Federal Fisheries Dept Slammed By Auditor Gen.

[Harps]

Read the full Auditor General report here:

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/...01_e_32511.html

 

Here's the kicker:

1.135 Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada cannot demonstrate that they are adequately administering and enforcing the Fisheries Act, and applying the Habitat Policy and the Compliance and Enforcement Policy in order to protect fish habitat from the adverse impacts of human activity.

 

1.136 Habitat Policy. In the 23 years since the Habitat Policy was adopted, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not fully implemented the Policy, and little information exists about the achievement of the Policy’s overall long-term objective of a net gain in productive fish habitat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada needs to gather information on the state of fish habitat and develop habitat indicators to assess the state of Canada’s fish habitat. Through improved information about the state of fish habitat, Canadians will be better informed about whether progress is being made toward the Policy’s long-term objective.

 

1.137 Environmental Process Modernization Plan (EPMP). Fisheries and Oceans Canada has made progress in implementing the EPMP so that it can better manage its risks. The EPMP has resulted in a reliance on Canadians’ self-compliance with the Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions for common, low-risk projects, to allow the Department to use its resources on projects that represent a greater risk to fish habitat. There are shortcomings in implementation of the EPMP. We found that the Department does not have adequate quality assurance and control processes for its new risk-based decision making. It cannot demonstrate that projects that represent a risk to fish habitat have been adequately assessed and a consistent approach has been applied. We found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada reduced its enforcement by half before implementing its new compliance approach. Further, the Department rarely monitors whether project proponents actually comply with the Department’s conditions of approval or whether proponents’ actions effectively maintained the expected no net loss in habitat.

And, the news: Winnipeg Sun, Toronto Sun, and Ottawa Sun (same article).

 

Reel life situation Commissioner makes waves over lack of protection for fish

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Today's tour of federal absurdity takes us to Canada's rivers, streams and other rich fish habitats where the biggest environmental threat to aquatic life may well be the government agencies protecting it.

 

In a damning report released yesterday, Canada's environmental watchdog chews out the federal fisheries department for all but leaving the nation's freshwater ecosystems up a creek without a protector. Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan reported bluntly: "We found that efforts to protect fish habitat have been inadequate."

 

The stakes in all this are enormous.

 

With over a million freshwater lakes and the world's longest coastline, Canada's fish habitats provide food and shelter for aquatic wildlife, and drinkable water for human consumption.

 

They also produce billions of dollars of wealth from commercial and sport fishing, tourism, and dozens of other industries.

 

In short, governments in this country are responsible for protecting a world-scale natural resource, and a major source of economic prosperity for all Canadians.

 

How are the federal stewards of this amazing water-world doing so far?

 

The environment commissioner points out that 23 years after the federal government developed a comprehensive fish habitat policy, many parts of it still have not been implemented.

 

Habitat loss

 

The federal fisheries department -- astoundingly -- "does not measure habitat loss or gain." In fact, Vaughan says, the department has "limited information on the state of fish habitat across Canada -- that is, on fish stocks, the amount and quality of fish habitat, contaminants in fish, and overall water quality."

 

The department burns through over $70 million a year specifically on programs related to protecting fish habitats, but still has no clue if all that money and effort is making the slightest improvement.

 

In practical terms, the environment commissioner paints a bureaucratic picture that would make perfect spoof material were the issues not so serious.

 

For instance, the fisheries department's primary role in protecting fish habitat is to review proposals for projects in or near water, including major development initiatives such as mines and hydroelectric dams.

 

But in a random review of dozens of those proposals from 2007, the commissioner found missing information in up to 90% of the files -- little stuff such as "identification of the project's potential impact on fish habitat."

 

Overall, "none of the project files we reviewed contained all of the information that the department requires to assess a project."

 

The end result of so much bureaucratic ineptitude can be ecologically disastrous.

 

Vaughan's report documents one case in which the federal fisheries department allowed commercial gravel to be mined from the Fraser River in B.C., ostensibly for flood control, even though the agency determined the project would be "harmful to the fish habitat."

 

Vaughan notes that subsequent studies showed there was "no reduction" in flooding after the gravel was mined out of the river. It did, however, wipe out an estimated 2,250,000 pink salmon.

 

The fisheries department did nothing to one company that mined outside its approved area, took more gravel than permitted, and destroyed an entire fish habitat.

 

"The department advised us that it was short of resources at the time."

