The federal department responsible for Canada's waterways and at least one provincial conservation group are at odds about what changes to the federal Fisheries Act will mean for the protection of fish and fish habitat in Alberta.
The act was amended in June 2012 to focus more on the protection of “recreational, commercial and Aboriginal fisheries” in Canada.
David Walters, a spokesman for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, said in an email that the amendments provide “enhanced protection” for fish and fish habitat from a number of threats “while setting clear standards and guidelines for routine projects on or near water.”
“These include increased fines and penalties for offences, the creation of enforceable conditions for Ministerial authorizations, and a ‘duty to notify' requirement that states that proponents shall report an occurrence that results in serious harm to these important fisheries,” he said. “Finally, the Act now includes explicit regulatory authority to address the threat posed by aquatic invasive species.”
Some changes to the act, such as those addressing enhanced compliance, regulatory-making authorities and partnerships, came into effect last year while other changes, such as pollution prevention provisions, have not yet come into force.
Overall, however, the amendments now limit the act's effectiveness in protecting all of Canada's fish habitats, said Carolyn Campbell, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association, adding the “big problem” is the amendments “narrowly focus on specific fisheries.”
“The way the act was worded before, it was a good environmental protection.”
Without broad protections for fish habitat in Alberta and across the country, she said, there are “implications for our human water security” since healthy fish indicate healthy waterways.
“This act really rolls back protection of that whole aquatic ecosystem,” Campbell said.
Despite the department's position that the amendments to the act will provide clear guidelines for any developments or projects affecting waterways, Campbell said she believes the changes weaken the “clarity” of the rules governing such projects.
In the past, she added, developers and companies knew what areas are protected, what they had to do when working in and around water to protect fish and fish habitats and what penalties are possible for damaging habitat.
“Now there will be a great temptation to assume that there's a whole lot less clarity and there's more leniency because, not only has the Fisheries Act changed, but DFO offices across Alberta have been really drastically reduced,” she said. “And people know that, so there's far less intention to enforce what's left of the Fisheries (Act) provisions anymore.”
Campbell added this is the beginning of an “uncertain period” of less enforcement and more “wiggle room” for industry or developers to argue they didn't know they were working in, or had harmed, one of the defined fisheries under protection or that the area had not been proved to be one of the defined fisheries.
“So that interim period could see quite a lot of harmful changes to waterways or to aspects of river corridors like riparian areas that could still harm fish habitat,” she said, adding proposals for gravel mines, oil and gas projects and fracking operations close to waterways will now face less scrutiny “at a time when we really need to be having actually more scrutiny and protection for our waterways given uncertainties (such as) climate change and given growing population pressures.”
Another concern about the amendments to the act is that the federal government made the changes at the behest of industry and ignored input from environmental groups.
The Globe and Mail reported it had obtained documents showing that industry associations had suggested the removal of the original, broader protections for fish and fish habitat while environmental organizations had proposed strengthening such protections.
Campbell called such catering to industry “disturbing.”
“It's disturbing to read confirmation that it was industry groups who aren't really focused on the best long-term interests of our waterways that provided the wording for this act and that the federal government, after consulting environmental groups, just really ignored their concerns about watering it down.”
Walters said the amendments were developed “based on feedback and input from a variety of stakeholders over the years” and the government will continue “to engage a variety of stakeholders interested in fisheries protection to ensure the Act reflects the priorities of Canadians.”
He added the primary aim of the changes to the act is to sustain Canada's fisheries for “future generations, while providing predictability and clarity for Canadians working on or near water.”
“Our new approach draws clear distinctions between different types and sizes of projects and waterways and takes into account the potential serious harm to our fisheries. Decision-making related to authorizations and regulations will be guided by key factors in the amended Fisheries Act, including the contribution of the fish to the ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries; fisheries management objectives; relevant measures and standards to avoid, mitigate or offset serious harm to commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries; and the public interest.”
Campbell said the association raised concerns about the amendments when they were first introduced and will now look for the “best opportunities,” such as during an election season, to show the public the harmful effects of the changes.
Although he declined to comment on the matter, the executive director of the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance stated in an email that his organization will consider the “potential effects” of the amendments to the Fisheries Act when the alliance finalizes its Integrated Watershed Management Plan.
According to a memo from Alberta Sustainable Resource Development from June 2012, “fish populations in the Red Deer River are under considerable pressure and population levels of northern pike, mountain whitefish and brown trout are below historical levels.”
