|
March 17, 2012 - No. 11 In the Parliament Illegitimate Government Agenda Has No Mandate In
the
Parliament In the Parliament Illegitimate Government Agenda Has No MandateThis week the Harper government once again used its parliamentary majority to further abuse its positions of privilege and power. It rammed through various abusive pieces of legislation which are not only illegitimate because they are anti-national, anti-social and anti-worker but because they do not represent the majority of Canadians despite government claims. Furthermore, the illegitimate character of these laws and edicts violates the government's social responsibility to uphold the public interest above all else. To add insult to injury, it is all based on fraud as it is done in the name of protecting the Canadian economy and securing the national interest, which will not be achieved with these laws because their intent is to serve private interests, not the public interest.
On March 13, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, received Royal Assent. This bill has been met with widespread opposition by people from all walks of life, especially professionals from many sectors of the society. On March 14, the government passed back-to-work legislation against Air Canada pilots, technical maintenance and operations support staff. The legislation de facto declared Air Canada an essential service. The legislation was also opposed by all concerned and was particularly arrogant as it used the government's majority to deny the right of the courts to play their role to uphold the rights of the workers to have recourse to the courts should they need it in the matter of the choice of arbiter. On receiving Royal Assent for the Safe Streets and Communities Act, Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson arrogantly declared "promise fulfilled." "During the last election campaign, we made a commitment to better protect Canadians by reintroducing the suite of law-and-order measures contained in this legislation. We promised to do this within the first 100 sitting days of Parliament, and we have delivered," he said. All this in the face of clear, coherent and overwhelming opposition to the legislation from all sectors of society. Expressing the frustration of the Opposition with its inability to play the role it is given in the Parliamentary system, Liberal Senator Larry Campbell stated: "The role of the Senate is to provide sober second thought, but this government is limiting our ability to fully consider important pieces of legislation." Speaking during debate on the back-to-work legislation, Minister of Labour Lisa Raitt arrogantly declared that workers' resistance to monopoly dictate threatens "our progress." "[T]o maintain our progress and promote economic growth we need to be careful. We cannot afford to have labour disruptions in this major Canadian industry. A labour stoppage in this key sector of our economy would be a serious impediment to recovery and growth," Raitt said. Raitt's "our progress'' refers to the "progress" made by the monopoly/government axis by using its stranglehold over the state power and public treasury to destroy all impediments to their rape and plunder of Canada's assets. Also this week, it was revealed that the government is
making dangerous
changes to the regulations which govern the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, also in the name of "protecting the economy." No amount of scandal is slowing the government down, let
alone stopping
it. In the most irrational manner it repeats ad nauseam that it
received a
mandate from the electorate for this agenda. This is shameless to the
extreme
as everyone knows that even if the government made some obscure general
reference to this or that during the election, no discussion took place
on any
of it and it was not approved by anyone. Furthermore, whatever
constructive
discussion does take place in the Parliament and in committee the
government
ignores. More often than not, when asked questions about its program,
the
government resorts to self-righteously arguing motherhood and apple pie
and
accusing its opponents of being enemies of everything sacred.
The "majority" the government speaks of is a mere 23.4 per cent of eligible voters. Far from providing what the government is doing with legitimacy, it underscores just how illegitimate it is. If it had an ounce of legitimacy, it would not have to resort to such dictatorial antics and unabashedly idiotic responses when questioned about its antics. Its responses are so irrational, any attempt to respond to them is to lower oneself to the same backward level. Despite its lack of legitimacy, more and more laws are being passed to dictate what Canadians can and cannot do. This not only affects the working class but also the professional stratum of judges, experienced people from Corrections Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, search and rescue, the scientific community, etc. The more the Harper government carries on, the more its demands to be obeyed will be defied because this is not how democracies are thought to operate. Passing laws to dictate what everyone in the society can and cannot do, where they can work, what they can be paid, what they can and cannot think is associated with Adolf Hitler. In fact, what is happening today is even more dangerous because so far no force has come forward either nationally or internationally that is capable of limiting the power of those who would abuse their power with impunity.
