Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Chair, the third part to the question is that obviously we know that some of these members did flip-flop on that particular piece of legislation.

The piece of legislation is deeply concerning to your members, I'm sure. Are you concerned that they may flip-flop on this piece of legislation as well? Obviously, they've indicated support.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Richards.

Let's have some order here. Everybody has been accorded their time to make their interventions, whether in the form of commentary or questions, so please respect members' time.

Are any of the witnesses wanting to answer the question?

Mr. Rodgers, go ahead.

[Tony Rodgers]

With respect to this legislation, the bill was taken to our board of directors, and it was discussed quite thoroughly. Everybody understood it and what it meant. There is some symbolism there; there's no question about that. But by the same token, it's something we can also wrap ourselves around and take back to our provincial government to get them moving on a day we've asked for in the past and for which they haven't yet come through. It would help us in that respect.

With respect to the vote on the long-gun registry, I had a very busy phone. That's as much as I'll say right now with respect to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodgers.

Are there any other witnesses who wish to answer?

Go ahead, Mr. Farrant.

[Greg Farrant]

With respect to this particular bill, our board of directors has endorsed this. I have one of the larger boards of directors--some say too large--and there are actually 65 members on our board from across Ontario. It is also something that our membership has been kept apprised of since the bill was introduced by Mr. Norlock. We have received nothing but positive feedback.

I think our membership sees this as not only symbolic, which it is, but also as the precept for moving forward for some other things, such as perhaps looking at the creation of a national fish and wildlife commission, as you've seen in some of the provinces. I've spoken to the OFAH. I'm in a unique position here: OFAH is located in Mr. Del Mastro's riding, and I live in Mr. Norlock's riding, so I have two members here who listen to me sometimes and who sometimes don't want to listen to me when I get too yappy, I guess.

I have spoken with both Mr. Norlock and Mr. Del Mastro about a national fish and wildlife heritage commission that would provide advice to the government--whichever government that may be--on fish and wildlife issues from a national perspective. This is perhaps a prelude to moving in that direction, so I think it's important not only for the principle but also for what it may offer us down the road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Farrant.

Go ahead, please, briefly, Mr. Bailey.

[Dr. Robert Bailey]

On the present act before you, we did, on behalf of the Outdoors Network, have twenty-eight groups sign on to that letter. Similar to what Mr. Farrant said, in many cases they went to their board and to their executive to get that endorsement.

We're very enthusiastic about it. We think it will do good things. We don't believe anybody is going to flip-flop on it. I have a very good feeling from the room on that.

But that is a very distinct and separate issue from the past activity with the long-gun registry. We worked very hard. As twenty-eight well coordinated groups, perhaps we did not work quite hard enough. It's very important to us. I talked to you about our lifestyle. We believe the long-gun registry is a barrier to our lifestyle. Sometimes we feel as though our hunting and fishing heritage lifestyle is somewhat under attack in this country, because certainly it is from time to time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey.

We're going to allow Mr. Bagnell the floor now because we're short on time.

Mr. Bagnell, go ahead.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all I want to thank Mr. Norlock, Mr. Farrant and everyone on the committee and the panel for understanding the point about aboriginal people. Obviously, it was fundamental to their history, and it's fundamental in their lives now. It's a fundamental right and, really, it has to be in the bill somehow. I certainly appreciate everyone's understanding.

It's very important, of course, in my riding. We have all sorts of fishing derbies. I remember the five types of salmon and the fish traps from time immemorial. Even the Klondike gold rush is named after.... Tron-duick is a place where they would hammer the fish in the Klondike River.

As for the third Saturday, we had a snowstorm this year by the third Saturday in September--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

We have snow every September, so I'd prefer the third as opposed to the fourth Saturday.

Ducks Unlimited still thinks a “fisher” is a furry animal. The point about Ducks--and I'm glad they're here today--and all the groups that are here today is that it emphasizes the important point you made about conservation and what you do through conservation. Some of these species probably would be extinct if it weren't for the work you do.

I just want to mention very briefly the Ducks Unlimited third suggested amendment, which I'll talk about later, and to suggest, in the fourth paragraph of the preamble, changing “contribution appréciable” to “contribution remarquable”.

Mr. Farrant, I wonder if you could talk more about the re-establishment of the survey on the importance of nature to Canadians.

[Greg Farrant]

Yes. I wish I had something in front of me that I could refer to. I don't.

