island idiots
Active Member
</u>FYI- BC Wildlife Federation
Unit 101 – 3060 Norland Ave., Burnaby, BC V5B 3A6
Phone 604 291 9990 Toll Free 1 888 881 BCWF (2293) Fax 604 291 9933
www.bcwf.bc.ca
January 14, 2008
High Priority - BC Wildlife Campaign – Bill C-32 Unacceptable
All BCWF Members and Supporters urged to approach their Members of
Parliament immediately on Bill C-32 “Fisheries Act”.
BC Wildlife Federation members are committed to ensuring that governments at all
levels recognize and understand that all Canadians, regardless of race or creed, have a
“Right To Fish”, a position supported on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court.
The current Minister of Fisheries and the current government have, to their credit, made
it clear publicly that they do indeed recognize public ownership of the fishery and a
public right to fish. That said, however, at the same time as they are saying this, they
have, to their discredit, actively supported policies that allowed major infringements on
that right.
Of tremendous concern is that Bill C-32 was developed without efforts to properly
consult stakeholders and the changes from Bill C-45 are minor and cosmetic in nature.
In essence we are being asked to accept Bill C-45 again with window dressing after we
strongly campaigned against this. On December 11 2007 at a most recent DFO meeting
it was made very clear to all that this was not a consultation session, but an information
session, so that Ottawa DFO could explain the Act to the community.
Despite the minor changes this government is continuing to press for the same
requirements for Bill C -32 as they made for C -45, that second reading be completed
before it goes to the Committee. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
The Canadian recreational fishery has a high value to our economy and functions as a
basic birthright to all Canadians.
There are serious concerns throughout Bill C-32. Highlighted are the following sections,
which do not cover all of the concerns but will give members some information to take
forward to their MP’s.
Under the leadership of this current government we have seen the DFO Pacific Region
Habitat Protection staff reduced from 118 person years to 65 person years. At the
same time the attacks from “economic development” on the sustainability of that habitat
for fisheries have grown exponentially. The purpose of this Act is to provide for the
sustainable development of Canada’s seacoast and inland fisheries, through the
conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat and the proper management
and control of fisheries.” How can this effectively be carried out with less capacity?
Sec. 7, subsection (3) allows the Governor in Council to make regulations “establishing
the conditions under which the Minister may enter into or renew an agreement, including
procedures for entering into or renewing the agreement”.
2
An amendment needs to be made to this subsection denoting the fact that:
Any regulation made under Sec 7 (3), shall only have the effect of law, following
presentation and approval of the members of the House of Commons or the
Provincial Legislature. And after meaningful public input is sought and provided.
Privatization of our Canadian Fishery: If the government is not prepared to either
delete those sections designed to privatize our fishery, or rewrite them to remove
the privatization option, then we have no alternative but to press for rejection of
the entire Bill.
• Over and above that fact, we also see an attempt here to usurp the “Right To
Fish” held by all Canadians under the Common Law of this land.
We suggest that a clear statement be made immediately following the section dealing
with the purpose of the Act setting out that this current Act does not infringe or extinguish
the Public Right to Fish. We would suggest wording similar to the following:
“Neither this Act nor any part of it shall be construed as any authority to infringe
upon or extinguish the Public Right to Fish, as established by law and affirmed by
the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Sec 8, subsection (1):
While we applaud the requirement for the Minister to make public his decisions we feel
this subsection leaves too much discretion to the Minister. The Act should specify where
and when the Minister should publish this information, i.e. The Canada Gazette, DFO
website, and a specific time frame within which the Minister must publish.
Section 10:
We fully support this section and would commend the government for bringing it
forward. We feel it is a good start on the road to public accountability.
We would propose that a further segment be added here that would make it clear
that the Minister would appoint the majority of these panels from nominees put
forward by the groups that represent the various sectors.
Section 17:
It is the opinion of our members that this section along with section 18 is an attempt to
circumvent the requirements under House of Commons Bill C212, the User Fee Act. Our
members are totally opposed to this section as it is currently constituted.
We believe there needs to be an amendment put in place here that would indicate
that any fee increases would be subject to review by the House prior to their
implementation.
