there’s complete and utter discretion on it. There’s no plan to guide us,” he said. “Twenty-six years after the collapse and we still don’t have agreement on where we’re trying to go with the stock or at what levels we will start to allow fishing. Those are tough discussions and we ought to have them before we get to this stage.

Conservative MP Todd Doherty said over the years and with multiple Parliaments, the committee has heard promises from DFO of doing better and getting fish stocks beyond the critical level — and yet nothing ever changes.

“What is the issue we seem to have? Is it an institutional issue or strictly a management issue within DFO?”

Laughren said it’s gone on too long to be simply a management issue within the department.

“When you see the same thing happening over a generation or more, you start to look at fundamental drivers. It’s lack of guidance, it’s lack of a framework for making these decisions. And we’re all complicit,” he said.

“On stocks there are a lot of voices for them to be re-opened before they should be or for quotas to be set higher, to push the quota to the upper level of what the scientific advice is. Those voices come from outside the department too.”

That’s not to say there haven’t been success stories. He pointed to the bounce back of halibut.
​
“When you take the pressure off stocks and let them recover, in almost all cases, they do,” Laughren said. “Give them the time and let nature take its course.”

By FISHERIES & OCEANS CANADA
February 2018
​
Overview of the Proposed Changes to the Fisheries Act (PDF)
Introducing Bill C-68

• As part of the Government of Canada’s Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes, a review of the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act is underway. Including how to:
  • Restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards;
  • Provide better certainty for industry;
  • Ensure the long term sustainability of marine resources; and
  • Make sure that the Fisheries Act provides strong and meaningful protection of fish and fish habitats.
• On February 6, 2018, the Government of Canada introduced a bill in Parliament that proposes amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Engagement to dateStanding Committee on Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

• In 2016, the Minister asked the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to review the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act.
• The response supported all recommendations and described opportunities to restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards into the Act.

DFO engagement

• DFO complemented the Standing Committee’s review by engaging with Indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, stakeholders and the Canadian public (Lets Talk Fish Habitat).

Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

• In 2015, the mandate letters to each Minister called on Ministers to support a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.
• In 2017, the Prime Minister announced the Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples.
• Also in 2017, the Minister of Justice announced the Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples to guide the review of laws and policies.
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have begun a review of their laws and policies. This review has identified amendments to the Act that would help to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Overview of the Bill8 Key Areas

1. Provisions to modernize the Fisheries Act
2. Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples
3. Fish and fish habitat protection provisions
4. Enforcement provisions
5. Fisheries management provisions
6. Provisions to create a fisheries management order power
7. Biodiversity protection provisions
8. Cetaceans in captivity provisions

Provisions to modernize the Fisheries ActA new purpose for the Fisheries Act (section 2.1)A purpose for the Fisheries Act is included in the Bill to guide the Minister in applying the Act.
Section 2.1 - The purpose of this Act is to provide a framework for:

1. the proper management and control of fisheries; and
2. the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

New considerations for decision-making (section 2.5)Section 2.5 - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, when making a decision under this Act, the Minister may consider, among other things:

1. the application of a precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach;
2. the sustainability of fisheries;
3. scientific information;
4. traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada that has been provided to the Minister;
5. community knowledge;
6. cooperation with any government of a province, any Indigenous governing body and any body - including a co-management body - established under a land claims agreement;
7. social, economic and cultural factors in the management of fisheries;
8. the preservation or promotion of the independence of licence holders in commercial inshore fisheries; and
9. the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.

Other provisions to modernize the Act (sections 4.01,12 and 92)

• Enable the establishment of advisory panels (section 4.01).
• Institute fees to recover costs for services provided (subsection 12(1)).
• Review the Fisheries Act every 5 years (section 92).

Reconciliation with Indigenous peoplesRights of Indigenous peoples (sections 2.3 and 2.4)

• Section 2.3 - New provision providing certainty that nothing in the Fisheries Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous people of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
• Section 2.4 - New obligation on the Minister to consider any adverse effects that decisions may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Traditional knowledge (TK) of Indigenous peoples of Canada (sections 2.5, 34.1 and 61.2)

• Section 2.5 - Enables the Minister to consider, when making decisions, among other things, TK that has been provided.
• For decisions, such as authorizations/permits and recommendations on certain regulations, section 34.1 requires the Minister to consider the TK that has been provided.
• Section 61.2 - Provides for the protection of traditional knowledge when provided to the Minister and clarifies those circumstances, and conditions where appropriate, where the Minister may disclose that information.

