Mr. Speaker, during my speech on Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day, I will explore the ethical side of the practices that have shaped our identity and that are the focus of the bill before us.
When I talk about practices that have shaped our identity, I am talking about hunting, trapping and fishing, which are a significant part of our identity as Canadians. These activities helped ensure the survival of the first settlers and colonizers who, out of necessity, had to adapt to a sometimes hostile climate and to unexplored territory. These activities are a significant part of our identity as a nation, and it is important to acknowledge that here today.
When I heard about the topic at hand, I had some reservations at first. Given this government's fairly pronounced authoritarian streak, I assumed that the Conservatives would attempt to control the elements and the wildlife. However, I was quite surprised to see that there is an unstated recognition of the impact that human activity has on preserving our resources and the ecosystem. That indicates that the Conservatives are making some progress, and I must give them credit for their change in mentality, their evolving concerns and their shift in position.
I was apprehensive because what I have learned from others and what I was told growing up in my community was that humans are meant to have little impact on and control over animals, the fauna and the elements.
Upon reading the content of this bill, I could see that it was designed to change human behaviour. Humans really only have control over their own destiny. It is always possible to change the way of thinking of Canadian society as a whole. This is already happening.
I think that all groups that represent hunters and groups that were consulted in the drafting of this bill agreed that it was necessary to protect the resource and to develop ethical and ecologically sensitive practices with respect to animals. That is something positive and that is what I want to talk about today.
The evolution of how Canadians interact with nature covers a wide range of activities that can be categorized by the terms “hunting, trapping and fishing.” These terms cover elements of recreation, culture and tradition, and the economy, as well as scientific and environmental research.
I just wanted to mention that in passing for your information. I often venture into obiter dictum territory, but I still want to point these things out.
I want to reiterate that the study and the bill before us can in no way create guidelines for, limit or govern the traditional activities carried out by the aboriginal peoples of Canada. This very specific bill could not in any way limit or even interfere with the traditional activities—including hunting, trapping and fishing—practised in their communities, because those activities are enshrined in the Constitution and are protected. Therefore, the bottom line is that this could not have any effect on those activities. Since the bill states and recognizes the primacy of these activities, I wanted to bring it up today. That is another step in the right direction.
I want to stress that the measures set out in the bill are non-binding with respect to the traditional practices of aboriginal peoples. These traditional activities are virtually immutable because it is almost impossible to regulate them or create guidelines either through this bill or any others.
Following the stream of thought prevailing in lands occupied by aboriginal communities in this country, hunters, anglers and trappers acknowledge the importance of the ethical treatment of animals and environmentally sustainable activities, all from the standpoint of perpetuating the identity-building practices that have forged Canada's social, economic and cultural history. I have already substantiated those words over the past few minutes.
For example, in Innu communities—I will rely on my own personal experience—from a very young age, when young people are called upon to go out into the forest and follow the group and clan, we make sure they have the information and ancestral knowledge they need to adopt behaviour that, of necessity, is ethical towards animals.
From a very young age, I already knew that we do not shoot wolves, because, in any case, they cannot be eaten. Although you sometimes do see wolf pelts for sale, my community is rather reluctant about that and does not approve.
There are some practices that are said to be “emulative”, that is, when someone from Uashat or Maliotenam displays questionable or unethical behaviour regarding hunting or the use of pelts, bones or antlers, elders will make sure that person understands that his behaviour is inappropriate and he will be ostracized by the community. This kind of informal regulation has been used by members of the community for thousands of years. It is about maintaining the reputation and the pure, unwavering character of these actions.
It would be unreasonable of me to expect all Canadians to know this information, especially since I come from a predominantly oral culture and, as one might expect, this information is passed down from one generation to the next.
The bill before us reiterates the same imperative, but that imperative will be shared by all Canadians. Some benefit can be drawn from these teachings that are almost innate or automatic in my home community.
It is beneficial to reiterate the ideals and imperatives regarding the ethical treatment of animals in sport hunting. For the purposes of this study, it is important to point out that the “emulatory” principles that prevail in aboriginal clans most often act as informal ways of regulating traditional practices, particularly through the attachment to animal spirits as a way of self-identifying, which we also try to share with the entire Canadian population for the common good. It would be good if everyone had the same foundation and knew that there is no use shooting a wolf because it is hard to eat the meat.
With the gradual loss and disappearance of the traditional teachings among the population in general, given the millions of Canadians, it might be hard to ensure that this information is passed on to every hunter and every fisher. That is why we need regulation and the enactment of a legislative tool that would reiterate these imperatives, as is being proposed today, and the establishment of national and international standards of practice to ensure that animals are not subjected to such unethical treatment.
The groups that were consulted and spoke to this issue agreed on the need for ethical and respectful behaviour toward animals because we all know that this resource will have to be available if the next generation wants to follow in our footsteps. Humans can change their own behaviour and their own destiny. We have to wonder when we see a moose head on the hood of a 4x4, something we very rarely see. In any case, I have never seen that in my community. Such a gesture is disrespectful of the animal, and that is why we so rarely see that on an Indian reserve.
Lastly, I would note that the very text of the legislative instrument constitutes an attempt on the part of the Conservatives to make amends by recognizing the vital importance of measures to protect our fragile ecosystems. Every now and then, they almost impress me by demonstrating a degree of openness at variance with their usual stance.
In the interest of consistency, the Conservatives should also reconsider their economic agenda, which continues to undermine environmental regulations in favour of rapid development in ecologically sensitive regions and areas. The greatest threat to wildlife and human resources, the greatest destructive force, is industrial activity and its impact in terms of the environment and pollution. Hunting and hunters have a negligible impact on the number of animals in a given population.