 

Hot water

 

Fisheries isn't the only federal department in hot water with the environment commissioner.

 

The environment department is also responsible for helping to prevent the discharge of sewage, harmful chemicals and other pollutants into fish habitats.

 

But after years and many meetings, "Environment Canada does not have a compliance strategy" to ensure industries don't poison the fish.

 

Perhaps the worst part of this story is the environment commissioner publicly rang all the same alarm bells back in 2001.

 

Today, Vaughan reports, "there has been little progress."

 

greg.weston@sunmedia.ca

 

Maybe it is time for some letters calling on the gov't to pull up their pants...

[LastBoyScout]

I think your right, its time people started talking with votes & holding the Government resposible for the things they are entrusted to protect.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

The feds definitely dropped the ball on the Oldman River dam. No fish ladder and the migrating Bull Trout that go downstream are hooped! Hopes that they were to go up Pincher Creek failed to materialize.

[Harps]

The feds definitely dropped the ball on the Oldman River dam. No fish ladder and the migrating Bull Trout that go downstream are hooped! Hopes that they were to go up Pincher Creek failed to materialize.

 

The Alberta gov't dropped the ball on the Oldman Dam.

The Fisheries Act had been handled by the province, including fish ladders, habitat loss, etc. DFO moved inland largely because the Federal gov't took the responsibility back.

[LastBoyScout]

Not only on the Oldman, the St. Marys, Waterton and Belly Rivers down South are only a shadow of what they could be. Granted most of the Weirs and Dams were built long before things like Enviromental Impact were invented. The question is where should we be putting our presure Provincially or Federally. There was no Political will through the good times so the odds are long during lean times.

[Neil Waugh]

The guy who gets half of the stick in that report is Dandy Jim Prentice - a CALGARY MP.

Well you voted for him you got him. But I got to agree about the Oldman Dam. The "no net habitat loss" policy there is a joke.

Someone should hold the Alberta government's feet to the fire and force a review of the fisheries loss.

By the way, my MP is Dipper.

[Harps]

This is what I love about the Oldman...

Look at how its being operated... poorly!

 

The reservoirs are full, sure, but no freshet this year, except for a small spike that could have promoted spawning on areas now dry. AND if we get a big run-off in the next couple of weeks we'll have a late flood possibly sending all the hatched out fry down to Medicine Hat.

http://www.environment.alberta.ca/apps/bas...amp;DataType=10

 

How is that supporting a good fishery and where is the government?

Maybe its time to send letters (again for some of us) to the auditor general.

We need to push both federal (DFO, Environment Canada, and Auditor) and provincial (AENV, SRD and auditor)... and why didn't the media pick up on the Auditor generals stuff? I guess its not as sexy as isotopes.

 

Fishing isn't great below the dam. The drawdowns create a reservoir with no growth in the litoral zone, so not much for fish... plus huge sections of river are flooded or mud flats depending on the time of year.

If we're stuck with the damn, I at least want a tailwater fishery.

Plus... shouldn't tourism be important... think of the dollars that FF tourists could bring in. Of course, we'd have to know how many guides there were and maybe charge a little more for out of Alberta residents (but that's a different topic).

[Jayhad]

maybe i am niave but how does this happen, if I am at a management posistion in a small company and things don't get done for 23 days (let alone 23 years) I get my a$$ fired. How does this go one for 23 years.... that is uncomprehensible to me..... must be a great place to work though........

"boss i forgot to check out that fish habitat before we signed off on that the project"

"Don't worry our salmon stocks are fine"

[rundleff]

If your boss didn't check to see how things were going in the last 23 years... I'd be slacking my ass off too.

[Harps]

maybe i am niave but how does this happen, if I am at a management posistion in a small company and things don't get done for 23 days (let alone 23 years) I get my a$$ fired. How does this go one for 23 years.... that is uncomprehensible to me..... must be a great place to work though........

"boss i forgot to check out that fish habitat before we signed off on that the project"

"Don't worry our salmon stocks are fine"

 

 

Under-staffed, under-payed, over-worked.

 

It takes years for a health fish population (and inverts) to establish. It takes dollars and years of research to determine if the desired result occured (desired results change also).

Plus things get forgotten and left behind... there is always urgent pressing work, no time to monitor things already done.

And to top it off... governments (ministers, deputies, managers) change with changing priorities which put some things on the backburner.