Partnering with Indigenous Peoples of Canada (sections 4.1 and 4.2)

• Amendments to subsection 4.1(1) would expand the Minister’s authority to enter into agreements with Indigenous governing bodies and any body established under a land claims agreements (such as a co- management body).
• Subsection 4.2(1) - Expands the equivalency provision to include laws made by Indigenous governing bodies.
• The amendments to subsections 4.1(1) and 4.2(1) would be supported by new definitions (subsection 2(1)):
  • Indigenous governing body means a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • Laws includes the by-laws made by an Indigenous governing body.

Other provisions (section 7)

• Subsection 7(2) - Clarifies the authority to make regulations to enable the Minister to issue classes of licences (e.g., those licences issued under the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations) for a period greater than nine years.

Fish and fish habitat protection provisionsObjectives

• The prohibition against causing serious harm to fish would be repealed as well as the definitions of “commercial”, “recreational” and “Aboriginal” in relation to a fishery.
• Prohibitions against causing the death of fish (other than by fishing) and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat are introduced.
• Definitions have been modified to clarify key terms.
• New tools would be enabled including ecologically significant areas, as well as measures relating to authorization and permitting of works, undertakings and activities, establishment of standards and codes of practice, creation of fish habitat banks by a proponent of a project, and establishment of a public registry.

Definition for fish habitat (section 2)

• The definition of “fish habitat” would be modified to clarify that fish habitat includes “water frequented by fish”:
  “Fish habitat means water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas.”
• Ensures definition includes all fish habitats in Canada, where fish are found.

Factors to consider (section 34.1)The factors that the Minister must consider prior to recommending to the Governor-in-Council regulations or the Minister exercising powers related to authorizations, permits, orders or Ministerial regulations.

1. the contribution to the productivity of relevant fisheries by the fish or fish habitat that is likely to be affected;
2. fisheries management objectives;
3. whether there are measures and standards:
   1. to avoid the death of fish or to mitigate the extent of their death or offset the effects of their death;
   2. to avoid, mitigate or offset the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat;
4. the cumulative effects of the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity referred to in a recommendation or an exercise of power, in combination with other works, undertakings or activities that have been or are being carried on, on fish and fish habitat;
5. any fish habitat banks, within the meaning of section 42.01, that may be affected;
6. whether any measures and standards to offset the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat give priority to the restoration of degraded fish habitat;
7. traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada that has been provided to the Minister; and
8. any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.

Standards and codes of practice (section 34.2)

• The Minister may establish standards and codes of practice for the avoidance of the death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD), the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat, and the prevention of pollution.
• These would be formal documents that would be published, or where notice would be given, in the Canada Gazette.
• They can specify procedures, practices or standards for avoiding the death of fish or the HADDof fish habitat in relation to works, undertakings or activities during various phases of their life cycle (e.g., construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning).

Prohibition against the death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (sections 34.4 and 35)

• The prohibition against causing serious harm to fish would be repealed.
• Its replacement would be a prohibition that prohibits causing the death of fish, by means other than fishing, and prohibits causing the HADD.

Permits and designated projects (section 35.1)

• A new section has been added to the Bill to enable the Minister to issue permits for certain designated project types.
• A list of designated projects would be established by regulations made by the Governor in Council.
• For designated projects, failure to have a permit for works, undertakings or activities that are associated with the project would be prohibited under the Fisheries Act.
• This proposed permitting scheme would complement, not replace, the current practice of issuing authorizations for works, undertaking and activities associated with projects not on the designated projects list.

• The authority for issuing permits for designated projects cannot be delegated.
• Permits would bring clarity to the regulation of projects and enable future cost recovery.

