October 9, 2008

Vancouver. The BC Wildlife Federation (BCWF) listened closely to the content of the federal political debate on October 2nd. It was clear that B.C. is barely on the radar of the five party leaders.

The showing was poor in terms of the issues of discussion and programs relating to British Columbians. The BCWF was hoping to hear more specifics in terms of addressing the concerns of legitimate firearms owners and themes relating to B.C. and Canadian conservation initiatives. While Harper mentioned the Darkwoods property acquisition, it is still not clear if our membership will be negatively impacted if it is used for ‘preservation' as Harper mentioned or if it will be used for conservation which is the sustainable choice.

Prior to the debate, an analysis of the positions of each Party shows that the Conservative Party has no firearm policy in its political platform. Actually, the NDP leader made a point of asking: "Where was the missing Conservative platform?" Nevertheless, the Conservative Party is the only federal party that has not declared a gun-ban policy.

The Liberal Party is making the point of limiting "all military assault weapons" (they have actually been banned since the 70's) without defining which these are and pointing instead at firearms such as the ones used at the Ecole Polytechnique and Dawson College - the Ruger Mini 14 and the Beretta Storm (which are not used by any military in the world) - as likely targets for prohibition.

The BCWF is also concerned with the Liberals plans for the marking and tracking of firearms in Canada as this could be a back door method of restricting the supply of legal firearms being imported by Canadian wholesalers, dealers, and consumers.

The New Democratic Party position is very strict in the sense of demanding an absolute restriction of hand guns with the exception of law enforcement officials. There is no consideration for legitimate target or recreational shooting. More troubling is the history of NDP's past proposals which consider a ban of all semi-automatic firearms and combine them together with military and para-military weapons. This is compounded with Layton's backing to resolutions at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities where controls, spot-checks and other restrictive measures were supported.

The Green Party of Canada policies are vague and it is difficult to understand how their proposals are going to relieve the bureaucratic burdens of the registration system to law-abiding citizens.

In short, the debate last night was more about urban Canada's concerns and lacking serious consideration to the needs of rural Canada where the legal use of firearms for hunting and livestock protection takes place. Notwithstanding the pressing economic realities we face today, it is troubling to see politicians gloss over the constitutional rights of Canadians to hunt and fish. This is especially surprising since in a recent released poll of people who actually voted in the, 2006 election, 1 person in 6 stated they were firearm owners.

Finally, it was disappointing to not hear what this debate should have brought forward: Clear discussion on conservation policies and how any of the parties will put to good use the dollars raised via hunting and fishing licenses and the extended economic contribution made through participation in the related activities.