How Could We Think Otherwise?

[pepper]

 

Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC) was asked to make a submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment regarding the creation of a National Conservation Plan for Canada.

 

CEO Jeff Surtees (above) appeared before the committee in Vancouver on Wednesday May 15, 2012.

 

For additional information and to view a copy of Jeff's speaking notes please visit the Newsroom section of the TUC website.

 

Although Jeff's presentation was directed to the topic of a National Conservation Plan for Canada, Jeff found it necessary to mention TUC's concerns regarding proposed changes to the fisheries act (Bill C-38).

 

Here are some of those comments:

 

Question 5 – What should be the implementation priorities of a National Conservation Plan?

 

17. In light of the budget bill, Bill C-38, currently before Parliament, this question proved very difficult for us. After a great deal of thought and discussion we concluded there are currently too many uncertainties to answer the question.

 

18. Mr. Chairman, you have told us this morning that we are to stick to the topic at hand, the development of a National Conservation Plan, that we are not to get into the legislative changes that are proposed. But whether you like it or not, these things are all connected.

 

19. In the natural environment, everything is connected to everything else. To have any lasting effect, to make a difference in the environment, all actions must be consistent. You always want to start at the top of a watershed and work down, because water and problems flow downhill.

 

20. So when we are asked for recommendations about implementation priorities to be included in a National Conservation Plan for Canada, we are forced to take into consideration the legislative changes that are being proposed. .

 

21. As I said at the start, Trout Unlimited Canada is an action oriented organization. We try to work cooperatively. We will, ultimately, learn to work within whatever legislative and regulatory framework our elected representatives put in place. Subject to our funding constraints we will always offer our expertise and our assistance to help.

 

22. Under the existing legislation if any activity causes harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, an environmental assessment would be triggered. Under the new legislation, our understanding is that will not necessarily be the case. A lot depends upon what is included in the regulations, which are not yet written. So we can’t answer the question.

 

23. We support improvements to regulatory efficiency so long as the conservation outcomes are not compromised. When considering the amendments to the legislation within Bill C-38, we acknowledge that the increased penalties and the new provisions related to invasive species are positive steps. But we view some of the changes that are being made as steps backwards. We are firmly of the view that destruction or alteration of any real fish habitat should always trigger an environmental assessment. Protection of fish habitat is the reason our organization exists. How could we think otherwise?

[Guest NamasteMushroom]

 

Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC) was asked to make a submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment regarding the creation of a National Conservation Plan for Canada.

 

CEO Jeff Surtees (above) appeared before the committee in Vancouver on Wednesday May 15, 2012.

 

For additional information and to view a copy of Jeff's speaking notes please visit the Newsroom section of the TUC website.

 

Although Jeff's presentation was directed to the topic of a National Conservation Plan for Canada, Jeff found it necessary to mention TUC's concerns regarding proposed changes to the fisheries act (Bill C-38).

 

Here are some of those comments:

 

Question 5 – What should be the implementation priorities of a National Conservation Plan?

 

17. In light of the budget bill, Bill C-38, currently before Parliament, this question proved very difficult for us. After a great deal of thought and discussion we concluded there are currently too many uncertainties to answer the question.

 

18. Mr. Chairman, you have told us this morning that we are to stick to the topic at hand, the development of a National Conservation Plan, that we are not to get into the legislative changes that are proposed. But whether you like it or not, these things are all connected.

 

19. In the natural environment, everything is connected to everything else. To have any lasting effect, to make a difference in the environment, all actions must be consistent. You always want to start at the top of a watershed and work down, because water and problems flow downhill.

 

20. So when we are asked for recommendations about implementation priorities to be included in a National Conservation Plan for Canada, we are forced to take into consideration the legislative changes that are being proposed. .

 

21. As I said at the start, Trout Unlimited Canada is an action oriented organization. We try to work cooperatively. We will, ultimately, learn to work within whatever legislative and regulatory framework our elected representatives put in place. Subject to our funding constraints we will always offer our expertise and our assistance to help.

 

22. Under the existing legislation if any activity causes harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, an environmental assessment would be triggered. Under the new legislation, our understanding is that will not necessarily be the case. A lot depends upon what is included in the regulations, which are not yet written. So we can’t answer the question.