As the government hurries to turn its 100 days into 1,000, it is getting more and more wild, arousing increasing concern against it. A Workers' Opposition must take its rightful place in the Parliament of Canada by mobilizing the polity to renew the outdated political process which permits an anti-national, anti-social, anti-worker government to claim a majority and do such terrible things. It can be done! It must be done!
Omnibus Crime Bill Receives Royal AssentOn March 13, 2012 the Harper dictatorship passed its Omnibus Crime Bill C-10 misleadingly named the Safe Streets and Communities Act. The passage of the Act comes in the face of broad opposition to the vindictive nature of the bill, as well as the way in which it was rammed through Parliament without significant debate being permitted on the consequences of the direction it proposes.
The Act was first tabled in Parliament on September 20, 2011 and amends nine different pieces of legislation, creating the new Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Following the May 2 federal election, the Harper government claimed that it now had a mandate to bundle the legislation together and force it through Parliament within the first 100 sitting days. Both in the House of Commons and the Senate, the Harper dictatorship used its majority to prevent discussion or debate. On March 1, after having received the report on the legislation from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee just two days before, the leader of the Government in the Senate moved to limit debate. The legislation passed the Senate the same day. If the legislation had passed the Senate without amendment it would have gone immediately to the Governor General to receive Royal Assent. However, because of amendments by the Senate, the Harper government had to bring the bill back to the House of Commons where the Opposition might have another kick at the can to try and delay it using a filibuster. NDP MP Jack Harris attempted to do just this, however the Harper dictatorship immediately imposed a motion limiting debate to one additional day, thus blocking any chance at a significant delay. Amendments to Justice for Victims of Terrorism ActDuring committee hearings in the House of Commons, Liberal MP Irwin Cotler brought forward a number of amendments to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act that strengthened the agenda of the Harper government to go after states that do not submit to imperialist dictate. The amendments from Cotler, were first rejected by the Conservatives and then brought forward in the Senate by the Harper government. The amendments are said to have all-party support and were the only changes permitted to the legislation by the Harper dictatorship -- using the changes to give an impression that they were willing to entertain the views of "all parties." Organization Behind Justice for Victims of Terrorism ActIn remarks to the Senate at Third Reading of Bill C-10, Conservative Senator David Tkachuk, the main promoter of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act explained that the Canadian Coalition Against Terror (C-CAT) was the force behind the legislation. According to its website, the C-CAT "is comprised of Canadian terror victims, counterterrorism professionals, lawyers and other individuals dedicated to building bridges between the private and public sectors in the battle against terrorism and to assisting terror victims in rebuilding their lives." Giving an indication of the agenda of the organization, its website points out that it is committed to a wide range of pro-imperialist projects including: "Sanctions Against Iran -- Advocacy for broader and more effective sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran "The IRGC -- Banning of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as a terrorist entity [Liberal MP Irwin Cotler has recently called for this in the House of Commons -- TML Ed. Note] "Listed Entities -- The inclusion of other unlisted terrorist entities on Canada's list of banned terrorist organizations "Terror Assets -- Enactment of regulations to expedite the seizure and redistribution of terrorist assets "Passage of Bill S-209 -- A bill marking 9/11 as a National Day of Service." On its website, the C-CAT elaborates its program for the anniversary of 9/11 and how it should be commemorated in Canada: "C-CAT is proposing to reframe 9/11 in a Canadian context as 'A National Day of Service' designated to celebrate the outpouring of kindness and unity that was witnessed in Canada, the US and other countries in response to the terrible tragedy of that day. The day will be marked by various projects across Canada that will generate further acts of goodwill within our communities as part of the creation of a broader legacy of 9/11. "A Day of Remembrance -- C-CAT proposes that Canada designate September 11th as the date for an annual memorial ceremony at Beachwood Cemetery commemorating our losses in Afghanistan." In his remarks to the Senate, Tkachuk explained that two key members of the organization lost family members in the September 11 attacks on the twin towers in New York. One of these members was Danny Eisen whose cousin was an Israeli special forces officer killed on Flight 11.
