PUBLICATION: The Chronicle-Herald
DATE: 2007.03.03
SECTION: Opinion
PAGE: A15
BYLINE: Ralph Surette
WORD COUNT: 768
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisheries bill: subverting the law for partisan reasons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF FISHERIES were taken seriously in Ottawa, here's something that would be on top of the TV news right now: an uprising against a proposed new Fisheries Act (Bill C-45) that would, by all appearances, give the minister of fisheries and his bureaucrats arbitrary powers over fishing; subvert national standards for fish habitat protection; and undercut the security of fishermen's licences and fish allocations - that could be farmed out to friends of government, big corporations, or anyone the minister chooses.
Privatization, politicization and concentration of power at the centre - the increasingly clear trademarks of the Harper government - are being introduced to fisheries. Protests have been pouring in from most significant fisheries, sports fishing, and environmental organizations across the country.
The three opposition parties are opposed and, interestingly, the Conservatives are feeling heat from within. B.C. Tory John Cummins, a former fisherman, was kicked off the Commons fisheries committee by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for opposing the new law. And even in the Tories' Alberta heartland, there's pressure on MPs from those worried about preserving waterways in the face of the oil boom.
The objections centre on a number of points, but primarily these.
C-45 gives the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the power to enter into fishery management agreements (MFAs) with provinces or "other organizations" of the minister's choosing. In particular, habitat protection can be downloaded to provinces, thus destroying national standards for habitat protection, and weakening that protection at the same time since most provinces can be counted upon to favour development over environment. There are also what critics see as loopholes to allow mining and other interests to befoul waterways.
MFAs also allow DFO to hand out quotas to favoured groups - even those without licences. Even to the local Tory association, as the wags are saying. Since these MFAs can be pretty well secret - something else left to "ministerial discretion" - a fisherman could be arrested for fishing illegally while not even knowing that his quota had been given to someone else. DFO also gives itself the right to force fishermen, as a condition of the licence, to fund research projects or anything else ministerial discretion deems useful. The law also makes licences non-transferable.
There are deeper issues. The law implicitly ends the fishery as a "common property resource" - a legal principle going back to Magna Carta. However, and contradictorally, it also prohibits licences from becoming "property" with certain rights attached. Bureaucratic - and perhaps political - considerations, rather than legal principle, will be the foundation of this new order, with all the potential for abuse therein.
There may also be Charter of Rights problems - in that bureaucrats, in secret and without oversight, may make or change regulations that could send fishermen to jail. The Constitution gives that right only to cabinet.
Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn protests mightily that C-45 is based on broad, even unprecedented, consultations - yet hardly anyone who is anyone in fishing or the environment can remember being consulted. And he insists that the objections to C-45 are nonsensical - regulations will be introduced to cover all the perceived shortfalls.
What he's saying is "trust me." And the answer is: no, not for a minute. This bill is too consistent with the manipulations of the Harper government generally. Even to the point that what looks like good ideas at first glance in the bill are soiled by the political context.
One of these is the measure to create fisheries tribunals. Prosecuting poaching and other minor fishery infractions is slow and awkward in the courts. Expediting these cases through administrative procedures - with the accused having the right to appeal to the courts - seemed like a good idea. However, with the Harper Tories packing the regular courts with their soul-mates, would these tribunals be the same - with secret hearings letting friends of government off the hook?
Furthermore, there's been the problematic refusal to join in on the trawler ban in international waters, the appointment of one of Hearn's Newfoundland political friends as "fishery ambassador" - whatever that is - and projected budget cuts for science, conservation and protection in DFO over the next three years.
With all opposition parties opposed, C-45 looks like it's going nowhere. But with this kind of work afoot, it's another reason for sober pause as the Harper government rises in the polls and seems within striking distance of majority government.
Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County.
DATE: 2007.03.03
SECTION: Opinion
PAGE: A15
BYLINE: Ralph Surette
WORD COUNT: 768
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisheries bill: subverting the law for partisan reasons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF FISHERIES were taken seriously in Ottawa, here's something that would be on top of the TV news right now: an uprising against a proposed new Fisheries Act (Bill C-45) that would, by all appearances, give the minister of fisheries and his bureaucrats arbitrary powers over fishing; subvert national standards for fish habitat protection; and undercut the security of fishermen's licences and fish allocations - that could be farmed out to friends of government, big corporations, or anyone the minister chooses.
Privatization, politicization and concentration of power at the centre - the increasingly clear trademarks of the Harper government - are being introduced to fisheries. Protests have been pouring in from most significant fisheries, sports fishing, and environmental organizations across the country.
The three opposition parties are opposed and, interestingly, the Conservatives are feeling heat from within. B.C. Tory John Cummins, a former fisherman, was kicked off the Commons fisheries committee by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for opposing the new law. And even in the Tories' Alberta heartland, there's pressure on MPs from those worried about preserving waterways in the face of the oil boom.
The objections centre on a number of points, but primarily these.
C-45 gives the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the power to enter into fishery management agreements (MFAs) with provinces or "other organizations" of the minister's choosing. In particular, habitat protection can be downloaded to provinces, thus destroying national standards for habitat protection, and weakening that protection at the same time since most provinces can be counted upon to favour development over environment. There are also what critics see as loopholes to allow mining and other interests to befoul waterways.
MFAs also allow DFO to hand out quotas to favoured groups - even those without licences. Even to the local Tory association, as the wags are saying. Since these MFAs can be pretty well secret - something else left to "ministerial discretion" - a fisherman could be arrested for fishing illegally while not even knowing that his quota had been given to someone else. DFO also gives itself the right to force fishermen, as a condition of the licence, to fund research projects or anything else ministerial discretion deems useful. The law also makes licences non-transferable.
There are deeper issues. The law implicitly ends the fishery as a "common property resource" - a legal principle going back to Magna Carta. However, and contradictorally, it also prohibits licences from becoming "property" with certain rights attached. Bureaucratic - and perhaps political - considerations, rather than legal principle, will be the foundation of this new order, with all the potential for abuse therein.
There may also be Charter of Rights problems - in that bureaucrats, in secret and without oversight, may make or change regulations that could send fishermen to jail. The Constitution gives that right only to cabinet.
Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn protests mightily that C-45 is based on broad, even unprecedented, consultations - yet hardly anyone who is anyone in fishing or the environment can remember being consulted. And he insists that the objections to C-45 are nonsensical - regulations will be introduced to cover all the perceived shortfalls.
What he's saying is "trust me." And the answer is: no, not for a minute. This bill is too consistent with the manipulations of the Harper government generally. Even to the point that what looks like good ideas at first glance in the bill are soiled by the political context.
One of these is the measure to create fisheries tribunals. Prosecuting poaching and other minor fishery infractions is slow and awkward in the courts. Expediting these cases through administrative procedures - with the accused having the right to appeal to the courts - seemed like a good idea. However, with the Harper Tories packing the regular courts with their soul-mates, would these tribunals be the same - with secret hearings letting friends of government off the hook?
Furthermore, there's been the problematic refusal to join in on the trawler ban in international waters, the appointment of one of Hearn's Newfoundland political friends as "fishery ambassador" - whatever that is - and projected budget cuts for science, conservation and protection in DFO over the next three years.
With all opposition parties opposed, C-45 looks like it's going nowhere. But with this kind of work afoot, it's another reason for sober pause as the Harper government rises in the polls and seems within striking distance of majority government.
Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County.
