Evidence of meeting #23 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 19th, 2010 / 3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Today is Tuesday, October 19, 2010.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the committee is meeting today to examine Bill C-465, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day
In front of us is Mr. Norlock, member of Parliament for Northumberland—Quinte West in Ontario. We welcome him for an opening statement.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's wonderful to be here.
It's especially a pleasure for me to be here because I'm talking about something that means a lot not only to this country and the people of Canada, I believe, as it did to our forefathers, but also to my family and me personally. A hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage runs deep within my family. As I look around the room, I strongly suspect that we share that same heritage in our backgrounds. I can tell you that my maternal grandfather, Narcisse Viens, who came to Ontario from Aylmer, Quebec, was a great hunter and an especially great and very successful trapper.
But I'd like to begin at the beginning, which is always a good place to start, and recount how important hunting, fishing, and trapping are to this great nation of ours. From the very beginning of our country, and long before Canada was a country, hunting, fishing, and trapping were practised by our first nations people. They developed the skills that allowed their populations to sustain themselves on this, our great continent. These skills were essential for them to ensure that their communities had adequate food and shelter. Indeed, these same practices are what made it possible for the first European settlers to establish themselves in what would prove to be to them a very unforgiving climate.
We know that as early as 1497 when John Cabot came to this country, this new world, from England, he was reported to have told the Duke of Milan that “the sea there is swarming with fish, which can be taken not only with the net, but in baskets let down with a stone”. What he was referring to was the bountiful fishing on the east coast of Canada in the Grand Banks.
In the 1600s, Samuel de Champlain observed first nations people hunting elk and other animals, which formed a great part of their diet. Like the native populations, early settlers practised a long-standing tradition of clothing themselves and feeding their families with the bountiful wildlife that is ours here in this great country. There were other references to the use of hunting, trapping, and fishing in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. First nations people primarily hunted for food, clothing, and building materials, but they also used these natural, God-given products for barter and trading amongst themselves and eventually with the new European settlers.
In Cartier's voyage of 1534, he described early experiences in trading with first nations people and indicated that trading furs was one of the first activities that occurred with the European explorers and settlers in the new world. In 1603 Champlain reported bartering for meat, fur, and arrows with different native groups, including the Algonquins here in the Ottawa Valley.
These references have continued throughout our history into today, further reinforcing a deep connection between the origins of our great nation and these activities. Indeed, from a commercial perspective, there was the Hudson's Bay Company and the development of the fur-trading industry. We know that in 1659 the first two French explorers travelled to the Hudson Bay area, where they were told they would find large beaver populations. On their return to France, unfortunately, they were arrested because they hadn't obtained the right licence. However, in 1668 they returned to James Bay in the company of Prince Rupert.
Following their return to England, they created a royal charter that gave Prince Rupert and his partners the right to all the lands draining into Hudson Bay. Years later, of course, we know that one of the oldest companies in the world and indeed in this country, the Hudson's Bay Company, was created. It had a competitor called the North West Company.
The reason I mention these two entities is that they discovered much of what we now know as Canada. In their search for furs, they made maps that helped found this great country of ours. They went right through to the Mackenzie River. Indeed, as I say, knowledge of the western frontier itself can be attributed to the hunters, fishers, and trappers employed by the Hudson's Bay Company, who drove west in pursuit of economic development of the lands that would eventually become part of this country.
I was going to go through a lot of the history, of course, but I think most of us here know of that history, that tradition. We know now that hunters, fishers, and trappers do much more than that. Not only do they contribute to this country in a monetary way—and the value placed on hunting, fishing, and trapping in this country is somewhere in the vicinity of about $10 billion—but they do more than that. Of course, I consider myself somewhat of an outdoorsman, a hunter and a fisher, and I can tell you that of many of the organizations to which we belong, there is no group of people in this country that are greater conservationists than hunters and fishermen.
I have one of my favourite constituents here, who is the government relations person for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and he knows and I know that much of the plentiful wildlife we have today in this country is there because hunters and fishermen give back thousands and thousands of volunteer hours. I'm part of the Quinte elk restoration; we're bringing elk back to the central part of eastern Ontario and right across Ontario. I'm sure that Mr. Farrant can talk about that at greater length than I.
We also are contributors, through Ducks Unlimited and the Delta Waterfowl Foundation, to the very life of this planet, by creating more and more marshlands, which of course are the lungs and the heart of this planet. That's going to be addressed by one of the witnesses from Delta Waterfowl Foundation, who is eminent in these areas and has a Ph.D. in these areas.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you very much. I'm getting close to the end of my time, I suspect, and I wanted to leave a couple of minutes open for some questions that you may have of me concerning this private member's bill. I think it's important. I think if you talk to your constituents, you will find that many of them have a similar background in their families and are part and parcel of either the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs or other organizations.
I've been in touch, by the way, with almost every outdoor federation in this great land of ours, all of which say they support this bill. They have some suggestions that you will no doubt hear, and I believe there are some friendly amendments.
Without further ado, I would be more than willing to answer any questions or concerns you may have with this bill, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock.
We'll have about 20 minutes of questions and comments from members of this committee, beginning with Mr. Bagnell.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You do a fine job.
