|
Monday, July 28, 1997 Trolling for a fair deal
Once again, a humble little fish has found itself in political hot water. Fresh from a threat from the Spanish fishing fleet, the turbot was the reason that Nunavut challenged the federal government in court.
In a decision that has important repercussions, the Federal Court of Canada has ruled in favor of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, giving Inuit a say in establishing fishing quotas.
The significance of this decision is that, in the eyes of the court, land claims groups have a legitimate role to play in managing the country's natural resources.
The federal government had chosen to ignore the advice of the board against raising the quotas for the turbot harvest, an inexplicable move in itself considering the shaky state of commericial fish stocks in the North Atlantic. Nunavut's observers, it would appear, knew better, even if Ottawa didn't.
It is reassuring to know that the courts are prepared to uphold the intent of the law when the federal government acts inappropriately. In the words of Justice Douglas Campbell, "Consultation and consideration must mean more than simply hearing. It must include listening well."
Those are encouraging words for aboriginal groups across the country. There is growing frustration with a government that shelves a five-year and $58-million royal commission without even the decency of a meaningful analysis.
First Nations leaders have expressed concern that they are not being heard in Ottawa. No progress will be made in settling outstanding land claims in this climate of mistrust.
With the Nunavut decision the courts have shown the federal government which way to go. At the same time they have re-established at least a hint of faith in the judicial system.
It is a shame that the matter had to go to court, but it is re-assuring that the court was there to hear the case.
Few subjects generate as much controversy within the justice system as the defence of mistaken consent for a sexual assault charge, and a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada won't do much to clarify the matter.
A Sachs Harbor man convicted of sexually assaulting his second cousin may get a new trial thanks to the ruling. But the bench was split, with five male judges saying he should be able to use the fact that he thought she gave consent and two women judges arguing he shouldn't.
Just what constitutes consent is anything but a black-and-white issue. Our judges, lawyers and politicians will have to keep plugging away at more useful definitions before we can guarantee fair trials for both victims and accused.
We don't think Canada Post is irrelevant, we just don't think it's an essential service in the North.
With a proliferation of courier services and the advent of e-mail, Canada Post is not always a preferred option, it's now just one of many for business or personal correspondence.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business seems to think differently. It wants the government to declare Canada Post an essential service so its workers cannot go on strike and disrupt what it calls "a strong monopoly which plays a critical role in the nation's business."
While we wouldn't wish a labor dispute or strike on anyone, asking the government to declare and agency something it's not is not the way to go.
|