Although World Water Day (March 22), is intended to be a time to appreciate the value of water, many people who care about the environment have been alarmed by a press release suggesting the federal government intends to dismantle legislation that has protected fish habitat since 1976.
The 1970s was time when people finally realized a variety human activities were having terrible impacts on the environment. Earth Day was initiated and, in the U.S.A., legislation was passed to protect water quality, clean air, species at risk and a healthy environment. In Canada, some critical words were added to the 1868 Fisheries Act that had a profound impact by finally requiring the protection of fish habitat. Like all good legislation, the words were simple and clear: "No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat."
For people with a passion for all things aquatic, the Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat has become a mantra known as a "HADD." It has been enormously effective in protecting aquatic habitat.
And it's important to note that this legislation has not been used like a sledgehammer. In fact, its application has been extremely reasonable. While it is always best to protect naturally-existing fish habitat, sometimes this is not possible. When projects are proposed, such as the construction of a bridge, pipeline or fire hall that would cause a HADD, permission can still be granted by the minister in charge of Fisheries and Oceans Canada but the proponent will be required to create compensatory habitat. This is known as habitat compensation and must be approved in advance of the work.
The Tri-Cities are replete with many such fish habitat compensation projects. Creating fish habitat is something nature does extremely well but humans less so. Thus, some of these projects have been more successful than others. While we are still on a steep learning curve for the creation of fish habitat, our grades have been improving significantly in recent years.
On rare occasions, the potential damage to fish habitat will be so extreme as to stop a project. For example, this was the case in 2010 with the Taseko Mines proposal for Fish Lake in B.C., which would have turned this pristine lake of special significance to First Nations into a toxic tailings dump with 90,000 dead rainbow trout. Wisely, this proposal was turned down at the conclusion of a carefully considered and closely watched Canadian Environmental Assessment process. Taseko Mines is apparently now developing a proposal to mine without damaging Fish Lake. This has left many people wondering why they failed to come up with such a proposal in the first place.
Regardless, the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act provide a strong incentive for industry to seek ways to undertake projects without damaging fish habitat or to design and construct adequate fish habitat compensation.
With such effective but reasonable legislation, then, what could possibly need changing?
The information recently leaked to Otto Langer, a retired biologist from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, suggests the federal government is planning to eliminate the effective habitat protection measures in the Fisheries Act and replace it with such vague words that it will result in many lawyers spending many days in court discussing many permutations.
Equally distressing, the government intends to append this change to the Budget omnibus bill, which is expected to be introduced to the House and passed near the end of March. This is a deceitful and undemocratic manoeuvre that will eliminate any opportunity for public consultation. Rather than a timely announcement that consideration for a change in wording is underway and consultation with the public, biologists and businesses will follow, the Harper government was apparently planning on slipping this one by under our noses.
The constitution of Canada promises us peace, order and good government. To my mind, this manoeuvre is neither orderly nor good government. And it is not likely to result in much peace, either.
Linda Nowlan, a World Wildlife Fund-Canada director, in her blog on these apparently unannounced but forthcoming changes to the Fisheries Act, said she had HADD enough. Me, too.
What about you?
Elaine Golds is a Port Moody environmentalist who is vice-president of Burke Mountain Naturalists, chair of the Colony Farm Park Association and past president of the PoMo Ecological Society.
