HUNTING & FISHING HERITAGE ACT

Bill 135 - 2001, An Act to recognize Ontario's recreational hunting and fishing heritage and to establish the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission

Written by:  Joel Theriault 2005
The Harris government stood on the platform that if they were elected, they would enact legislation to legally recognize a right to recreational (sport) hunting and fishing in Ontario.  Once the government gained power, the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters (OFAH) lobbied hard to ensure that the Harris government kept it's promise.  However, did sportsmen actually gain anything in terms of securing a long term right to hunt and fish?  My research of the bill leads me to two convincing views regarding the effect of the bill and its purpose.  View 1:  Given the reality of parliamentary sovereignty that the next Parliament can repeal the bill if hunting suddenly became unpopular, coupled with the meaningless rhetoric prescribed by the bill, sportsmen across Ontario seemingly gained nothing by the bill.  
	Gilles Bisson may have correctly stated the purpose of the act, being purposeless, during the second day of debate (May 28, 2002) in his address to Queens Bench .  
"We've pointed out to the public that in fact this is nothing but a game on the part of the government to say, 'We love anglers and hunters.' In fact the bill does nothing to assist anglers and hunters in Ontario ."
 
The bill seemingly made two changes to the current system, one being that it gave anglers and hunters the legal right to fish and hunt.  It also seemingly created a new commission to advise the Minister in regards to fish and wildlife regulations and opportunities.  However, on closer examination of the Act, Bisson's analysis seems well founded. 
	On the same note, the OFAH pushed very hard for this legislation, and I don't think they would lobby if they believed it to be a purposeless bill, leading me to my second conclusion which will be discussed later.  The OFAH was extremely involved in the process, writing the draft version of the bill, and appealing to its members to write to the EBR posting board a few days before the MNR's deadline.  At the call of the OFAH, members converged on the EBR posting board, and it jumped from several thousand to over 18,000 hits in a matter of days. As Micheal Reader (head of the OFAH) put it in a letter to Ms. Ecker, 

“We also put the word out to our members and asked them to respond to the Environmental Bill of Rights posting on the bill. Our members responded in force, and registered over 18,000 official hits on the EBR web site in support of the bill, the second highest response ever recorded .”

RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH
	The first apparent purpose of the bill was to enshrine for the people of Ontario the Right to Hunt and Fish. 
“1. (1) A person has a right to hunt and fish in accordance with the law.”
	The question that begs to be asked is, “Do we really need legislation telling the public that they have the right to do what they are legally allowed to do?” This law does not even ensure that anglers and hunters will have the opportunity to fish or hunt?  For example, the act provides no redress for a law prohibiting fishing for 365 days of the year.  Even if the regulation was made with improper motives, anglers would have no redress, because the act only gives anglers the right to fish when the law says they can.  
As re-iterated by Mr. Howard Hampton during the second day of debate, 
What is even more puzzling about this legislation is that if you read section 1, it says, ‘A person has a right to hunt and fish in accordance with the law.’ Well, if I'm not mistaken, the state of the law now is that as long as I obey the law and I have a fishing license, I'm entitled to fish. So I have a hard time figuring out how this language does something more or new. Remarkably, in all the discussion by the government, they haven't pointed out how that would be. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE HERITAGE COMMISSION

	The second seemingly new aspect brought forth by the bill was the creation of the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission.  
“2. (1) A commission is hereby established to be known in English as the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission and in French as Commission du patrimoine chasse et pêche.”

As stated by Mr. Christopherson during the second day of debates, 
They're going to create a commission. Well, look at the wording. The wording says the commission will give advice to the minister. It's my understanding from my leader, who is a previous Minister of Natural Resources, that those committees already exist at the pleasure of the minister. The fact of the matter is that my friend and colleague is absolutely right. This is one great group hug where you're trying to convince a segment of the population that this matters, that you care about these folks. 

Basically, one commission that advises the minister is being replaced by another commission to do the same thing, and with the same duties.  The Minister of Natural Resources already had a committee (though with a different name) and the committee was already in charge of the special purpose fund, which was created in 1995 by the then Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Hodgson.  
The 10-member board (created by Hodgson) advises the minister of natural resources on fish and wildlife matters and on the spending of funds from the special purpose account, made up largely of revenue from fishing, hunting and trapping licenses.  