Thank you, Mr. Norlock, for presenting this bill. As you know, I had a similar initiative, so I highly commend it. I think it's an excellent initiative and commend you for bringing it forward. You certainly have my full support.
I understand you're in support of my friendly amendments, as you've said, and you mentioned them in your opening remarks, which was great. One was to somehow recognize the aboriginal peoples in the bill or the preamble, and you've talked about that. The other was just sort of a technical amendment: “from coast to coast to coast”. I understand that you're in favour of those two concepts.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Absolutely. I am. I originally didn't purposely leave out the first nations. Actually, I wanted to make it as simple as possible, but in doing so I guess in that simplicity I neglected to mention something as important as that. When you met with me when we were at second reading and mentioned that, I thought it was wholly appropriate that it be included.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I'd also like to get your views on two amendments proposed by Ducks Unlimited. The third one I'll leave to the Bloc to bring forward, because it's in French.
Just to get your views on these, the first one is changing “fishers” to “anglers”. A fisher, as you know, being an outdoorsman as I am, is a long furry animal, and the anglers prefer to be called “anglers”. It's pretty common in the vernacular, I think.
The other thing that Ducks Unlimited is proposing is to add “recreational” before the word “fishing”. Their feeling is that this is all about recreational hunters and fishers.
I'd just like to get your feedback on those amendments, which make some sense to me.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
They do make some sense to yours truly; however, on hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage, although much of the fishing is recreational, we do have, at times, a very healthy-Mr. Simms might argue--and a vibrant commercial fishery. Of course, when you're dealing with first nations, there is a.... I just didn't want to close the door. When you say “anglers“, I don't think most fishermen would consider themselves anglers; I'm talking about commercial. Also, of course, we have commercial enterprises that rely on recreational anglers. So while I wouldn't want to imperil the bill on such an issue, I think that saying someone is a fisherman leaves it open both to commercial and to recreational.
I'm reticent to go.... That's one of the only suggested amendments that I'm reticent to readily accept.
Liberal
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Norlock, thank you for presenting this bill.
You've discussed the economic spinoff factors, which are significant, actually. Should we pass this legislation, would there be any additional economic benefit that would accrue?
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
The reason I was accepting a friendly amendment designating the third Saturday of September as opposed to that specific day is that it somewhat matches the fishing, hunting, and heritage day in the United States of America.
I know that Mr. Angus comes from a part of the country that I worked in on two different occasions when I was with the provincial police, and I can tell you, as I'm sure Mr. Angus can tell you, how important U.S. tourism is to some of our northern communities, especially in northwestern Ontario. I also hunt in northeastern Ontario.
It's very important that we try to match these up. Also, the Province of Alberta and other provinces in Canada are considering a similar date, which I believe happens to be the third Saturday in September. Now, it depends on the year, but you have to somehow nail these things down when you're dealing with a piece of legislation. My preference would be to designate the third Saturday, as a friendly amendment.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
So clearly you would see some natural tourism benefits to us--
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Yes, I would, because I think it would help our outfitters advertise better to their American clientele.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I will ask you this as well. For me, this seems like such apple-pie legislation, but are there groups that may demonstrate or oppose? Would there be an anti-hunting lobby that will come forward to oppose this?
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
To be frank, there probably is. As you know, if you wear a fur coat in some places, it's not considered a good thing to do. I think it's a wonderful thing. You just have to look at the number of people who earn their livelihood by trapping, not the least of whom are first nations people. It's very similar to the people who are against the seal hunt, which I think all of us here are very much in favour of.
I've received no negative mail--not until you brought up that subject, I suspect, because then they'll jump on it. To date, I have not, but I'll be frank and up front with you: no doubt there are segments of our society who just don't like the thought of hunting, let alone fishing or trapping.
Conservative
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
It was actually sort of a friendly amendment. I wonder if you could make the bill even more generic if you would consider a compromise on the title. I wonder if you could consider calling it something like “national outdoor recreational sports day” to encompass even more broadly some of the industries you may have overlooked.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I don't think we've overlooked any. If you talk to outfitters, you'll hear that they would much prefer that you call them a fishing lodge or a hunting lodge. That is more attractive to their industry. The people who would be against this bill won't be spending any money in a hunting or fishing lodge.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock.
Madame Lavallée, you have the floor.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much.
Good day, Mr. Norlock. Thank you for tabling this bill which has the support of the Bloc Québécois. I have a comment first, and then a question.
After learning of your bill, naturally I contacted the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, as I am a member of this organization. I know that most of the people here will not believe me, but I even have a hunting license. Let me show it to you, since I know some people will find this hard to believe. For your information, however, I've never gone hunting. Anyway, federation officials told me that they welcomed your private member's bill that calls for a national heritage day and that they didn't have a problem with the proposed date.
However, right before the meeting, I spoke with a member of the federation who suggested that the date should be changed to the third Saturday in September. Is that something you would be okay with?
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Yes, it's a friendly amendment.
I suspect that to be better understood I had better speak the language I know better, so that I know what I'm saying.
Yes, it would be an amendment I would consider. Making it the third Saturday in September is a friendly amendment.
I, too, have a hunting licence--