Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

More debate needed on Tories' Bill C-38

The amendments to the federal Fisheries Act contained in the omnibus budget bill address a real problem. As a solution, however, Bill C-38 overshoots the mark.

Part of the problem is the bill itself. Bill C-38 is the budget implementation act. By tradition, it contains the legal amendments necessary to enact changes announced in the budget.

The Conservative government is using the budget act to bring in changes to more than 70 laws, most of which, including the amendments to the Fisheries Act, are only tenuously connected to any budgetary measure.

In truth, Bill C-38 should more properly be called the Harper Government act, since it will put in place many changes the Conservatives campaigned on and quite a few more that were never discussed, but fit with their view of how the country should be governed.

The sheer volume of the changes has restricted the ability of Parliament or the public to properly examine or even become aware of many of the measures. We doubt that most individual MPs have read all of its more than 400 pages.

Without time to address the substantive changes that are being pushed through as part of the budget bill, it's not surprising that the opposition par-ties have resorted to procedural shenanigans to express their objections to the process.

The result, however, is that the process is getting more attention than the contents of the bill.

The amendments to the Fisheries Act are a prime example of the magnitude of changes that are being given short shrift. The government says they are aimed at the very real problem with the current protection regime, which is that it casts too wide a net.

Farmers need to be able to clean the weeds out of their drainage ditches without going through the time-consuming and costly process of seeking the approval of the department of fisheries just because a few fish have taken up residence in the man-made waterway, in one example used.

The amendments go beyond just reigning in the scope of habitat protection, however. They also disregard the intrinsic value of aquatic life that may not now have any recognized commercial value.

The amendments remove what was a duty to protect all fish habitat and replace it with a duty to consider only the habitat of fish that have a "commercial, recreational and aboriginal" significance.

Where the existing legislation goes too far in imposing a regulatory hurdles to individuals and businesses with projects that have a minimal impact on fish, the virtual abandonment of species and waterways that are not deemed important to humans is a leap that needs to be examined further before it is adopted as policy.

As is often the case, part of the test of the new bill won't come until regulations are put in place and we can see how it will be implemented. The minister says the intent is to exempt small projects like building a dock at a cottage.

But how large will a project have to be, for example, before it is deemed to be worthy of attention under the revised Fisheries Act?

The Conservatives have created an unnecessary issue here by pushing the changes through as they have. A longer period of debate would have not only allowed concerned Canadians and opposition parties a chance to address the significant issues involved, it would have given the government an opportunity to clarify its intentions in a way that might have alleviated some of the concerns.

Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Vancouver Sun

No comments:

Post a Comment