One potentially worrisome aspect of this committee, as pointed out by various First Nation representatives and the critics of the bill in Queens Bench, is that the bill is void as to the composition of the "newly created" committee.  
COMMISSION COMPOSITION 
“(2) The Commission shall be composed of such number of members as may be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, one of whom shall be designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as the chair of the Commission.”

Different groups vocalized fears regarding the composition of the committee because of the uncertainty of its members.  Environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club feared that the board would be comprised solely of consumptive users of natural resources like sport anglers and hunters.  As such, the board’s recommendations wouldn't be environmentally sound as they "may prove harmful to ecosystems and biodiversity given the management practices of the sports hunting and fishing industry  ."   The group indicated that the bill and corresponding commission would " ... result in the offloading of government environmental responsibilities for managing wildlife to the sports hunting and fishing industry  ." 
	First Nations groups vocalized fears that they would be excluded from wildlife management decisions and because they wouldn‘t be represented on the board.   Stemming from this perceived threat of non-inclusion on the board, native organizations made the following statements:

First Nations should expect the sports hunting and fishing industry to use the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act to try to constrain Native hunting and fishing as much as possible: 
•	by trying to limit the geographical range in which First Nations can practice their rights; 
•	by trying to impose seasons on the practice of Native rights; 
•	by excluding some species (such as salmon) from First Nations harvests; 
•	by insisting First Nations be licenced to practice their rights, perhaps under the controversial Aboriginal Community Fishing Licence Regulations, if not under direct provincial regulation; by insisting charges be laid against Natives who practice commercial rights to fish and wildlife .

Further research into the present composition of the board indicated that the First Nation’s and environmentalist’s vocalized fears may have turned out to be correct.  During a phone interview March 1, 2005, with an MNR official who expressed his desire to remain anonymous, he indicated that there were no members of the board formally representing First Nation’s interests or those of any environmental group.  All members of the board were chosen by the Minister of Natural Resources based on their personal resumes and in disregards to the group affiliation of the applicants.  As such, it was possible that only the views of sport anglers and hunters were represented.    
	Those arguing for clarity of the committee makeup during the debate of the bill were no doubt simply trying to ensure that their corresponding views are at least expressed in the Minister’s personal committee.  As Bisson stated in the 2nd day of debate, 
at the very least I'm going to bring forward an amendment that basically says the composition of this committee has to include a number of people, including aboriginal people, environmentalists and others, and not be stacked with just anglers and hunters, because I think that would be the wrong thing to do. I think you have to have a balance on that committee, if you were to bring it forward, that basically has various points of view and gives voice to people to be able to raise issues that are important to them or concerns that they may have about what a minister may or may not be trying to do. 

However, this amendment was never implemented into the bill, and so, if it is the Minister’s prerogative that he include members of First Nations and environmentalist groups in his personal committee, he may do so.  However, he’s not legally obliged to do so, and has chosen to select members, which may express these views, without regards to group affiliation.   
	Because the bill seemingly had so little effect in regards to changing anything in Ontario regarding the right to hunt and fish, or changing the responsibilities or composition of the Minister of Natural Resources, one is led to believe that the words stated in the bill weren’t really the focus or desired outcome for the drafters.  Stepping back from the bill, one is forced to ask the question, “Why pass a bill, or lobby hard for a bill, that purports to do nothing”?  View 2:  The bill was passed as a type of preamble, or policy setting stage, for a larger scheme to enshrine sportsmen’s rights in a higher political organization, namely the federal government.  
	Nearing the end of my research, I was left with the strong impression that the bill was purposeless, as indicated by Mr. Bisson during the second day of debate.  I contacted the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters by email February 30, 2005 and asked them the following question: “I was researching the Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act and was wondering what the effect of the Act was in the opinion of the OFAH?”  I received the following reply from a representative of the OFAH March 1, 2005. 
Hi Joel:

Thanks for the email... and your timing is impeccable. To our knowledge, the new Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Heritage Act (note the exact name that now includes trapping) is about to become an official government Bill.

The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Heritage Act was spearheaded by the
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It has our full support. As a
National Bill, this Act will reaffirm Canadian's rights to hunt, fish and
trap under conservation laws. Ultimately, the Act is an important -- and
long overdue -- national acknowledgement of the role of anglers, hunters and trappers as dedicated fish and wildlife conservationists.

