This is what the politicians think of us.
We have no clout with them so we are blown off.
This says lots about the future of the sports.
PUBLICATION: The Edmonton Sun
DATE: December 16, 2006
BYLINE: Neil Waugh
COLUMN: Outdoors
Birch logs crackling in the fireplace, hunting dog snoring at your feet, big soft chair with a glass of something or mug of tea on standby - it's the time of the year for reflection and remembrance.
That big Red Deer River trout that slammed my Black Stimulator during last May's Skwala hatch. The glorious 28-flush day Ginger gave me in October as the ruffed grouse population peaked last fall. Or the five-by-four whitetail buck I harvested off a barley stubble in the midst of a swirling snowstorm.
Take another sip and my mind wanders off to the grayling creeks I explored in the heart of oilsands country last summer. Beautiful, yet doomed, as the oil companies threaten to swallow them up.
Hunting and angling are part of our heritage. It's how this country was developed and one of the essential ingredients that makes us Canadian. Or at least Albertan.
And if anyone should understand this it's the Conservative MPs that represent us in Ottawa. Or so you would think.
Until you talk to Inky Mark, the pugnacious member of Parliament from Dauphin, Man., who is now seriously wondering where his own party is coming from these days.
Just as Alberta hunters and anglers should be questioning 14 of their House of Commons reps who turned on Inky and called into question a key component of Alberta's heritage lifestyle.
"It was a confusing exercise," Mark spat.
Inky's private member's Bill C-222 should have been as close to a no-brainer as it gets. Because he simply wanted to enshrine in law what already exists in practice, and has been confirmed by several provincial legislatures - Alberta being one of the glaring exceptions: Canadians' hunting, angling and trapping heritage.
What's wrong with that?
Plenty, Mark was to find out when his Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act started going through the political hoops on Parliament Hill.
"It was lost right from first base," he sighed about the legislation that was treated like a stray dog, and was shuffled back and forth between Heritage Canada and the Justice Department. It apparently met with open hostility when it was debated by the Conservative caucus, even though it was backed by Parliament's 77-member outdoors caucus - a pro-hunting and fishing group of MPs and senators from all four political parties.
During the House of Commons debate last month, Alberta Conservative stalwart Myron Thompson spoke for the outdoors caucus. He talked about how it's the "mission" of the caucus to entrench in law that hunting, fishing, trapping and shooting sports are "acceptable, traditional, environmentally sustainable outdoor heritage activities."
Where a "conservation ethic is our highest priority," Thompson added.
Sounds good to me. But apparently not to a majority of MPs.
Mark said outdoor caucus members - sensing the gathering storm clouds - pleaded with him to water the bill down to a meaningless motion.
"What good is a motion? You need a law if you want protection," he said. "Even then you've got dick-all for protection.
"You don't know what's coming down the road," Mark continued. "All it takes is for a cruelty to animals" bill to pass this house, with the business about pain and suffering in it, and that would be it for hunting.
"That's the fear I have," he snapped.
When the debate on Mark's bill began, it quickly became obvious what was going to happen.
Liberal Gary Merasty warned darkly that the sacred rights of aboriginals could be in jeopardy.
"Declaring hunting, fishing and trapping as a right, without due consideration to aboriginal rights, could have an adverse effect on sensitive negotiations and sorting-out of land-use issues," he said.
NDP MPs also found imaginary holes in the legislation.
And, of course, Bloc Quebecois rep Claude DeBellefeuille saw the whole thing as yet another English Canada gang-up on Quebec.
"We are convinced that this bill in its current form aims to limit Quebec's powers to regulate its hunting, fishing and trapping activities," the separatist blasted. "This bill has significant and troublesome implications."
Then he said his party won't be supporting the bill.
But the hammer really came down when Stephen Harper's Justice secretary, Rob Moore, got on his feet.
The New Brunswick Conservative said he wanted to "state from the outset" that the Harperites "fully support the legitimate rights of outdoors people."
He spoke of it being "part of their Canadian heritage."
Then he began to pick Mark's bill apart. Provincial jurisdiction may be violated - even though the bill specifically says it won't be. Plus it might affect the tangled web of fisheries regulation. It's all so confusing.
Then this inevitable conclusion: "It is impossible for the government to support the bill as introduced by the member." Mark made a last- ditch effort to save his legislation, asking the MPs to send the bill to committee where the necessary changes could be made about provincial and aboriginal rights.
"We can correct that by simply amending the preamble," Mark pleaded.
Inky might as well have been talking to his cat. The Conservative fix was in.
When the division bells rang a few days later, the bill was shot down 58 to 201.
The betrayal was complete when Alberta MPs Jim Prentice, Deepak Obhrai, Jason Kenny, Diane Ablonczy, Laurie Hawn, Mike Lake, Rona Ambrose, Rahim Jaffer, Brian Jean, Rick Casson, Ted Menzies, Monte Solberg, Chris Warkentin and Rob Merrifield voted firmly against enshrining the rights of Alberta hunters, anglers, shooters and trappers in federal law. Harper didn't vote.
Mark promised to introduce the bill again.
"I'll keep at it, I'm not going to quit," he vowed.
But he also asked a far more fundamental question.
"I asked the guys," sighed the veteran MP, who first went to Ottawa as a Preston Manning Reformer, "Is this the same party that we first joined?"
Stephen Harper's black Christmas present to Alberta hunters and anglers is pretty clear.
The answer is, "No."
Author
Topic: Anglers and Hunters have no political powers. (Read 1499 times)