The Editor,
We live in a country where no government can act above the law. A municipal government can only pass bylaws that it has the power to enforce.
On the issue of banning the sale of shark fins in Richmond, council was advised that any action taken by the city must meet two tests: 1. That it is within the city's authority; and 2. That there is a valid municipal purpose, i.e. any action taken must have as its purpose a direct benefit to the residents of the municipality.
On the first point, under the Community Charter the city has no authority to ban the sale of shark fins.
Conversely, Vancouver is given the authority under the Vancouver Charter to "prohibit" a business. So, in theory, Vancouver can go ahead to ban the sale of shark fins if its council chooses to do so.
But there is the second test. If the primary purpose of imposing a shark fin ban is motivated by the consideration of inhumane treatment of sharks thousands of miles away, it is considered that the ban has exceeded the city's use of powers for the promotion of good government, health or welfare of the city or its residents.
Some years ago the City of Vancouver resolved not to do business with Shell Oil Company until it completely withdrew from South Africa because Vancouver City Council disagreed with that country's apartheid regime. The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was extraneous to the municipality's power. This ruling was further applied in other cases in Canada.
In Toronto's case, the court concluded that the city's bylaw to ban shark fins merely reflected the council's disapproval of the practice of shark finning conducted elsewhere than within Toronto's limits and lacked a legitimate municipal purpose for the economic, social and environmental well-being of its residents.
When it is within the city's jurisdiction and supported by an obvious municipal purpose, Richmond has demonstrated courage and leadership as in the cases of the banning of cosmetic pesticides and genetically modified crops. However, council would be acting irresponsibly if it marched ahead to prohibit the possession, sale and consumption of shark fins when it is clear that such an action could be easily challenged and may cost a fortune in legal fees.
Coun. Chak Au City of Richmond