Government of Nunavut's Concerns with Crime BillOn February 2 Daniel Shewchuk, the Government of Nunavut's Minister of Justice, addressed the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs concerning Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. There he raised concerns about the contradictions between the Harper government's Bill C-10 and the situation on the ground in Nunavut, and questioned why his government was not consulted in any way on the legislation. He also addressed the incompatibility of its overall direction with the culture of the Inuit people. ***Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to say it is a privilege to be here in front of you and your committee today. It is an honour for us from Nunavut. I think it is one of the first times we have come down to appear before the Senate. To put a little perspective on our great territory, I would like to tell you something to keep in the back of your mind when I am making my presentation and you follow with questions. Nunavut is our newest territory, formed in 1999. It is a vast territory. It is one fifth the land mass of this country, and it is two thirds the coastline of this country. Keep that in mind when you are listening to us. We have 25 communities spread across that vast territory, and we are very proud of each community and the citizens that live in those communities. With that, I would like to make my statement. I welcome this opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on an issue that is important to the Government of Nunavut, to Nunavummiut and, indeed, to Canadians as a whole -- the implications of Bill C-10, the proposed Safe Streets and Communities Act. More specifically, I want to address its impact on Nunavut and its people. Several other justice ministers have expressed concern about the fiscal and social effects of this bill. Nunavut is likely to be the most affected by the new legal regime created by Bill C-10, particularly as it relates to Nunavummiut offenders and the reduction of our judges' discretion in exercising their sentencing functions. As you are aware, the Canadian crime rate has generally been in decline. Sadly, Nunavut has been an exception to this trend. The territory has the highest violent crime rate of all Canadian jurisdictions, six times higher than the national average. Bill C-10's emphasis on incarceration through its mandatory minimum sentencing provisions will guarantee an influx of prisoners into our territorial jails, which are already overcrowded and unsafe, and will create an even larger backlog in our courthouse. At the present time, over 15 outstanding cases of murder and manslaughter are before the Nunavut Court of Justice. These are the most severe criminal justice matters handled by our judiciary. These trials take place in communities separated by hundreds or thousands of kilometres and require the deployment of tremendous human logistical resources, which is very much a challenge in the North. The mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the bill will add to the challenges we face in our already overburdened court system. Similar consequences will be felt in our correctional system. The Baffin Correctional Centre, or BCC, is a minimum security facility and currently the only adult male correctional facility in operation in Nunavut. BCC was built in 1984 for 48 inmates but now regularly holds 90 to 100 inmates. A new facility of 48 beds in Rankin Inlet is scheduled to open in the summer of 2012. This institutional bed space will be automatically filled to meet our overcrowding challenges and to repatriate some of the Nunavut offenders who we have had sent to the Northwest Territories and Ontario because we have not had the space for them in Nunavut. To compensate for the overcrowding in our correctional facility, an average of 55 offenders have been sent to southern correctional facilities at an annual cost of $4.7-million. It is very difficult to provide culturally appropriate programming or counselling for Inuit offenders outside of Nunavut. The proposed bill will result in more overcrowding in Nunavut and more Inuit offenders being sent to southern facilities. These additional inmates and court cases will result in greater operational costs for our Corrections and Court Services Divisions and add to the already immense capital cost of a new correctional facility in Iqaluit by hundreds of millions of dollars. Most Nunavut offenders caught up in the criminal justice system deal with the cyclical repercussions of family violence, poverty, substance and alcohol abuse, and often mental illness. Bill C-10 will divert the financial resources that we require to address the root causes of criminal behaviour and to fund rehabilitation programs to support a punishment model that will add further stress to our already overburdened corrections infrastructure and courts. A majority of the crime committed in Nunavut is fuelled by alcohol abuse, a sign that underlying conditions drive our high crime rates. A recent pilot program partnering our Department of Health and Social Services and the RCMP has demonstrated that most habitually intoxicated people are prepared to seek help for their addiction if they know where to go and what to do. In the first six months of the program, 147 addicted people were arrested at least twice. Seventy-eight