Ecologically significant areas (ESA) (section 35.2)

• The existing provisions related to ESAs would be replaced with a new authorization regime with respect to the new death of fish and HADD provisions.
• ESAs are intended to be established through regulations to protect sensitive, highly productive, rare or unique areas.
• In an ESA, the carrying on of works, undertakings or activities that are prescribed by regulations, would be prohibited unless authorized.
• Before authorizing such a work, undertaking of activity, the Minister must first be satisfied that avoidance and mitigation required to achieve conservation and protection objectives for the ESA exist, and if so, would be included as conditions of the authorization.

Habitat banking (sections 42.01, 42.02, 42.03 and 42.04)New provisions establish a proponent-led fish habitat banking scheme including:

• Definitions of key terms;
• A system for the creation, allocation and management of a proponent’s habitat credits;
• Certificates validating a proponent’s credits; and
• Clarity that habitat credits would only to be used within a specific service area.

Public registry (sections 42.2 - 42.5)

• A new provision requires the establishment of a public registry that would provide public access to records related to the fish and fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act.
• The registry would only contain publicly available records or records that would be disclosed in accordance with the Access to Information Act.

Other fish and fish habitat protection provisions (sections 34.3, 37, and 43, Clauses 51 and 52)Other changes to the fish and fish habitat provisions include:

• Fish passage, flow and obstructions (section 34.3);
• Plans and specifications (section 37);
• Regulation-making authorities for aquatic invasive species (subsection 43(1)); and
• Transitional provisions for Authorizations (clauses 51 and 52).

Enforcement provisionsObjectives

• Update and strengthen enforcement powers.
• Enhance fishing gear compliance.
• Improved authority of the courts for the receipt of evidence, seizure and forfeiture.
• Clarification of authority to cancel and suspend licences for unpaid fines.
• Establish an alternative measures agreements regime.

Enforcement powers and designations (sections 38, 49, 56.1, 79.61 and 87.1)

• Would add clarity around roles and liability:
  • Role of analysts would be expanded to cover the whole Act, and they can issue a “certificate” as evidence in Court (section 56.1);
  • Fishery guardians would be authorized to receive notifications of occurrences (section 38); and
  • Officials, and individuals accompanying them, would be exempt from personal liability for carrying out their duties in good faith (section 79.61).
• Would update and strengthen enforcement powers:
  • Power to stop and detain vessels or vehicles (subsection 49(4));
  • Authority to exercise inspection and enforcement powers on Canadian fishing vessels in foreign ports or in foreign waters (section 87.1); and
  • Duty to keep records for catch certification purposes (subsection 61(3.1)).

Enhance fishing gear compliance (sections 24, 29 and 43)

• Clarify that fish harvesters would not only ensure that their fishing gear would not obstruct navigation, but also that the equipment attached to it (such as ropes) would not result in an obstruction for other vessels (section 24).
• Clarify that fishing gear, including logs, rocks or other such items would not be used to obstruct the passage of fish (section 29).
• Authorize Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the variation of fishing gear or equipment. This would provide greater flexibility for DFO to vary gear in response to changing conditions in a fishery (paragraph 43(1)(m)).

Default of payment of fines (sections 7 and 9)

• Amendments would be made to enable the Minister to suspend, cancel or refuse to issue a lease or licence to someone who is in default of payment of a fine or fines related to a contravention of the Fisheries Act or the regulations.

Authority of courts (sections 71, 71.01 and 72)

• Amendments would enable Courts to extend the detention of a seized thing beyond the initial period of 90 days, including any proceeds realized from disposing of a seized thing (subsection 71(4)).
• Amendments are also proposed to enable Courts to order forfeiture of:
  • fish or other things that would be unlawful to possess, or illegal fishing gear or equipment found in Canadian fisheries waters or any part of its continental shelf (section 71.01); and
  • fish proven to have been caught in contravention of the Act (or the proceeds of its disposition) in cases where the person is discharged absolutely or conditionally, or when the court orders a stay of the proceedings (subsection 72(3)).

