The big picture of Harper’s assault on the Constitution

I have been so absorbed trying to find any way to derail the Canada-China Investment Treaty (tabled in the House September 26 and scheduled for ratification November 2) that with C-45 the second budget omnibus bill tabled October 18, I have given it relatively less attention. It occurs to me that the timing of C-45 was to distract everyone from the investment treaty, so I have stayed focused. I will take up the fight on C-45 and bring forward amendments only if the window to stop the investment treaty closes. 

 Every question I have asked in QP has been about the investment treaty with China.  Even going back to September 19, my questions was to ask when Parliament would see the text.  Given the urgency of stopping the investment treaty, I have written relatively less on the plans to destroy the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA).   But that does not lessen what a disaster is in store for Canada with these changes. Although I have been participating in all the Second Reading debates, with time allocation, I may not have the chance to make a speech before time runs out.  Despite the clever website research of the media and the NDP, the fact that permits under the NWPA used to trigger federal environmental assessment, does not, in itself, prove the NWPA has been an environmental measure.  There were other triggers that do not go to environmental laws  -- triggers such as federal land being involved or federal money (both now disappeared with most of CEAA).

It is far more fundamental than erasing the word “environment” from the NWPA website. Like the Fisheries Act in C-38, dismantling the Navigable Waters Protection Act takes a hatchet to federal constitutional powers that have been foundational in environmental law for generations.  And in both cases, the Conservative talking points are the same.  “This act was never about the environment, it was about fisheries – not fish; it was about navigation -- not waters.” 

If I have heard it once, in C-38 and C-45 debates, I have heard it a hundred times -- “This act was never designed to (fill in the blank- protect fishery habitat, protect free flowing rivers.)”

And that’s why I wanted to pull out my old Constitutional Law text book.  What was in the mind of the drafters of the British North America Act in 1867 is completely irrelevant to 21st Century constitutional heads of power.  The powers set in 1867 do not change, but their application moves with the times.  Otherwise we should repeal all criminal laws that deal with internet crime.  There is no way Sit John A. Macdonald was worried about cyber crime, so out it goes!

Here’s what my old law school text book, says, by Canada’s still leading Constitutional law expert, Prof Peter Hogg:

“It is well established that the general language used to describe the classes of subjects (or heads of  power) is not frozen in the sense in which it would have been understood in 1867.  For example, the phrase “undertakings connecting the provinces with any other or others of the provinces,” (s. 92(10(a)) includes an interprovincial telephone system, although the telephone was unknown in 1867; the phrase “criminal law” (s. 91(27)) “is not confined to what was criminal by the law of England or any other province in 1867; the phrase “banking” (s. 91(15)) is not confined to “the extent and kind of business actually carried out by banks in Canada in 1867.” On the contrary, the words of the Act are to be given a “progressive interpretation”, so that they are continuously adapted to new conditions and new ideas.”

Often cited is this quote from Lord Sankey in 1930, “The B.N.A. Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.” Again, the hatchet image comes to mind. Harper is cutting into the very essence of the Constitutional law powers over the environment.

So it is clear that whatever was intended in 1867, the Fisheries Act has been the primary tool for the protection of healthy eco-systems that support fish populations across Canada for decades and the NWPA has been the lynchpin in any effort to protect free flowing water ways, for navigation—including recreational navigation and access by canoeists and kayakers to the nations waterways, for fish for health of the ecosystem. 

And here’s another Constitutional reality -- cutting into the federal authority does not give the provinces the authority to take over.  It is the principle of “exclusiveness.” Again, here’s Peter Hogg: “... if either the Parliament or a Legislature fails to legislate to the full limit of its power this does not have the effect of augmenting the powers of any other level of government.”

So, with C-45 corrupting the NWPA to such a degree that something like 98% of our waters within Canada (ie excluding oceans) will no longer be covered under any federal navigation laws, who can ensure the right to move along our waterways?  The answer in Constitutional terms is no level of government. No one. 

The Conservative talking points say “Don’t worry. Rights to navigation are still covered by Common Law.” In the technical briefing, officials actually said that rights to navigation go back to ancient Rome. (So do Emperors and bread and circuses, but I digress).

