Déposant : Laurence Brown
Communauté : Lumby
Déposé le : Septembre 7, 2010
Le fait qu’aucun instrument constitutionnel pour interdire la pisciculture ne semble exister est troublant. La présence de saumons génétiquement modifiés devrait être formellement interdite dans les eaux canadiennes.
With regard to the Written reasons for judgement of the
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
citation: Morton v. Marine Harvest Inc., 3009 BCCA 481
(That is, I assume, a precedent to the Cohen Commission inquiry.) At
Paragraph 4, I
was astounded by the propositions of ss.2(1) of the Farm Practices
Protection (Right to Farm) Act:
"2(1)If each of the requirements of subsection (2) is fulfilled in relation to a
farm operation conducted as part of a farm business,
(a) the farmer is not liable in nuisance to any person for any
odour, noise, dust, or other disturbance resulting from the farm
(b) the farmer must not be prevented by injunction or other order
of a court from conducting that farm operation.
Subsection (2) states ... "
With respect for Madam Justice Newbury, that appears to be the case.
1. What is the Constitutional Authority of these 'Subsection (2) States'?
[I am a resident of a Provincial 'ALR'. Besette Creek, which is a tributary to the
Shuswap-Thompson-Fraser River system crosses my 'property' and, I understand, will
soon be ceded back to Canada. ... ]
I am deeply disturbed that my former estate in the nation of Canada appears to
be lacking the Constitutional instruments required to prevent this situation from happening
in the first place.
I would like to see an absolute prohibition of genetically engineered salmon in
Canadian waters. Please help prevent an ecological catastrophe.
Since, Mr. Swardfager has claimed lack of information on various matters covered by
the new aquaculture regulations, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be 'satisfied'
146 Albers Rd.
Lumby B.C. ?