 

23. We support improvements to regulatory efficiency so long as the conservation outcomes are not compromised. When considering the amendments to the legislation within Bill C-38, we acknowledge that the increased penalties and the new provisions related to invasive species are positive steps. But we view some of the changes that are being made as steps backwards. We are firmly of the view that destruction or alteration of any real fish habitat should always trigger an environmental assessment. Protection of fish habitat is the reason our organization exists. How could we think otherwise?

 

Seem like TU is taking a 'sitting on the fence' / ' see what happens approach'.

 

Weak.

[dryfly]

If TUC tried lobbying for whatever changes are deemed necessary they could loose their charitable status. So when you make you donation to TU (you do make donations to TUC, eh NamasteMushroom?) then you would no longer get a tax receipt.

 

The laws regarding lobbying by charitable groups were recently (and rightly) tightened.

 

The response was reasonable. Thanks to pepper for sharing this.

[Guest NamasteMushroom]

If TUC tried lobbying for whatever changes are deemed necessary they could loose their charitable status. So when you make you donation to TU (you do make donations to TUC, eh NamasteMushroom?) then you would no longer get a tax receipt.

 

The laws regarding lobbying by charitable groups were recently (and rightly) tightened.

 

The response was reasonable. Thanks to pepper for sharing this.

 

Lobbying has nothing to do with opposing or disagreeing with government legislation. Are you trying to tell me that if a charitable group disagrees with a bill or proposed bill, or points out the detrimental impact a bill may have that they will lose their charitable status?

 

Good one Clive; source it, and try not to use some scanned article from 1970, or use the word 'Lobbying' in place of 'Opinion' or 'Opposition'.

 

I am no longer a member of TU, but I was in the past and I volunteered at several of their functions and restoration projects. That said, I never paid my membership fees for tax purposes.

 

I also work full time for a not-for-profit organzation.

 

(Enter Clive Cheerleading Squad)

 

 

 

 

[Jeffsurtees]

Hey folks, thanks for the interest in what TUC is doing.

 

I have a couple of comments:

 

First, that picture of me is way too big.

 

Second, TUC is definately not sitting on the fence on the changes to the Fisheries Act, SARA, and the Environmental Assessment Act. We are opposed to the overall effect that we think these changes are going to have and we have told the federal government that. I've spoken directly to Minister Ashfield about the Fisheries Act changes. I've met with Minster Kent. We are collaborating with a number of other conservation organisations to try to work out the best way to minimise the damage. We are going to continue to try to influence the government on Bill C-38 to the extent there is any opportunity to do that.

 

We continue to hold the view that the best way to achieve change is to try to work co-operatively. We will not take a completely negative position on the bill because it does contain a couple of good things (increased penalties, better invasive species provisions). We won't engage in general govenment bashing because we don't think it accomplishes anything. We aren't going to put any effort into complaining about the implementation process because we don't think that is our role. We believe, at this point, the best place to focus our efforts is on trying to influence what goes into the the regulations that are going to be needed under each of the Acts.

 

Third, as a charity TUC is limited to spending 10% of our funds on advocacy. The rules about what counts as advocacy and how you calculate the 10% are unclear. We will always try to have a positive effect on policy but we want to concentrate our efforts on improving habitat.

 

Finally, I want everyone on this forum to know that any of you can pick up the phone and call me whenever you like. My number is 403 221-8363.

 

And we will be a better organisation, a stronger organisation with people like you involved. If you aren't a member, consider joining or rejoining and getting involved with your local chapter. This organisation was designed to be strong from the bottom up and I would like to see it get back to that.

 

Jeff

 

 

 

[dryfly]

Here Pretty well explained.

 

Can't speak for TUC specifically in this case, i.e. what they were thinking when this was presented. It might have been influenced by the laws governing charitable groups. But claiming this presentation was "weak" was unwarranted IMHO.

 

Damned if ya do and damned if ya don't.

[reevesr1]

(Enter Clive Cheerleading Squad)

 

Here you go Clive, you're very own cheerleading squad. Takes about 50 seconds to get going. My daughter is the girl in the lower left of the screen when they get all lined up. She is the MVP of her team, and told me to tell you this is dedicated to you.

 

 

Sorry for the hijack, but I couldn't resist. I tried though!

 

 

[dryfly]

Thanks rickr. Gosh, my own squad. Nice.

 

Jeff, thanks for the presentation and response.

 

Regards,

 

Clive