So how does common law protection help a home owner on a brook who wants to be able to paddle to the river down from their home when someone proposes (or just builds) a dam or an obstruction?  Under the pre-C-45 NWPA, the person building the obstruction is breaking the law.  A permit was needed by the Minister of Transport to block that stream.  The RCMP can be called. Canadians have a right to navigate waterways. Post C-45, unless the waterway is one of the 62 listed rivers or 97 listed lakes, the homeowner cannot call the RCMP.  It is not clear the person is breaking the law until the homeowner goes to court to prove it.   Common law cases are much harder to pursue than statutory or administrative reviews.  Cold comfort indeed.

Ironically, the changes to the Fisheries Act in C-45, making it an offence to block two-thirds of the width of any river or stream with fishing gear or block the passage of fish with fishing gear was needed now that the impact of the NWPA is being wiped out on most waterways.

This is not streamlining.  This is dismantling Constitutional heads of power entrusted solely to the federal level of government.  Does Stephen Harper really think Canadians care nothing for our history? For our constitution?

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China FIPA

This from http://richardhughes.ca/politics/urgent-update-to-fipa-environmental-assessment/

ACCORDING TO A GOVERNMENT OF CANADA WEBSITE …
THERE IS STILL TIME FOR CANADIANS TO OFFICIALLY COMMENT
ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THIS FIPA AGREEMENT.

UNTIL SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11
we can ALL make comments regarding:
” The FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CANADA – CHINA
FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROMOTION AND PROTECTION AGREEMENT (FIPA)”
The email address for comments is:  EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

HERE’S THE LINK:
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/finalEA-pub-EEfinale.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

HERE IS A BRIEF OUTLINE OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE
A VERY CORRUPT AND UNDEMOCRATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS:

1.  THERE IS A THREE STEP ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS ON A FIPA AGREEMENT.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND ARE UNDERTAKEN THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS”.
(Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA) P.1   …  document available at above link.)

2.  THE THREE PARTS OF THE FIPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ARE:
An Initial E. A.
A Draft E. A.
A Final E. A.


3.  SO, FOR THE ‘INITIAL EA:

The government ‘assumed’ that the FIPA agreement would not increase investment in Canada.
They also ‘assumed’ that if FIPA didn’t increase investment – then it shouldn’t have an environmental impact.
Those are two quite remarkable ASSUMPTIONS.
“… significant changes to investment flows into Canada are not expected as a result of these negotiations.
As such, the economic effects and likely significant environmental impacts
are expected to be minimal.”
(Initial Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Canada-China FIPA; P. 2)

4.  AND IT GETS BETTER:
They put this Initial Environmental Assessment up for public comment,
because ‘Public consultations are an integral part of … the process.’
What did the citizens of Canada think of Mr. Harper’s assumption
of minimal environmental impacts.

WELL, the Harper-Government government did such a good job of the process that
NO PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.
“The Government of Canada opened the Initial EA for public comments from February 20 to March 21, 2008.
No public comments were received.”  (Final EA of the Canada-China FIPA; P.1)

5.  So, like …. why don’t we just CANCEL the EA? 
Mr. Harper then decided that since there would be little environmental impact,
and clearly no public interest,
to just cancel the Draft EA,
where a real Environmental Assessment could take place.  Maybe.
“In the light of the Initial EA’s conclusions regarding the unlikelihood of significant environmental impacts in Canada,
PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEEMED TO BE UNNECESSARY.”
(Ibid; P.1)

4.  AND THEN, at the very end of the process, a ‘Final EA’ was written to look at how the environmental assessment process impacted the actual negotiation of the treaty.
AND IT IS THIS FINAL EA THAT WE CAN NOW COMMENT ON
UNTIL NOVEMBER 11 …
AND BASICALLY, THE IMPACT WAS THAT OUR NEGOTIATORS WERE TOLD TO NEGOTIATE BASED ON NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.  WHICH MEANT THAT THEY COULD GIVE AWAY THE FARM.

SO NOW YOU CAN COMMENT ON ALL OF THIS BY EMAIL:
EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca
OR AT THE FOLLOWING LINK:

 http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/finalEA-pub-EEfinale.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

And tell Mr. Harper what you think of his Environmental Assessment Process

 

Democracy requires dialog, please join us at http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/