Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silver ghost]

Here's one for you guys...

How do you think the fisheries act and/or environmental resource acts could be improved for the best interests of the resource? I think they should have the jurisdiction of fish that are not part of a fishery, and should give officers the power to enforce first nations fisheries, as from what I understand this is actually a responsibility of Indian Affairs, unless the officers are designated "guardians"

What other problems do you guys think there are with the fisheries act/environmental protection act, especially with concerns to fisheries management and pollution?

i'll post a copy of my paper i'm using this info for after it has been graded, it's 4500 words so far but has some juicy/heated stuff in it so you guys can see why I'm asking this 

[StillAqua]

Aren't you supposed to do your own homework FH? 

As far as changes in legislation is concerned, it still has to respect our constitutional framework and not contradict established court decisions. You won't get much traction with heated or controversial ideas outside of those boundaries. One of the problems with letting the courts decide important matters instead of negotiating is that it sets boundaries on what you can do in the future.

[silver ghost]

Aren't you supposed to do your own homework FH? 

Hahaha, I should just ask if I can brIng in guest speakers

[Sandman]

One of the problems with letting the courts decide important matters instead of negotiating is that it sets boundaries on what you can do in the future.

This really is not a matter of "letting" the courts decide important matters, this is how our system works.  The Legislative Branch creates the laws, but it is the Judicial Branch's role to interpret and apply them, and once they do, it is what it is.  This ensures our law makers of the day do not create new laws that violate our Constitution.

[StillAqua]

This really is not a matter of "letting" the courts decide important matters, this is how our system works.  The Legislative Branch creates the laws, but it is the Judicial Branch's role to interpret and apply them, and once they do, it is what it is.  This ensures our law makers of the day do not create new laws that violate our Constitution.

I was referring to governments trying to negotiate and reach agreements with First Nations, like treaties or agreements dealing with natural resource allocation issues, before the courts make the decisions for both parties, often based on who makes the strongest historical case or best legal arguments at the time (or even who the sitting judges are). This is a big issue for First Nations on the coast where a number of bands have taken government to court in frustration over lack of treaty progress on a resource issue and some have lost while their neighbours have won, creating tremendous political divides within and among bands which is not healthy for their communities. If the government had negotiated in good faith in the first place before the courts were enlisted, the issues could have been reasonably resolved for all bands.

[silver ghost]

one thing i have learned is environmentalism is just a big game of global and local politics! finished with ~6000 words. off to bed now.

[slyrod]

hey FH,
what class is this for? I remember you saying you go to SFU.

[silver ghost]

hey FH,
what class is this for? I remember you saying you go to SFU.

Hey its for CRIM 319 Crimes against the environment with Ehor Boyanowsky... he's a former president of the steelhead society too which makes things more interesting