of them agreed to get help. For those 78, 67 of them have not been back into custody. This is a small example of the cooperation and commitment of our institutions and of the benefits of our rehabilitative-focused justice strategy that is working in Nunavut. Nunavut, however, needs sustainable solutions to meet these challenging issues through appropriate funding levels for development and infrastructure. We also need our judiciary to have the flexibility to allow us to try these types of programs and to design programs that work because incarceration is not the long-term solution to our problems. We all agree that we should work together to make our country a safer and more just place for everyone. Recognizing the roots of criminal behaviour and addressing these concerns through treatment and programming is a more cost-effective strategy than long, inflexible sentencing. Many studies have found that harsher criminal justice sanctions actually increase the likelihood of repeat offenders and that higher incarceration rates do not equate to lower crime rates. Similarly, policy-makers south of our borders and in Australia have realized that jailing more people for longer periods of time is costly and ineffective. Tough mandatory minimums in Texas and California have resulted in prison overcrowding and a strain on the justice system that has done little to decrease crime rates. We must learn from the experience of these other jurisdictions. Bill C-10's emphasis on increased jail time and mandatory minimums will have a specific effect on Nunavut, home of the most Inuit in Canada and the creation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Some Bill C-10 provisions conflict with the values and principles of Nunavut's justice system, which is based on traditional Inuit concepts of justice and rehabilitation. Justice in Nunavut has always been intended to reflect the population and the culture of the territory, which is predominantly Inuit. Incarceration does not equate to the values of the people who have been living off the land for thousands of years. As well, mandatory minimums do not allow for traditional community and elder involvement in the justice system, as the outcome is predetermined by the minimum mandatory sentence, regardless of community opinion or involvement. The importance of Inuit traditional justice has been recognized by our Nunavut Court of Justice in its jurisprudence, as have Inuit societal values, practised long before the creation of our country. Reducing our judges' discretion by mandating minimum sentencing for many of the offenses committed in Nunavut will have an impact on the application of alternative sentencing and Inuit traditional, community-based, restorative justice measures. This impact will also be felt in the application of recognized sentencing principles developed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the R. v. Gladue case. The sentencing principles outlined in Gladue are a measured and appropriate response to the dramatic overrepresentation of Aboriginal Canadians within the Canadian justice system and to the disadvantages that historical abuse and poverty pose for many Aboriginal people in Canada. The Gladue principles do not mean that Aboriginal offenders will always receive less harsh sentences. They simply mean that the court must look at the realities of life of Aboriginal Canadians and take these issues into account when imposing a sentence. In Nunavut, the court has taken Gladue into account in a good number of cases in order to come to just and fair sentences. Inuit in Canada face historical and socio-economic challenges that Gladue and the Nunavut Court of Justice mandate should be taken into account when sentencing an Inuit offender. Mandatory minimum sentencing ignores the Gladue case law and ties the court's hands when dealing with Aboriginal offenders. The Government of Nunavut believes that taking away discretion from judges is not the right approach. Our Nunavut-based judges play a critical role in the operation of our criminal justice system in Nunavut. The mandatory minimum sentences proposed by Bill C-10 would remove the discretion from sentencing judges to effectively determine which sentence can best balance all fundamental objectives of sentencing. Prohibiting our judges from exercising their discretion to determine an appropriate sentence for an offender before them is contrary to the spirit and the letter of a large body of jurisprudence that recognizes the unique position of sentencing judges in assessing and determining the most appropriate sentence in individual cases. There are good reasons for conferring discretion on a judge charged with imposing a fit sentence. The judge has heard the particular circumstances and evidence of the offence and the offender and is best able to craft a sentence that will balance all of the goals of sentencing. The judge is also best equipped to assess what will address the needs and circumstances of the community where the crime occurred. This argument is especially strong in Nunavut, where our resident judges have become expert in dealing with the unique circumstances and the population of our territory. The "one size fits all" solution of mandatory minimum sentencing does not fit in a unique region of Canada such as ours. The Criminal Code contains a statutory acknowledgement of the principle of restraint, stating that the purpose of sentencing is to separate offenders from society only where necessary. