Legislation to protect fish was headed for death by a thousand cuts, but the Harper government couldn’t wait. It delivered the coup de grace last week with its secret plan to erase habitat protection from the Fisheries Act.
The scheme, contained in a government memo, was leaked to retired fisheries biologist Otta Langar, who issued a press release. Prosecution of offenders under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act will soon be history.
Here’s the wording as it stands today: “No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat.”
Strong talk, fines to $1 million, law with teeth.
Key words in amended Section 35 (1) will make enforcement irrelevant, and let industry know B.C. is open for unimpeded work around streams.
It will read: “No person shall carry on work, undertaking, or activity, other than fishing that results in adverse effect on a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value.”
Economic, the first value, will now decide the fate of fish and habitat.
We shouldn’t be surprised. A few years ago, the DFO had these words inserted into the Species at Risk Act to escape a costly habitat remediation program for declining Cultus Lake sockeye. In DFO opinion, the endangered species no longer had economic value.
In June 2010, Canadian National Geographic noted “an obscure clause” (economic value again) in the Fisheries Act that let mining companies transform “schedule 2” lakes (new words and category) into tailing ponds. But, when it came to Fish Lake, near Williams Lake, the Dene, with values other than economic, shouted, ‘no way.’
Protecting habitat is an aversion for a government that plans to slash the DFO budget by 33 per cent before 2013. Fisheries officers at the Cohen Inquiry (June 2011) said “catastrophic” cuts will make it impossible for DFO to fulfill its protection mandate.
Is that the plan?
“To date,” says Langan, “the Harper government has shown little regard for the protection of the environment, and over the past few years has supervised the almost total elimination of enforcement of the habitat protection and the pollution provisions of the Canada Fisheries Act. In 2008, there were only two convictions … in all of Canada. They [fisheries officers] were told not to enforce the act. That came out in Cohen Inquiry.”
Ring a bell?
In Maple Ridge, we waited a year for DFO to investigate 2009 complaints about thousands of dead fry in the North Alouette, and machinery digging in the river. I struggled with DFO reluctance to interview witnesses, collect fish for testing, or accept the ones I’d frozen for them. When officers finally showed up on site, one insisted she was not “investigating,” but only “inspecting.” Words erased, others added to DFO dictionaries.
Now, even the word fish is redefined to suit the government’s purpose. When the Fisheries Act was born in 1868, a fish was any cold-blooded, aquatic vertebrate with a caudal fin (Darwin). No means test. But, the new Section 35 says fish are the small, elite group with “economic” value. Pink, chum, trout, and the humble, but colorful sculpin have little worth. We have a carefully named commission to focus investigation into the disappearance of sockeye, and nothing else, caudal fin or not.
Economic value frees the Harper team from any expectation to protect streams in B.C. that don’t have sockeye – there’s lots of them. Enbridge pipes would cross some.
As Geoff Clayton of ARMS suggests, the new industry-freeing Section 35 of the act is a green light for the Gateway pipeline.
Indeed, the minister now has power in the amended Section 35 (2) to ensure the light remains green for all developers who lobbied for one. Original wording declared no one – even the minister – can allow a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction for any reasons.
But, the adjusted law permits adverse effects if authorized by the minister after economic considerations.
Developers, municipalities bent on growth, agriculture, will be overjoyed.
Conservative MP Randy Kamp indicates that’s been the government’s aim for a long time, saying changes needed to be made in Section 35 because municipalities can’t clean out their ditches, and farmers can’t either, if fish have been found in them, and they’re considered habitat.
Our ditches were streams before we turned them into toilets. Many can be restored with efforts like the ARMS adopt-a-creek program.
“Ultimately,” says Mr. Kamp, “were committed to protecting fish and fish habitat in an efficient way.”
DFO’s plan to privatize enforcement has also been exposed at the inquiry. Officials told Cohen letting industry police itself was a more efficient way than having DFO do it. Without funding, that’s a certainty.
Kamp tells “river groups” concerned about changes to Section 35 to patient. “They need to see what actually comes … discussions will follow.”
But, the Harper team will do what it wants and explain later, if necessary. Discussions over the Enbridge pipeline followed the deal to send oil to China. The decision to promote fish farms occurred without talking to us, as did the new, exclusive definition of fish in law, and the dismemberment of DFO enforcement.
Our government doesn’t listen, or value the environment. We should follow the Dene and say no way to changes in Section 35 of the Fisheries Act.
Jack Emberly is a retired teacher, local author and environmentalist.
