Address to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters

Address by the Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Leader of the Official Opposition
Toronto, Ontario


Saturday, February 19, 2005

 

[Check against delivery]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for the warm welcome.

It is always a pleasure for me to meet with members of Canada’s fishing and hunting community, though I admit I have never met so many in downtown Toronto.  This feels more like rural Alberta where my wife, Laureen, grew up.

To give you a sense of her, one time an Ottawa Liberal told my wife that the Conservative party consists of people who either go to church on Sunday or go hunting.   My wife said “Well, I know people who do both.”

In any case, I thank you for your kind invitation to participate in this 77th annual general meeting of Ontario’s fishers and hunters.

I have traveled enough throughout Ontario and Canada, on and along all kinds of bodies of water – enough know that there are two kinds of fishermen: those who fish for sport, and those who catch something.  On the other hand, as that great Canadian storyteller Greg Clark once said, “we are all descendants of successful hunters.”

Our organizations have much in common: you are Canada's leading conservation organization.  We are Canada’s leading Conservative organization.  So it is not surprising then that we share the same point of view on many important issues.

I would like to discuss a few of these today.

First, I want to say that the Conservative party cares deeply about many of same issues as you because we have deep roots throughout rural Canada.

Rural Canada is where we find values that built this country – hard work, enterprise, cooperation, community and, of course, the family itself.  Since the new Parliament has begun, we have asked more questions, given more speeches, forced more votes, spent more time in the House of Commons on agricultural and rural issues than all the other parties combined.

Our Liberal opponents, however, treat these kinds of issues with casual neglect.  For example, we have even seen them, just two weeks ago, vote against a motion calling on them to honour the commitments they have made to farmers.

I have often seen the government break promises - very often - but this is the first time that I have seen the entire Liberal caucus, standing up one after other in Parliament, to solemnly affirm their determination not to keep their promises.  It was a pretty impressive sight.

Incidentally – they lost the vote: the Opposition forced the government to keep its word.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as I said earlier, the Conservative Party is deeply concerned about rural Canada and the outdoors.

I read with great interest the Canadian Hunting Heritage Accord, which your Federation has spearheaded and which is receiving strong support from the outdoors community throughout the country.  This Accord is a powerful reminder that hunters are leaders in managing our natural resources as well as upholding the integrity of our proud hunting traditions in Canada. It also affirms the value of hunting to Canadian culture and heritage, and the importance of preserving the tradition of hunting for future generations.

 

The Conservative Party of Canada strongly believes that the people whose livelihood or sporting activities depend on the use of our land and natural resources should be seen as primary stakeholders in efforts to protect the environment.  That is one of the fundamental differences that distinguish us from the federal Liberals, who believe that there should be a federal program supported by an army of bureaucrats and a mountain of regulations and penalties for every conceivable human activity. 

There many examples of Liberal bureaucracy gone wild.  Here are just two recent ones:

Some horse owners have informed us that the federal government is proposing to register every horse in Canada, giving each a UELN – Unique Equine Life Number.  The methods of identification being studied include microchips, eartags and tattoos.  There was also talk of requesting horse owners to maintain a travel log when hauling their horse.

Why not a photo album?  Also being studied is a “paper passport document” for each horse.

Why would the government want to register horses?  Will they allow them to vote?

Why give them passports? Are they travelling abroad?

Obviously, the government has some explaining to do on this, because most horse owners seem to be in the dark about these initiatives.  

My second favourite example of Liberal registry-mania is the canoe registry.

It stands to reason that a government that wants to monitor the travels of horses would not allow canoes to roam wild.  Under new federal regulations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will apply the same standards for boats and their captains on inland waters as they do for coastal waters.

Therefore, canoe guides will need to obtain a ship captain’s licence inland – but these will remain available only in Vancouver and in Halifax.

But nowhere is this blind, bumbling Big Brother attitude more evident than in the gun registry fiasco.

If the same degree of planning and skill had been applied to a hunting expedition, only the deer would have come out alive.

The gun registry became law in 1995. At the time, the Justice Department calculated that the cost of licensing people to own guns, and then registering each firearm, would be a modest $2-million. But, as you know, the costs of setting up the program climbed into the stratosphere and revenues fell far below expectations, because of the complexity of the rules and the subsequent refusal of several provinces to co-operate.

 

In December, 2002, Auditor-General Sheila Fraser published an audit itemizing the ballooning costs – approaching $1 billion -- and a litany of managerial problems.

 

You will remember that Canada already had ample legislation requiring safe storage, safety training, and the safe handling and transportation of firearms, long before the Liberals dreamed up the useless gun registry.  We already had the experience of the handgun registry. The registration of handguns had been in the Criminal Code of Canada since 1934 but it hadn’t kept handguns out of the hands of criminals.

 

So, a gun control system that, before the Liberals came to power, cost the federal government about $10 million a year, has now run up costs approaching $2 billion.

This is a government that bans guns by reflex.

Last January, the Minister of Justice wrote a constituent, out of the blue, saying that the Ruger Mini-14, used by many hunters, would be banned during the present session.  After considerable opposition from gun owners and members of our party, the minister said that his announcement of a forthcoming ban was “a mistake”, that there would be no ban. 

Not that the proposed ban would result in any more firearms being taken out of the hands of criminal than would happen under the provisions of the Criminal Code anyway. 

And this ridiculous, bureaucratic approach is doing nothing whatsoever to improve public safety.

Violent criminals do not buy firearms licences and do not register their guns.

What’s more, it’s been amply demonstrated that a search of the gun registry does next to nothing to lead police to the real criminal.  Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, who is ending a most distinguished career in law enforcement next month, admitted himself that his officers had never encountered an incident in which the registry "enabled us to either prevent or solve any of these crimes."

