Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
TWO WEEKS ago, I had a column saying that a proposed new Fisheries Act would give the fisheries minister arbitrary powers, undercut national standards for habitat protection, and throw licensing and fish allocations into uncertainty, among other things – and do it with a controlling political tint that has become the trademark of the Harper government.
I’ve never had more reaction to a column.
There was a fishery conference in Charlottetown that day, and I’m told there was a scramble for every available Chronicle Herald in that city. It was the talk of municipal councils in some fishing towns. It rattled around B.C. on the Internet and is even being reprinted in the enchantingly named Horsefly Buzz (circulation 300) in the community of Horsefly, B.C. Supportive e-mails poured in, in unanimous agreement.
There was one objector – the government of Canada. British Columbia MP Randy Kamp, parliamentary secretary to Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, called to say I was wrong on every point and to give me the heavy news that “the government of Canada is unhappy with you.” Hearn himself had an op-ed piece in this paper on March 9 doing the same thing, protesting that Bill C-45 in fact reduces ministerial powers, strengthens habitat protection, introduces clear principles and makes things more transparent, not less, as I implied.
How to explain such a drastic difference of opinion?
The bill does state that it will do what Hearn says it will do. What has the critics in high dudgeon is that it’s ridden with loopholes and omissions that they insist could, in fact, open the door to the opposite on all counts, including privatization, downloading power to provinces, manipulating licences, less habitat protection and so on.
For example, the bill would “seek to apply an ecosystem approach.” The 29 major environmental groups across the country that oppose C-45 declare coldly that “seeking to apply is not enough, nor is it testable in a court of law.”
It’s like that in many parts of the bill, with “may” and “seek to” instead of “will” and “shall,” with red flags popping up all over the place. In dry legalese, here’s part of an opinion by Vancouver fisheries lawyer Richard Keevil done for the B.C. Seafood Alliance.
There are, Keevil writes, “a number of sections of the act that provide for decisions of the minister and extra-legislative agreements or orders to override regulations. Since regulations have the force of law, these provisions are of concern.” Also, there are a number of provisos “for significant downloading to the provinces. This could have serious impact on the commercial sector.”
Further, “the provisions dealing with allocation orders are exceedingly vague. The intent appears to be to give the minister enabling powers.” And again, “Section 43 is problematic, since the language used is quite vague. It refers to agreements with ‘organizations,’ but does not require that they be legal entities. It also refers to agreements with ‘persons,’ implying that they might not be licence holders. It is reasonable to ask why these provisions are so vague.”
The opinions from biologists, lawyers, sports and commercial fishing federations and others – all of which have asked Hearn to reconsider – go on and on in this vein through one aspect after another. In B.C., this group includes many significant Tories.
These voices also find some things they like in the bill, and acknowledge that evolution is needed in a law that has not changed since it was created in the 1870s. What they want is proper consultation and debate.
On that point, the government has been especially slippery. It claims consultation has been “unprecedented.” What they’re referring to is a policy review that went on for some five years, before the Tories came to office, that was bureaucratically driven, had no clear aim and that, according to all opinions I’ve gathered, didn’t talk about changing the Fisheries Act. Sensing that he was manipulated at these meetings, a fisherman from Digby County tells me the whole thing has just deepened his sense that “you’re part of things you don’t know you’re part of.”
The Liberals, supported by the NDP, have introduced a “hoist amendment” that would put off the bill for six months. The Bloc Québécois is against the bill, too, but hasn’t decided whether to support the hoist, or whether they’ll agree to second reading, in a move to ultimately kill the bill outright. This would be unfortunate – as unfortunate as the fact that the government, apparently driven by its autocratic political style, didn’t do it right and that it blew up in its face.
( rsurette@herald.ca)
Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County.