Alternative measures agreements (sections 86.1 to 86.96)

• Would effectively address contraventions without the need for a costly and potentially arduous court process.
• Certain conditions would have to be met before AMAs could be used:
  • sufficient evidence to proceed with a charge;
  • offence is not obstruction or false declaration; and
  • offender accepts responsibility for the offence and the outcome of the facilitation.
• AMAs would involve the development of a plan to remedy the effects of the offence. Charges at issue would be stayed pending the negotiation/implementation of the conditions of the AMA.
• However, it would be an offence to contravene an AMA.

Fisheries management provisionsStrengthening the inshore policies (sections 2.5 and 9)

• New considerations for decision-making:
  • social, economic and cultural factors; and
  • the preservation or promotion of independence in commercial inshore fisheries.
• Amendment to section 9 would give new authority to suspend or cancel licences if the Minister determines that the licence holder:
  • is in breach of licence conditions;
  • has unpaid fines; and
  • has entered into an agreement that contravenes any provision of the Act or regulations.

Strengthening the inshore policies (section 43)

• The proposed provisions allow the Governor in Council to make regulations:
  • Respecting the management of fisheries for social, economic or cultural purposes;
  • Respecting when the holder of a licence needs to be on- board and perform the licenced activities;
  • Respecting the issuance, suspension and cancellation of licences to licence holders that are party to an agreement that contravenes the regulations and to corporations; and
  • Respecting the use and control of the rights and privileges under a licence.

Rebuilding fish stocks (sections 6.1 and 43)

• A proposed new requirement for the Minister, in the management of fisheries, to take into account whether there are measures in place aimed at rebuilding depleted stocks, including measures to address habitat restoration where, in the opinion of the Minister, the loss or degradation of fish habitat is a contributing factor in the stock’s decline.
• A proposed authority to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations regarding the rebuilding of fish stocks.
  • The Department would consider options for developing new regulations that could specify the circumstances when a rebuilding plan would be required, as well as timeline and rebuilding plan components.

Provisions to create a fisheries management order powerObjective (section 9.1)

• To respond quickly and effectively to urgent and unexpected threats to the conservation and protection of fish, such as the threats faced by the North Atlantic Right Whale in 2017.
• When threats to the conservation and protection of fish arise during the fishing season (i.e., after a licence has been issued), the Department currently amends licence conditions and issues variation orders under the Fisheries Act to modify operational requirements.
• These tools would not be effective in addressing all urgent and unanticipated threats because the process to amend licence conditions is burdensome and variation orders would be limited in scope by the regulations.

Fisheries management order power (section 9.3)

• The intent of the proposed fisheries management order power would be to supplement licence conditions and variation orders with a flexible and efficient tool to respond to emergent issues that arise during a fishery.
• These measures would be time-limited and would not be intended as long-term solutions.
• Measures could include a pause on fishing activity using a specific gear type in a designated area over a period not exceeding 45 days.

Considerations/implementation (section 9.3)

• As an example, the proposed amendments would provide the authority to establish targeted fisheries management measures to protect transiting North Atlantic Right Whales, while also minimizing the impact on ongoing fisheries.
• The fisheries management order power would come into force on royal assent of the Bill.

Biodiversity protection provisionsCreating marine refuges (section 43.3)

• The proposed amendments would support the creation of marine refuges, to contribute to Canada's achievement of its marine conservation targets.
• The new provisions would also:
  • Support Marine protected area (MPA) network development and implementation of the Sensitive Benthic Areas Policy; and
  • Increase transparency and effectiveness of fisheries management by making it clear which management measures would contribute to long term biodiversity protection.
• Section 43.3(1) of the Bill proposes a new authority to make Biodiversity protection regulations.
• These would allow for restrictions on fishing activities to effectively protect elements of marine biodiversity that fall within the Minister’s mandate.
• The intent would be to apply these regulations in marine waters.
• Marine refuges that contribute to Canada’s Marine Conservation Targets would be designated under these regulations.
• Prohibitions may be applied to fishing of one or more species, populations, stocks or assemblages of fish, and any particular type of fishing gear or equipment or fishing vessel.
• Regulations may also specify which classes of persons or vessels the prohibitions apply to (e.g., the Minister can exclude certain fisheries from the prohibitions should they not compromise biodiversity conservation objectives of the area).
• New biodiversity protection regulations would be applied on a year round basis and over the long-term for biodiversity protection purposes.
• Section 43.3(2) of the Bill specifies that in instances of conflict, the new biodiversity protection regulations take precedence over provisions of other fisheries regulations.
  • For example, they take precedence over Variation Orders made by the Regional Director General of a DFO region.