In fact, 86% of firearms used in homicides were unregistered and 80% of murderers were unlicensed. The Liberals have not even succeeded in registering half of the 16.5 million guns that are in Canada according to government import and export records. 

Let me be clear. The hundred million a year being wasted tracking duck hunters should be spent giving police real resources to go after the real criminals.

We, the Conservatives, are the only party in the House of Commons that opposes the gun registry.  We have tried to scrap it in the House and in committee, but the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP always vote with the Liberal government on this issue.

From the start of this minority government, I have said that I will cooperate with the government whenever the public interest is at stake.  But on fundamental beliefs and principles, we will not budge.

The gun registry is one of these core beliefs.  And we have always been very clear on this: we will repeal the universal gun registry.

Instead, we will work with the provinces on cost-effective gun control programs designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while respecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

 We will:

·        enforce mandatory minimum penalties for the illegal possession and criminal use of firearms;

·        monitor strictly high-risk individuals;

·        crack down on gun smuggling;

·        enforce safe storage laws;

·        promote firearms safety training and a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally;

·        put more law enforcement officers on our streets; and

·        produce a real registry – a registry of convicted criminals prohibited by the courts from owning firearms.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in the Conservative Party, we also share your concern with protection of the environment.  Your federation is recognized as an influential environmental watchdog, lobbying for conservation of our natural resources at all levels of government.  The Conservative Party of Canada also recognizes the need to ensure the sustainability of natural resources and the environment.

A Conservative government will work with Canadians to address real environmental problems and develop a long-term plan for a healthy, sustainable environment as a trust for future generations.

The Liberals’ environment policy is contained in one word: Kyoto.  Unfortunately, the Liberals’ Kyoto Strategy is the environmental equivalent of the Gun Registry. It was poorly thought out from the start, it is costing a fortune, it is disruptive to Canadians citizens, and it will never achieve its goal.

So far, the government has spent or committed $3.7 billion, and will need to spend countless billions more to even come close to meeting its Kyoto targets.

Under this scheme, the Liberal government will either have to spend billions to purchase hot air credits from other countries, often from countries with far worse environmental records than Canada’s, or we will have to impose draconian regulations on various industries, threatening our economic stability and our standard of living.

The truth is that this Liberal government was more concerned with garnering international acclaim and recognition for ratifying Kyoto, than it is about actually improving the environment for Canadians.

The Conservative Party will take a more substantive approach.  We will:

·        legislate caps on smog causing pollutants like Nitrogen Oxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Volatile Organic Compounds;

·        negotiate power plant and smokestack emissions limits with the United States and border states;

·        investigate a cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants and

·        initiate an audit of federal contaminated waste sites to determine potential health risks and clean-up costs. 

And we will consult widely on environmental matters before acting.

We understand the Federation’s frustration with the lack of consultation by Environment Canada on the issue of lead gear, for example.

We believe that a complete ban on possession of lead gear should be avoided and any final plan must include

We also agree that more attention should be given to the most significant threat to waterfowl - which is Botulism Type E, being spread by invasive species.

As I said earlier, we start from a perspective – one that seems to be threatened these days - that agricultural producers, rural communities and recreationalists are first and foremost stewards of the land and are in the best position to serve as protectors of the environment and the land they live on.

You know, when we talk about areas like the environment, I am often struck at how cavalierly the serious concerns of rural Canada are ignored in the actions of the Liberal government.

Such was the case, for instance, with the Species-at-Risk Act and the Cruelty-to-Animals Act, whose impact on rural Canadians was ignored by the federal government in its haste to please stronger and politically more interesting lobbies.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that, generally, today’s federal government doesn’t understand a fundamental reality about our country. 

In rural Canada and communities which enjoy the outdoors, the most fundamental, most solid Canadian values are preserved, protected and passed on from generation to generation - the values of solidarity, of family, of honest, hard work and good, clean fun.

It is no accident that the values and principles that we defend as a Party find a special resonance in all regions of the country.  These values are rural values and conservative values. But they are still Ontario values and they are still Canadian values.

Now, before I conclude tonight, I would just like to say a quick word about another conservative value that’s been in the news lately, and that’s the traditional definition of marriage.

I think it’s sad that the only piece of legislation of much significance introduced by the government in this Parliament is the abrogation of traditional marriage, and I want to state my position very clearly on this issue.

The Liberals tried to have the Supreme Court abolish the traditional definition of marriage, but the court refused.  Now the Liberals want Parliament to pass a same sex marriage law instead, and Paul Martin is trying to force his MPs to vote for it.

In the Conservative Party, we will take the traditional parliamentary approach to issues of personal conscience like this:  that all MPs in our party, including my shadow cabinet, will be able to freely vote their own views, and those of their constituents, on this issue.

My own personal stand, which I think reflects the views of most Canadians who seek some middle ground on this is the following:  I believe in equality rights & benefits for all relationships, and recognize traditional marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

I have put an amendment to the debate in the House of Commons to get us on this track.  Should our amendments fail, as Conservative Prime Minister, I will introduce them as legislation in the future and hold a free vote.

As well, we will amend the Liberals’ same sex marriage bill to provide real protections for freedom of religion, which we believe are severely threatened in the long term by the provisions of this legislation.

But I just want to assure you, in concluding, that my amendments will interpret freedom of religion very broadly.

As an angling enthusiast once said “religious freedom is the right of each individual, on Sunday, to either attend the church of his choice, or to go fishing.”

Thank you.  God bless Canada.