Section 18 – subsection (1):
Our comments made regarding Section 17, as noted, apply here as well. We see this
proposal as nothing more than a blatant attempt to circumvent the House of Commons,
Bill C212 and our members, and we are sure, the majority of the public, are opposed to
this section as currently written.
We are opposed to this section as it is presently constituted. It must either be
rewritten or amended to clearly specify that the requirements of Bill C -212, the
User Fee Act, be applied and adhered to.
3
Section 18 – subsection (2):
Our previous comments regarding the need for the agency to be able to document the
cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada apply here as well
.
Section 26
We would further question the issuing of licenses to “organizations” so that they
can then licence people to fish under their licence. We would submit that this
latter action is the first step in privatizing our fishery.
Licenses to fish should be issued to individuals and not corporations or
organizations or groups of people segregated by race.
As a final support we offer the following from the Supreme Court of Canada, Chief
Justice Strong regarding licenses. “Such licenses must, however, be purely personal
licenses conferring qualification, and any legislation going beyond this and
assuming to confer exclusive rights of fishing (subject to exception as to waters
belonging to the Dominion and waters within the confines of unsurrendered Indian
Reserves) unconstitutional and void.”
Sections 36 and 49 Regarding Leases: When this section is coupled with Section 49
we see the creation of an “exclusive” fishing area, an act prohibited by current law and
an infringement on the Canadian Right to Fish.
We offer the following support for our contention that the fact and intent of
Sections 36 and 49 contravene the Public Right and have no weight in law, except
that they are accompanied by the information that these sections are intended to
abridge or extinguish the Public Right to fish.
Under Interpretation: While we would concur that traditional knowledge information is
or can be a valuable tool in the “… the management of fisheries and the conservation
and protection of fish and fish habitat”, such knowledge is not exclusive to first nations
people.
Section 43: We can find no real need or use for this whole section 43. It should be
removed in totality
The allowance of “quota trades” creates a right of property in the fish by the holders of
such quota. According to Webster’s New Dictionary, “trade” is described as it applies to
commerce “buying and selling of commodities; goods; customers. v buy, sell;
exchange.”
We know of no law in this land that allows a person or corporation to buy, sell or
exchange items to which they do not hold ownership. In fact it is our understanding that
to do so is a criminal offence.
Unit 101 – 3060 Norland Ave., Burnaby, BC V5B 3A6
Phone 604 291 9990 Toll Free 1 888 881 BCWF (2293) Fax 604 291 9933
www.bcwf.bc.ca
January 14, 2008
High Priority - BC Wildlife Campaign – Bill C-32 Unacceptable
All BCWF Members and Supporters urged to approach their Members of
Parliament immediately on Bill C-32 “Fisheries Act”.
BC Wildlife Federation members are committed to ensuring that governments at all
levels recognize and understand that all Canadians, regardless of race or creed, have a
“Right To Fish”, a position supported on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court.
The current Minister of Fisheries and the current government have, to their credit, made
it clear publicly that they do indeed recognize public ownership of the fishery and a
public right to fish. That said, however, at the same time as they are saying this, they
have, to their discredit, actively supported policies that allowed major infringements on
that right.
Of tremendous concern is that Bill C-32 was developed without efforts to properly
consult stakeholders and the changes from Bill C-45 are minor and cosmetic in nature.
In essence we are being asked to accept Bill C-45 again with window dressing after we
strongly campaigned against this. On December 11 2007 at a most recent DFO meeting
it was made very clear to all that this was not a consultation session, but an information
session, so that Ottawa DFO could explain the Act to the community.
Despite the minor changes this government is continuing to press for the same
requirements for Bill C -32 as they made for C -45, that second reading be completed
before it goes to the Committee. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
The Canadian recreational fishery has a high value to our economy and functions as a
basic birthright to all Canadians.
There are serious concerns throughout Bill C-32. Highlighted are the following sections,
which do not cover all of the concerns but will give members some information to take
forward to their MP’s.
Under the leadership of this current government we have seen the DFO Pacific Region
Habitat Protection staff reduced from 118 person years to 65 person years. At the
same time the attacks from “economic development” on the sustainability of that habitat
for fisheries have grown exponentially. The purpose of this Act is to provide for the
sustainable development of Canada’s seacoast and inland fisheries, through the
conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat and the proper management
and control of fisheries.” How can this effectively be carried out with less capacity?