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states that proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing and that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender. Proportionality reflects the delicate balance that must be achieved in fashioning a just sentence. Nunavut respectfully submits that Bill C-10 as it reads does not strike this balance. In addition to being the newest territory in Canada, Nunavut also has the youngest population in Canada and the most rapid population growth. The tougher youth crime measures in Bill C-10 will mean that more of our young people will end up incarcerated. This will have a serious impact on our communities and on our families. With what we are learning about the benefits of addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour through the treatment of underlying substance abuse, locking up more youth would be counterproductive. The decision to allow the publishing of young offenders' names causes us concern as this will cause a stigma and embarrassment for our young persons and their families in Nunavut in very small, interconnected communities. Additionally, Bill C-10 requires an assessment to determine the impact of publishing a young offender's name. We in Nunavut do not have the facilities or specialists needed to conduct this type of assessment. We will therefore be forced to fly young offenders south for the required testing, at a tremendous cost. Finally, I would like to speak of consultation. Bill C-10 will clearly have a great effect on each and every province and territory both socially and financially. The amendments to the Criminal Code in the bill are a major change in the sentencing regime in this country and signal a shift in the general philosophy behind our criminal justice system. As well, as previously outlined, mandatory minimum sentencing and tougher penalties will result in greater costs for the provinces and territories, as their jails and courts see an influx of new clients. A transformative bill of this importance should be the subject of extensive consultation with all stakeholders, particularly provinces and territories. Bill C-10 was introduced in September 2011 and was passed by the House of Commons in December. At no time was our government asked for its opinion or invited to address the House of Common's committee. While I thank this committee for the opportunity to speak, more consultation prior to the introduction and passage of Bill C-10 in the lower house should have occurred. Prior to introducing any substantive bill, our government consults with any and all interested parties. Bill C-10 was never given a chance to be molded and improved by provincial and territorial experience and comment. We strongly believe that, if given the chance, our government and our provincial and territorial colleagues could have offered support and counsel that would have lessened the cost of this bill and helped the federal government to better appreciate our concerns about mandatory minimums. All indications are that the Government of Canada intends to implement the measures of Bill C-10. I am therefore asking you to take into account that this decision and this bill will no doubt disproportionately affect Nunavut. I therefore ask that the Government of Canada work with the Government of Nunavut to ensure Nunavut is given the financial support needed to tackle the new judicial and correctional measures that Bill C-10 will bring about. In the meantime, I ask that the implementation of this bill be put off to allow adequate time for the Government of Nunavut, in conjunction with the Government of Canada, to develop the necessary infrastructure to accommodate this new burden on our justice and corrections system. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for allowing us to be here today.
Fisheries and Oceans Sweeping Nation-Wrecking TransformationIn October 2011, the Harper government sent a memo to employees at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) outlining steps being taken to "transform" the management of Canadian fisheries. At the same time, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Keith Ashfield began holding consultations on "modernizing" the Canadian fisheries. Then in December, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Harper said, "In the months to come, our government will undertake major transformations to position Canada for growth over the next generation." Handing over the fisheries to the monopolies is part of this "transformation."
Now, in the Parliament and in a series of articles in the media, the extent of the damage being inflicted by the Harper government is being revealed. Changes to Fisheries Act LeakedThe Vancouver Sun reports that former federal biologist Otto Langer was leaked a government document that outlines the government's aim to eliminate habitat protection provisions from the Fisheries Act. Langer stated "this is a serious situation and will put Canada back to where we were in the pre-1976 period where Canada had no laws to protect fish habitat and no way to monitor the great industrial expansion that occurred in Canada, with the consequential loss of major fish habitat all across Canada."
