Poor precautions

The CP reports that the Libs and NDP are teaming up to make sure that the Cons' new Fisheries Act doesn't get rushed through Parliament. But even though nobody has taken the Cons' bait, it's worth noting just what the Cons honestly seemed to expect another party to bite on:

Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn says the government's proposed new Fisheries Act could be dead in the water.

Hearn...said Saturday that a recent Liberal amendment in the House of Commons could mean the demise of the government bill...

There has been strong opposition to Bill C-45, especially from environmental groups, some fishermen and the NDP, who say the legislation would erode protections of fish stocks and allow greater concentration of the resource in fewer hands.

Scott Simms, the fisheries critic for the Liberals, said he introduced the amendment after the government refused to send the bill to a Commons committee for review.

Simms said there has't been enough consultation, and a six-month delay would allow for more debate...

NDP fisheries critic Peter Stoffer, who supports the Liberal motion, said there are too many problems with the proposed legislation.

Needless to say, that type of story can only lead one to be curious about what's in the bill itself. And it doesn't take long to see just how warped the Cons' view of the environmental issues surrounding fish habitat, as they present their idea of "precautionary" measures:

6. The Minister and every person engaged in the administration of this Act or the regulations must...

(b) seek to apply a precautionary approach such that, if there is both high scientific uncertainty and a risk of serious harm, they will not use a lack of adequate scientific information as a reason for failing to take, or for postponing, cost-effective measures for the conservation or protection of fish or fish habitat that they consider proportional to the potential severity of the risk;

In sum, the Cons' apparent idea of taking "precautions" applies only when a decision-maker concludes:
- that the potential for a serious harm exists;
- that cost-effective measures exist to avoid the potentially severe risk;
- that those cost-effective measures are themselves proportional to the risk; and
- that "high scientific uncertainty" exists on the matter.

Then, and only then, do the Cons figure that it's worth applying a "precautionary" stance under which the decision-maker is directed not throw out a cost-effective measure based on a "lack of adequate scientific information". And that wording hints that even a mere conflict in scientific information (e.g. the existence of corporate-funded studies) may be enough to justify failing to take the precautionary action as long as there's no "lack" of information involved.

By way of comparison, consider what the more commonly-understood precautionary principle includes:

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action...

As applied to environmental policy, the precautionary principle stipulates that for practices such as the release of radiation or toxins, massive deforestation or overpopulation, the burden of proof lies with the advocates. An important element of the precautionary principle is that its most meaningful applications pertain to those that are potentially irreversible, for example where biodiversity may be reduced.

Note in particular that a genuinely precautionary stance involves putting the onus on a project's proponent to demonstrate its safety. Instead, the Cons have put the onus on other parties to demonstrate the existence of a cost-effective and proportional measure to alleviate any serious risk - and even then offer decision-makers several excuses to avoid implementing such a measure if it exists.

Not that it should be any particular surprise to see the Cons trying to warp environmental language for their own purposes, or to pretend that their legislation is more influenced by the environmental movement than it really is. But the Fisheries Act offers just one more example of the difference between the Cons' lip service to responsible resource and environmental management, and policies which would actually fit that description. And Canada's fisheries will be best off in the long term if the opposition parties continue to ensure that the Cons' idea of "precautionary" decision-making doesn't find its way into legislation.