Cetaceans in captivity provisionsCetaceans in captivity (section 23.1 and 43)

• The proposed amendments would prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, unless authorized by the Minister, including when the animal is injured, in distress or in need of care.
• The proposed amendments would provide the Minister with the authority to make regulations regarding the import of fish (which includes cetaceans).

Looking forwardTiming of amendments

• The majority of the amendments to the Fisheries Act enter into force upon Royal Assent.
• But for a few exceptions noted below, the new fish and fish habitat protection provisions would enter into force subsequent to Royal Assent, at a date set by the Governor in Council.
• The following provisions, related to the management of fish and fish habitat, enter into force upon Royal Assent:
  • Authority for fishery guardians to receive notifications;
  • Expanded authorities for managing aquatic invasive species; and
  • Minor revision to the English definition of Aboriginal to refer instead to Indigenous.

Parliamentary process

• The Bill is subject to the parliamentary process.
• Policy and regulatory changes would be needed to operationalize the amended Act, informed by engagement with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and stakeholders.
• To support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, we would continue working hand in hand to ensure that feedback informs future regulatory, policy and program development.

Parliamentary process

1. First Reading
   • Introduction of Bill in Parliament
2. Second Reading
   • Bill is debated
   • House of Commons accepts or rejects Bill
3. Committee Study
   • Committee study of Bill
   • Committee Report (Amendments)
4. Report Stage
   • Amendments debated
5. Third Reading
   • Review of Bill
   • Vote on Bill
   • Amendments proposed or Bill sent back to Committee for further review
6. Royal Assent
   • Passage by Senate (similar process, multiple readings)
   • Governor General gives Royal Assent

Participating in the parliamentary process

• Any individual or organization may submit a brief to a committee of the House of Commons, even if they are not given the opportunity to appear before the committee.
• A member of the Canadian public who wishes to express his/ her views or comment on a Bill before the House can write or phone his/her Member of Parliament. Any correspondence addressed to a Member of Parliament is free of postage.

SEE MORE: ​https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1155097155638

By Government of Canada

Changing the Fisheries ActThe Fisheries Act gives the government authority to manage Canadian fisheries and to protect the fish and fish habitat that support them. Learn about what we’re doing to conserve our resources, improve our tools for protecting the aquatic environment and ensure the sustainability of Canada's fisheries.
​
On this page

• Why we’re proposing changes to the act
• What needed to be fixed
• About the review
• Related links

Why we’re proposing changes to the ActOn November 13, 2015, the Prime Minister directed the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to:

• review changes made to the Fisheries Actin 2012
• restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards

To meet this goal, the Minister asked the House of Commons Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to:

• examine the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act
• engage with Canadians

Fisheries and Oceans Canada also engaged directly with Indigenous peoples and provinces and territories.

Canadians made it clear that protecting fish and fish habitat matters to them. They’ve called for strong, fair and clear legislation that sustains the aquatic environment and protects our oceans and waters.

What needed to be fixedSome changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 challenged our ability to protect fish and fish habitat. Canadians, including Indigenous peoples, expressed concerns with these changes.

We looked at how to:

• restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards
• provide better certainty for industry
• ensure the long-term sustainability of marine resources
• make sure the Fisheries Act provides strong and meaningful protection for our fish and waters

The proposed amendments would:

• restore lost protections by returning to comprehensive protection against harming  all fish and fish habitat;
• strengthen the role of Indigenous peoples in project reviews, monitoring and policy development;
• recognize that decisions can be guided by principles of sustainability, precaution and ecosystem management;
• promote restoration of degraded habitat and rebuilding of depleted fish stocks;
• allow for the better management of large and small projects impacting fish and fish habitat through a new permitting framework and codes of practice;
• create full transparency for projects with a public registry;
• create new fisheries management tools to enhance the protection of fish and ecosystems;
• strengthen the long-term protection of marine refuges for biodiversity;
• help ensure that the economic benefits of fishing remain with the licence holders and their community by providing clear ability to enshrine current inshore fisheries policies into regulations; and
• clarify and modernize enforcement powers to address emerging fisheries issues and to align with current provisions in other legislation.