The current Act bans activity that results in the "harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat." The new wording includes numerous exemptions to give the minister "or a person prescribed by the regulations" the authority to allow an "adverse effect" on fish considered of value. Langer said the "subjective and ambiguous" new wording would make the law extremely difficult to enforce. "For instance, what is a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value?" he asked. In a statement following the leak, Minister Ashfield stated: "Federal fisheries policies designed to protect fish are outdated and unfocused in terms of balancing environmental and economic realities." Monopolies Want Changes to Speed Regulatory ApprovalsAccording to a briefing note prepared for Ashfield obtained by Postmedia News "Some of the largest and most complex natural resource and industrial development projects across the country are affected by Fisheries Act requirements, which are consistently identified as one of the top federal regulatory irritants by stakeholders across the country," The note said the legislation's habitat protection provisions are "one of the most frequent triggers" of federal assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). A CEAA review "can occur for a project of any size, and across many sectors of the economy (eg. Construction, urban development, agriculture, nature resource development)." According to Postmedia, among the representatives of the monopolies raising concerns about the Fisheries Act are: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Business Council of BC, the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Hydropower Association, EnCana Corp., Teck Resources Ltd., the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Council of Forest Industries, and the Saskatchewan Power Corp. Doug Routledge, vice-president of the Council of Forest Industries (COFI), one of the industry associations that has lobbied on the Fisheries Act stated, "There's no question in our mind that many pieces of legislation, including the fisheries legislation, could be made more efficient from an administrative point of view, and therefore lower our operating costs and improve our competitiveness without compromising the conservation goals and objectives of the legislation." Cuts to Fisheries MonitoringIn October 2011, writing in iPolitics, Michael Harris reported on the significance of cuts to funding at DFO as part of the Strategic and Operating Review and how this is affecting monitoring of the fisheries. "Last week news broke that the DFO, was planning to cut its scientific budget for fish stock monitoring. Sadly, that in itself is not news. "But what is noteworthy about DFO's new planned cuts is that they affect the scientific monitoring of fish stocks. According to DFO flaks, the department can satisfy Treasury Board's demand for cuts without threatening the stability of fish stocks -- an epic absurdity even for the trained-seal bureaucracy serving Stephen Harper. "As the owner of the resource on behalf of the Canadian people, Ottawa sets the yearly quotas that the fishing industry is permitted to harvest. A critical part of the process for setting that number at sustainable levels is research." He quotes marine biologist Jeff Hutchings of Dalhousie University stating: "Accurate estimation of fish stock abundance relies upon annual estimates of fish abundance as obtained from DFO's annually deployed multi-species research surveys." Harris explains the significance: "The key word here is 'multi-species.' Under DFO's new plan to save $17 million and cut 275 jobs, quotas for individual species will be established not for one, but for three to five years. The result is that the industry will be fishing valuable species more while Ottawa counts them less. It is even possible that DFO may not be conducting multi-species surveys at all in the near future. Addressing who benefits from such changes he writes: "The only beneficiary of this plan (Ottawa makes no bones about saying it), is the corporate fishing sector. They will now get longer term access to valuable fish stocks. The Old Boys club of Canadian fisheries management gave us the Great Northern Cod collapse. They have reconvened the corporate/bureaucratic alliance that resolves every doubt about sustainability in favour of exploitation." Harris quotes Hutchings again: "I think that DFO intends to download costs associated with fish monitoring to industry. This would not be prudent in my view... It is improbable that industry would take on the costs associated with multi-species surveys. Rather, they would undertake their own surveys on the single species that is of interest to them." Harris concludes, "Industry has always had its thumb on the scale when it comes to setting quotas, partially by Ottawa's practice of using commercial catch rates to 'tweak' DFO's own stock assessments, and partially by good old fashioned political blackmail. Quota means jobs both at sea and ashore, and quota cuts bring the politicians unhappy voters and higher social welfare costs. "But to formally pass responsibility to industry for assessing stock strength, when their historical role has been maximum exploitation of the resource for profit, would be to invite the next TAGS program. The $4-billion support program in the wake of the cod collapse didn't buy back fishing licenses, didn't change the reality of too many fishermen chasing too few fish, and didn't reduce an overall fishing capacity that is three times what is necessary even if the cod were to come back. It was all short-term income support and no long term solution." Fishermen Oppose Monopolization in Fishing Industry