Here's hoping the Bill will receive speedy passage.... it's being
reintroduced by MP Paul Steckle.

Yours in Conservation,

Robert J. Pye
Robert_Pye@ofah.org

 If my interpretation of this response is correct, the actual purpose of Bill 135, which was passed as the Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act 2002, was to set the political stage for federal recognition of a right to fish, hunt, and trap.  If this is the correct interpretation of the bill, then the most important aspect of the bill was not contained within the 4 corners of the document presented to Queen’s Bench.  This seems to be the most likely explanation regarding the actual purpose of the bill, given that the bills written purpose had absolutely no purpose, yet the OFAH lobbied hard to have the bill passed.  The Act purports to give people the right to do what they are legally allowed to do and also to rename a committee.  Taken in this context, and without the insight provided by Mr. Pye, I would find myself making the same arguments as were presented by Mr. Bisson and Mr. Christopherson during the debates.  
	The nature of the comments made by the opposition to the bill also reveal something very interesting regarding the parliamentarian’s knowledge of the purpose of the bill.  All arguments presented in Parliament focused very narrowly on the text of the bill before them at the time, and without any reference to the possibility of a national bill.  This leads me to believe that very few parliamentarians actually realized the intended effect of the bill in the eyes of the OFAH - seemingly to secure the right to fish, hunt, and trap in a higher political organization.    
CONCLUSION
	The Hunting & Fishing Heritage Act was passed through Queen’s Bench with overwhelming support.  All proposed amendments to the bill were rejected, though the bill was never able to gain unanimous consent, which would have allowed it to fast track without the need for scheduled debates, or sending it to committee.  One its face, the Act purports to give anglers and hunters the right to fish and hunt and to rename a committee, but the true purpose of the bill seems to be outside the 4 corners of the document.  
	The bill was seemingly passed in good faith, and with huge support from Ontario’s largest outdoor club, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH).  Most politicians seemingly did not understand (or chose to hide their knowledge of) the seemingly true purpose of the bill, to secure the right to hunt, fish, and trap at the federal level.  Provided that my second view is correct, the implication would be that this bill maybe the best example in recent history regarding the huge effect that one relatively small, but very focused and dedicated group, can have to influence federal government environmental policy and legislation.  
Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters - Partners in Conservation
BIBLIOGRAPHY

-Hansard Index-
First Reading
http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/37-2/l066a.htm (November 19, 2001) 

Second Reading
http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/37-3/l009b.htm (Monday 27 May 2002)
http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/37-3/l010b.htm (Tuesday 28 May 2002)
http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/37-3/l011b.htm (Wednesday 29 May 2002)

Third Reading
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/37_parl/session3/L022A.htm#P536_131555  (June 18, 2002)

Ontario Chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada
http://ontario.sierraclub.ca/media/index.php?id=13
http://ontario.sierraclub.ca/media/index.php?id=17 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/csb/news/nov19fs01.html

Peaceful Parks Coalition
http://www.peacefulparks.org/ppc/campaigns_hunt_heri.htm

Peace and Environment News
http://perc.ca/PEN/2002-07-08/krajnc.html

On the Prowl
http://www.web.net/~ara/OTP/OTP14/election2.htm

Turtle Island Native Network News
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-onemans-akiwenzie.htm

Outdoor Canada
http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/special/opinions5.shtml

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
http://www.ofah.org/news/index.cfm?ID=3&A=Search&M=1&KW=heritage%20hunting%20and%20fishing%20act
http://www.ofah.org/news/index.cfm?ID=2&A=Search&M=1&KW=heritage%20hunting%20and%20fishing%20act
http://www.ontariooutofdoors.com/feb02/editorial.html

The ProNature Network
http://pronature.on.ca/Resources/HHFApaper.htm

Legislative Assembly of Ontario
1st Reading – Bill 135 - An Act to recognize Ontario’s recreational hunting and fishing heritage and to establish the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/37_Parliament/Session3/b135.pdf

3rd Reading – Bill 135 - An Act to recognize Ontario’s recreational hunting and fishing heritage and to establish the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/37_Parliament/Session3/b135ra.pdf

Comment on the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act (Bill 135)
http://www.bmts.com/~dibaudjimoh/Naw-HHFA.rtf
EBR Registry Number AB01E6001

Law-abiding Unregistered Firearms Association 
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=1166

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by:  Joel Theriault 2005