But you're quite right, and I know this is something you have raised in the past, and we appreciate it. Because whether it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, or non-governmental organizations that do surveys and things, like Wildlife Habitat Canada and others, it's important to have this information and to have up-to-date information. The survey on the importance of nature to Canadians is something that used to give us a bellwether on where we were in terms of our wildlife resources and our natural resources in this country.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for instance, does surveys every five years, which they publish, and that gives us a fairly good snapshot of where fishing is in this country in terms of how many are participating and what they're participating in, etc., which is a useful thing for governments in terms of making policy. It's useful for non-governmental organizations and charitable conservation groups like us and the other groups that are sitting here today to understand where we're at.

It gives us that accurate snapshot in time, as I said, and it allows us to compare how things have happened over the last five years, which is why the surveys that you speak of are important. Because it's not just anglers, hunters, and trappers that it's important to: it's important to all Canadians to understand just where our natural resources are going.

There is a general feeling among conservation organizations in this country that governments--and I say governments in general, including provincial and federal governments, and even those at the local level to a certain extent, right down to conservation authorities--are not placing a great enough emphasis on our natural resources, not only in terms of policy, but in terms of funding dollars for the future.

Things like that survey you refer to are important for us to then go forward and say, “This is what Canadians think and this is why you need to be focusing on this”.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have one last question.

I visit aboriginal fish camps in my riding. From time immemorial, they've had salmon hanging there for subsistence, but now the salmon run has diminished dramatically. I've lobbied Hillary Clinton to reduce the bycatch from the huge pollock industry, but I've also lobbied for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada to put more research into what happens to our salmon in the Pacific Ocean. Would any of you agree with me that those are important priorities?

[Greg Farrant]

I can't really speak to that one. We're an Ontario-based organization. Certainly we do have members here from the east coast and the west coast, through the B.C. Wildlife Federation, as part of the coalition. There are salmon federations on both coasts that receive significant funding from the federal government, to the tune of about $30 million to $35 million a year, if I remember correctly.

In Ontario we have been working with organizations, as has my colleague here, on the restoration of Atlantic salmon in the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Ontario. The two millionth salmon has just gone into Lake Ontario this year.

In terms of internationally, we work with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission--and as you know, there is a Canadian as well as an American section to that--the International Joint Commission, and others on binational issues affecting the Great Lakes in particular.

As to the coasts, I'd have to defer to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Bailey, go ahead.

[Dr. Robert Bailey]

Backing up to the other question, when you have those socio-economic surveys of the benefits of these natural resources to Canadians, such as the survey that Environment Canada used to do and the recreational fisheries survey that's done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans every five years, those become important to decision-makers such as yourselves when you have policy decisions and development decisions.

They become important when you have to decide whether you're going to do some specific infrastructure development or human activity or allocate land in a certain way or for a certain use and you want to know what the trade-off is, because there are always trade-offs. When you don't have the information in front of you, then you don't know what the value of that trade-off is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes to allow our witnesses to leave so that we can then come out of suspension and go into clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. This meeting is suspended for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The committee is coming out of suspension for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-465.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed until we have first considered the other clauses.

(On clause 2--National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The first clause in front of us for consideration is clause 2.

I understand that Madame Lavallée has an amendment to move. Go ahead, Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

In accordance with the wishes of the witnesses who have testified and of Mr. Norlock, I move that clause 2 be amended to reads as follows: “Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the third Saturday in September shall be known as”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Lavallée.

I will read the motion in English.

Madame Lavallée has proposed an amendment to clause 2 that would replace line 2 on page 2 with the following:

year, the third Saturday in September shall be known

Is there any debate on this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to)

We'll now go to the consideration of the preamble.

I understand that there are two proposed amendments to the preamble. Could I have a mover for the first amendment?

Mr. Bagnell, you're moving your amendment....? Which one are you moving?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I move:

That Bill C-465, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 1 the following:

Whereas the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have practised and been sustained by traditional hunting, trapping and fishing activities for food and for ceremonial and commercial purposes since time immemorial;

I understand that we may have a technical detail here, which we'll deal with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The chair is going to rule the amendment out of order. I will give you my reasons why. If the committee wishes to challenge my ruling, it can do so and overrule me, but out of the defence of the rules of the House, I just want to remind members that any amendment to a preamble is not allowed to any bill, unless, of course, the amendment to the preamble comes as a result of an amendment to the body of the bill, which is not the case here.

So I'm going to rule the amendment out of order, but I understand, Mr. Bagnell, that you wish to challenge the chair.