About the review:

Consultation has been at the core of our review. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act were undertaken with the views of Canadians in mind.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) consulted broadly with Canadians, partners, stakeholders and Indigenous peoples. We received extensive feedback on restoring lost protections and adding modern safeguards through two rounds of online public consultation and numerous in-person meetings.

After both phases of consultation, DFO had:

• 2,163 Canadians registered online
• 5,438 completed e-workbook questionnaires
• Over 170 meetings with Indigenous groups
• Over 200 submissions from Indigenous peoples
• Over 200 letters to the Minister

In addition to the consultation by DFO, the review by the House of Commons Committee on Fisheries and Oceans:

• held 10 meetings
• heard from 50 witnesses
• received 188 written submissions

All of this feedback was considered when developing the proposed amendments.
Stay connectedFollow us on twitter: @DFO_MPO (Fisheries and Oceans)

​Related links

• A Fisheries Act for the Future
• Fisheries Act
• Online public consultation: letstalkfishhabitat.ca
• Fisheries Protection Program
• 2018 proposed Fisheries Act
• Threats to fish and their habitat
• Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
• Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc in Vancouver today to announce updated law

Paul Withers · CBC News · Posted: Feb 06, 2018 5:00 AM AT | Last Updated: February 6

The federal government is unveiling long-awaited changes to Canada's Fisheries Act.
For federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc, this is a rhetoric-meets-reality test on several hot-button issues.

Here's what to watch for:

1. Independence of inshore fisheries

Fishermen and corporations are watching to see if LeBlanc fulfills promises to strengthen protections to preserve the independence of inshore fisheries.

LeBlanc has talked about enshrining two of those protections — the owner-operator and fleet-separation policies — in law or in regulation.

The owner-operator policy means individual fishermen are required to fish their licences personally and reap the rewards. The fleet-separation policy ensures corporations cannot both be harvester and processor.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been battling controlling agreements, which it says are an effort by companies and fishermen to get around those policies. Companies say the arrangements guarantee the supply they need to justify multimillion-dollar investments in facilities.

LeBlanc has not been sympathetic to that argument.

2. Will social and economic criteria be included?

The first Fisheries Act was originally passed in 1868, so it never contemplated considerations that are now routinely used to manage fisheries in Canada — such as the social and economic consequences of decisions made by DFO ministers.

These factors have been used to prevent the corporate takeover of inshore fleets where ensuing, widespread job losses are deemed an unacceptable social impact in Atlantic Canada.

In court cases, companies challenging DFO point out social and economic impacts are not part of Parliament's mandate to manage fisheries. Courts have sided with DFO.

One issue to watch as LeBlanc makes his announcement is whether the department wants social and economic impacts enshrined in the act.

3. Restoring environmental protections

Environmentalists want the Liberals to fulfil a campaign promise to restore habitat protections removed by the previous government.

In 2012, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper removed a prohibition on "harmful alteration, disruption or destruction" of fish habitat in an omnibus bill, saying the prohibition was burdensome red tape.

"Our expectations are that the habitat provisions will be reinstated," said Susanna Fuller of Halifax's Ecology Action Centre.

Environmentalists also want to see a commitment to "science-based decision making," and an "ecosystem" and "precautionary" approach to fisheries management — either as a principle in the act or as items the minister must consider when making decisions.

4. Indigenous integration

The Fisheries Act could also be used to further the Liberal government's broader goal of reconciliation with Indigenous people.

Canada's failure to fully integrate First Nations into the fishery has long been a source of frustration for Indigenous leaders.

Twenty years after a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Indigenous people are entitled to earn a moderate livelihood from the fishery, Canada has yet to spell out how that will work.

Last November, LeBlanc appointed former DFO manager Jim Jones to lead negotiations with First Nations to implement fisheries rights won in court.

A commitment recognizing Indigenous rights in the fishery could be included in an amended act.

SOURCE: https://bit.ly/2QC2sPz