In response, Minister Ashfield stated: "The assumptions in the question are ridiculous. We are seeking the advice and views of fishermen. That is what we should be doing as a responsible government and it is what I will do as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Our government is not advancing any particular position other than to reaffirm our commitment to the economic health of fishermen and our communities." On March 5, the Fish Food and Allied Workers of the Canadian Auto Workers issued a statement raising serious concerns over the direction the Harper government is taking. "Fishermen's organizations from across Atlantic Canada say DFO is opening the door to the elimination of Canada's independent fishermen and moving to de-regulate the Atlantic fishery," the statement said. "Representatives of thirty-three (33) owner-operator fleets from Quebec to Newfoundland say the Department has shown nothing but contempt for fishermen and their organizations by launching a top-down, centrally controlled and manipulative policy process without any notice. They released a joint policy statement today in response
to DFO's discussion document entitled, "The Future of Canada's
Commercial
Fisheries." In their statement, the fishermen's organizations say
"the Department's initiative is a barely veiled
attack on the
policies that protect self-employed, independent fishermen and a
justification
for hobbling even further Canada's dwindling fisheries science
capability." They
say the DFO is biased against small businesses in the fishery and in
favour of
large corporations. They fear the Department will allow fish processors
and
other investors to get their hands on valuable lobster, crab and shrimp
licences. Their statement goes on to say: "The inshore and mid-shore owner-operator fleets in Atlantic Canada land more than 75% of the value of Atlantic fisheries through their control of lobster and crab fishing and their majority share of the shrimp fishery. Under government policies in place since the early 1980s licences to these fisheries are restricted to individual fishermen who must own and operate their own vessels. Fish companies have been trying to gain access to these licences for years. "The fishermen's organizations say they are fearful the Department plans to introduce British Columbia's disastrous licence leasing schemes to the Atlantic fishery. The leasing policy in effect in BC allows non-fishermen to control licences and quota and lease them to working fishermen for up to 75% of the value of their landings." Government Permitting Monopolies to Undermine
|
It is up to the working
class, joined by the youth and
people from all
sectors of society, to become effective in opposing the nation-wrecking
of the
Harper government and those aligned with it at the provincial and
municipal
levels. The most serious feature is that even those sectors that still
believe that
the capitalist system can be made to work can see that they have no say
over
the decisions which affect their lives and that this is a very
worrisome
development.
During hearings of the Senate Legal and
Constitutional
Affairs Committee
prior to passage of the legislation two main issues were raised by the
opposition and witnesses. The first issue was the danger that the
regime of
mandatory minimum sentences being brought in with the legislation poses
for
the Canadian people, especially the youth and First Nations. Opposition
Senators and witnesses raised the irrationality of a regime
that
would send someone to prison for six months for the possession of six
marijuana
plants regardless of the context and social conditions giving rise to
the
situation. Many also raised the already disproportionate numbers of
First
Nations persons in Canada's prisons and how this legislation will only
make
matters
worse. The second
issue
was the increasing arbitrary powers being given to the executive and
the crisis
this will inevitably cause in relation to court challenges. Of
particular concern were the arbitrary powers given to the Minister of
Public
Safety, to
prevent offenders from being transferred back to Canada to serve their
sentences.
Langer said he was told the
change would be included in
upcoming federal
omnibus legislation following the March 29 budget.
Various provinces and
independent and small fishermen
are
raising alarm at government moves to get rid of fleet separation
policies that
prevent the same company from carrying out fishing and processing. On
March 6 in the Parliament NDP MP Fin Donnelly stated, "[T]he Minister
of
Fisheries and Oceans heard what provincial ministers think about his
plan to
change the fleet separation policy. It is pretty straightforward.
Quebec, Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island all oppose the proposed changes.
Atlantic
fishers and communities also oppose them. The fleet separation policy
is
essential to the survival of east coast fishers. Will the Conservatives
commit
to maintaining the fleet separation policy and protecting the coastal
fishery?"
Chief Theresa Spence and
the Attawapiskat First Nation
in Northern
Ontario continue to demand their rights against the intransigence and
racist
attacks of the Harper government which is trying to turn its fiduciary
and
social responsibilities to the First Nation into criminalizing and
blaming the
Chief and Council of Attawapiskat for "financial irregularities" that
have
caused the housing and other crisis facing the community. The Chief and
Council of Attawapiskat and the whole community of 2,000 people have
defied the Canadian state and have stood as one to demand their rights.
On
February 21, Chief Spence wrote a letter to the Queen asking for her
intervention as a matter of treaty right and to press their claims on
the
Crown.
In her letter to the Queen, the
Chief reminds Canada's
Head of State
of the historical wrong that the Canadian state has perpetrated against
the First
Nations with the residential school system and the continuing
colonial
legacy which includes imposing third-party management to undermine
the
legal authority of the Chief and Band Council to govern their own
affairs.