|
Déposant : Laurence Brown
Communauté : Lumby
Déposé le : Août 23, 2010
Résumé :
Plusieurs éléments du mandat de la Commission ne sont pas clairs. À titre de précision, la Commission doit établir la portée exacte de ses objectifs, confirmer le rôle des prédateurs et des autres espèces ainsi que veiller à ce que les membres des Premières nations n’aient pas à assumer une responsabilité démesurée en ce qui touche la conservation des populations de saumon rouge.
|
Représentations :
Summary: Proportionality of Conservational Responsibilty
Subject: "Terms of Reference": Subordination: syntactic clarification.
Subject: terms of Terms of Reference:
"(A)", "stock"; "broad"; "cooperation"; "stakeholders": specification.
Whether public perception of Federal impartiality relevant to subject matter?
"(B)", "consider": with regard to syntactic subordination of "Terms of Reference".
Whether object of "(B)" may be exempted from:
"(C)", "investigate":
"(I)", "impact"; "conditions"; "predators":
quantification; subordination; specification; proportion. ...?
"traditional spawning grounds" ...
"(D)", "recommendations", "sustainability",
"policies"; "practices"; "procedures", "management", "fishery ..."
Whether: <: &o, Objection @ NSA.wagonburners.org :>
With regard to the matters signified above, and specifically in regard to "(D)",
I submit the following 'recommendations':
1) That the commission establish the exact jurisdiction and jurisprudence
of its objectives.
2) That the commission recognize the a posteriori priority of
a) certain native "predators" {i.e.: bear; eagle; heron} as "stakeholders";
b) certain native 'other factors' {i.e.: beaver; beaver dams; fisher},
and ensure that they do not bear any burden of 'responsibility' for "the
aim of conservation of the sockeye salmon stock" through "the policies, practices and procedures of the Department in relation to the management of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery ..."
3) That the commission ensure First Nations people do not bear a disproportionate burden of 'responsibility' for "conservation of the sockeye salmon stock" through "the policies, practices and procedures of the Department in relation to the management of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery ..."
Although I consider the reasons for my recommendations to be manifest and self
evident, I submit the following explanations for them, in order:
In regard to
1) The Terms of Reference can be construed as delimiting the jurisdiction of
the Commission within a context of commercial resource conservation. If that is
the case, then that case should be unequivocal. Other interpretations are manifest in the submissions of certain participants and the public. [Here, I note that the medium of publicity chosen by the Commission is international in scope, and the
potential for misunderstanding assumes global proportion.]
2) The possible "recommendations" of "(D)" could have significant further impact
on certain native non-human "predators" and "other factors" in addition to the known
quantitative impact of commercial "sockeye salmon stock" exploitaton. [Here again,
the global medium of publicity commands diligence. If the Commission has accorded
standing to participants on the basis of a non-commercial interest in FOOD, then
the interests I have identified (and others besides) should be accorded advocacy.
In that regard, any member of the Commission Staff is qualified to provide competent
representation.]
3) I deduce that the non-commmercial interests of First Nation participants bear
most significantly upon the possible recommendations of "(D)". There is a suggestion that, whether the notion of Canada wishes or not, there are certain moral and legal considerations which may not be disregarded or negated by economic expedience. Here, global publicity must face the scrutiny of "customary and conventional international law" to which the notion of Canada is signatory. In this matter, I adduce that the Commission may be informed by scientific data respecting the biology of human beings influenced by millenia of dietary acculturation. Restrictive or prohibitive policies must ensure annual provision of the specific cultural dietary requirements of ALL dependent First Nations peoples PLUS a scientifically rigorous and statistically sound regenerational 'escapement' of "sockeye salmon stock" regardless of any commercial economic consideration, and that policy must be unequivocally stated.
|
