Not involved? That's where you are wrong, Chris. Some folks are involved in different ways. Not all of us are posting YouTube videos showing what we are up to. Some of us do take the time to talk to folks about salmon but it's approach is less political and more about the fish themselves. You seem so into Town Hall meetings across the province taking about the issues as you see them, but you are largely reluctant to answer some pretty basic questions from the posts you put on here - I'm assuming to make us more aware of the issues. I asked you why does the public need to know these preliminary results from these suspected cases of ISAv. Not a hard question to answer.
I have tried my best to answer your questions here. However, now you want others that apparently "pick your arguments apart" to participate in a some town hall discussion? Want to know some of the issues? Well I have only been posting about them for some time now (most recently abnormal warm water in the NE Pacific), but everytime we talk about them if it doesn't centre around salmon farms or government conspiracy then something is being hidden from you. From what I have seen of these road shows (like the canoe trip down the Fraser) they appear to be more about preaching about what they think is going on rather than actual listening.
Not FF related but may help you understand why our fish and the environment is suffering these days, was sent to me recently.
1973 - era of federal EARP - RSCC - Order in Council - Beginning of first EAs in Canada . Projects based on concern and impact. Term often then used was EIS - environmental impact statement.
1977- FEARO born - not under statute law - took over all from EARP - mainly a name change.
1988 - FEARO directed EA of VAFFCs jet fuel facility on the North Arm. Soundly rejected it in 1989 (final FEARO rpt. attached) due to high environmental risks. Key actors in the review are DFO and EC with public input via two public hearings. Public Panel was neutral appointees. In 2011 EAO had no public hearing and no known panel!
1995 - CEAA born. Much more bureaucratic based on legislation ie an Act of Parliament. Bigger staff and many guidelines. Guidelines determined impact based on the size of the project regardless where built. However two law triggers put into the Act - CEAA had to do an EA if the Fisheries Act habitat law was violated ie the proponent could not mitigate all the envirnmental impacts and an Authorization for HADD (harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat) had to be issued. The same applied to NWPA - any harm to navigation to any navigable waterway in Canada.
1996 BC Environmental Assessment Act passed
2005 - Ports Canada Vancouver, North Fraser and Fraser River Harbour Commissions made into Port Metro Vancouver (PMV). A big environmental obstacle created. Responisibility for CEAA given to such national port bodies across Canada. EA in Frser river estaurynow do headed up by PMV. DFO, EC now just advisors to PMV.
In 2010-11 VAFFC voluntarily applies for EA with BC EAO - ignored the federal CEAA process that rejected them in 1989. The large project with great public and local government concern was handled by PMV as just a project screening (no need for a full fed EA or public consultation - no need for a BC EA - the project was under the project size triggers or thresholds). BC EAO accepted jet fuel in the Fraser project for review on a voluntary basis and PMV at least pretended to join the EAO in this full EA by BC standards (no public hearings and the most minimal approach to what they call a full review). PMV seemed absent from the review, no known panel, no public hearings etc. Project given Environmental Certificate in Dec 2013.
2012 Bill C38 - eliminated habitat law in Fisherie Act (so CEAA compulsary trigger on HADD now lost) and NWPA reduced to protection in about 300 big navigation waterways in Canada from about two million lakes rivers , streams, canals, etc .
Law trigger in CEAA removed - but was already gutted by above changes to Fisheries Act habitat law and and NWPA.
In 2013, 495 CEAA reviews in BC (at 3 levels of review) were reduced to five! DFO staff reduced by about 50% and Fraser River mainstem habitat protection offices closed.
2013 - the Federal Government dissolves FREMP and delegates all coordination of environmental issues to PMV (the final coup d'etat for proper environmental assessments and protection in the Fraser River Estuary)
2014 - Harper government puts Fishery Act concerns related to pipeline etc projects under jurisdiction of NEB.
2015 - EAs and protection of fish and wildlife resources (and public safety) in the Fraser River Estuary (and Canada) now set back to the pre 1973 era (1973-beginning of broad spectrum EAs). In that the 1976 Fisheries Act included habitat protection it was eliminated in 2012. In addition from 1967 to 1976 DFO had an Order in Council issued to protect fish spawning beds in BC - the BC Gravel Removal Order of 1967. It was super-ceded by the habitat law in 1976 (now gone). Now we do not even have the protection for gravel spawning beds etc that we had in 1967. Protection of key and critical gravel salmon - sturgeon - eulachon gravel spawning beds such as that now being mined at Chilliwack is now equivalent to the pre 1967 era i.e. no law to protect any fish habitat from harmful alteration - just can protect fish from serious harm which includes just permanent destruction of habitat.
DFO always would consider the dredging of 8000 cubic metres of sand out of the Fraser River a HADD and require an Authorization that would then trigger CEAA for a low level review - Environmental Screening. This is what VAFFC planned to do in 2010 at the new jet fuel tanker and Terminal area. VAFFC then will fill in the dredged hole with area with permanent rip rap. DFO always said that was a HADD. For some reason under Harper in 2010-2011 DFO said nothing about this impact and it was ignored in this review by BC EAO and PMV and DFO or EC were never to be seen in the review. In 1988 DFO and EC were very prominent and active in the public hearings associcated with that VAFFC project which was about 10X smaller than the one now proposed and immune from any compulsory EA by BC or the Feds.
CONCLUSION- We had better spawning bed protection in 1967 than we now have. That was improved in 1976 with new habitat protection laws for Canada(now gone). We had better beginnings to a proper EA in the 1973 to 1995 than we now do. In fact a VAFFC jet fuel barge project 10X smaller than the 2011 VAFFC jet fule tanker proposal was properly reviewed with two public hearings (vs none) in 2011 and rejected whereas the bigger impact project in 2011 was approved and with a minimalist EA and little proper public input. The latter item is now subject of a VAPOR Judicial Review for lack of procedural fairness.
Author
Topic: Get your facts straight? (Read 1691097 times)