Sec. 7, subsection (3) allows the Governor in Council to make regulations “establishing
the conditions under which the Minister may enter into or renew an agreement, including
procedures for entering into or renewing the agreement”.
2
An amendment needs to be made to this subsection denoting the fact that:
Any regulation made under Sec 7 (3), shall only have the effect of law, following
presentation and approval of the members of the House of Commons or the
Provincial Legislature. And after meaningful public input is sought and provided.
Privatization of our Canadian Fishery: If the government is not prepared to either
delete those sections designed to privatize our fishery, or rewrite them to remove
the privatization option, then we have no alternative but to press for rejection of
the entire Bill.
• Over and above that fact, we also see an attempt here to usurp the “Right To
Fish” held by all Canadians under the Common Law of this land.
We suggest that a clear statement be made immediately following the section dealing
with the purpose of the Act setting out that this current Act does not infringe or extinguish
the Public Right to Fish. We would suggest wording similar to the following:
“Neither this Act nor any part of it shall be construed as any authority to infringe
upon or extinguish the Public Right to Fish, as established by law and affirmed by
the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Sec 8, subsection (1):
While we applaud the requirement for the Minister to make public his decisions we feel
this subsection leaves too much discretion to the Minister. The Act should specify where
and when the Minister should publish this information, i.e. The Canada Gazette, DFO
website, and a specific time frame within which the Minister must publish.
Section 10:
We fully support this section and would commend the government for bringing it
forward. We feel it is a good start on the road to public accountability.
We would propose that a further segment be added here that would make it clear
that the Minister would appoint the majority of these panels from nominees put
forward by the groups that represent the various sectors.
Section 17:
It is the opinion of our members that this section along with section 18 is an attempt to
circumvent the requirements under House of Commons Bill C212, the User Fee Act. Our
members are totally opposed to this section as it is currently constituted.
We believe there needs to be an amendment put in place here that would indicate
that any fee increases would be subject to review by the House prior to their
implementation.
Section 18 – subsection (1):
Our comments made regarding Section 17, as noted, apply here as well. We see this
proposal as nothing more than a blatant attempt to circumvent the House of Commons,
Bill C212 and our members, and we are sure, the majority of the public, are opposed to
this section as currently written.
We are opposed to this section as it is presently constituted. It must either be
rewritten or amended to clearly specify that the requirements of Bill C -212, the
User Fee Act, be applied and adhered to.
3
Section 18 – subsection (2):
Our previous comments regarding the need for the agency to be able to document the
cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada apply here as well
.
Section 26
We would further question the issuing of licenses to “organizations” so that they
can then licence people to fish under their licence. We would submit that this
latter action is the first step in privatizing our fishery.
Licenses to fish should be issued to individuals and not corporations or
organizations or groups of people segregated by race.
As a final support we offer the following from the Supreme Court of Canada, Chief
Justice Strong regarding licenses. “Such licenses must, however, be purely personal
licenses conferring qualification, and any legislation going beyond this and
assuming to confer exclusive rights of fishing (subject to exception as to waters
belonging to the Dominion and waters within the confines of unsurrendered Indian
Reserves) unconstitutional and void.”
Sections 36 and 49 Regarding Leases: When this section is coupled with Section 49
we see the creation of an “exclusive” fishing area, an act prohibited by current law and
an infringement on the Canadian Right to Fish.
We offer the following support for our contention that the fact and intent of
Sections 36 and 49 contravene the Public Right and have no weight in law, except
that they are accompanied by the information that these sections are intended to
abridge or extinguish the Public Right to fish.
Under Interpretation: While we would concur that traditional knowledge information is
or can be a valuable tool in the “… the management of fisheries and the conservation
and protection of fish and fish habitat”, such knowledge is not exclusive to first nations
people.
Section 43: We can find no real need or use for this whole section 43. It should be
removed in totality
The allowance of “quota trades” creates a right of property in the fish by the holders of
such quota. According to Webster’s New Dictionary, “trade” is described as it applies to
commerce “buying and selling of commodities; goods; customers. v buy, sell;
exchange.”
We know of no law in this land that allows a person or corporation to buy, sell or
exchange items to which they do not hold ownership. In fact it is our understanding that
to do so is a criminal offence.
