Debates of March 20th, 2002

Committees of the House

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not have notice of this. If the parliamentary secretary were to tell us what it is we could decide instantly whether or not to support it.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this concerns confirmation of the appointment of Ms. Hedy Fry as associate member of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of teh House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the parents, family, friends and community of Dana Fair who was a young man brutally murdered in Lloydminster. The petition, I believe, would help deal with the issue. Dana Fair was beaten to death by three men with boards on September 1, 2001. There were several eye witnesses to Dana's brutal death. These men, Raymond Cannepotatoe, Michael Harper, and Cody Littlewolf, have been charged with second degree murder. Cannepotatoe has been released on $2,000 bail.

The petitioners, and there are thousands across the country, ask that no bail be provided for all accused murderers caught in the act of committing their crimes and only maximum sentences be given to those convicted. On behalf of the parents of Dana Fair I present this petition and hope the government will act on it soon.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first petition is on the subject of the proposed free trade area of the Americas and contains hundreds of signatures, including those of constituents Mehri Najar and Nahid Peyghambarzadeh as well as the International Association of Bridge Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers Local 97 who are very concerned that the proposed FTAA would effectively extend the NAFTA to the hemisphere, vastly broadening the reach of its investment provisions and give corporations unprecedented rights to sue, intimidate and override democratic legislation of governments.

The petitioners have other concerns as well, including the fact that the proposed FTAA would block the ability of governments to create or maintain laws, standards and regulations to provide universal public education and health care to protect the safety and well-being of their citizens and the environment.

The petitioners have a number of requests with respect to the FTAA, including a rejection of any trade deals that would preserve NAFTA style provisions that put the rights of corporations and investors ahead of the rights of citizens and governments and they call for a new approach to globalization that puts social, economic and ecological justice above the profits of multinational corporations.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a second petition on the subject of nuclear weapons, a very important issue, signed by residents of Calgary, in particular through Project Ploughshares and Kerry Duncan McCartney who is dedicated to this work.

The petitioners note that some 93% of Canadians polled in February 1998 agreed that Canada should support the negotiation of an agreement to abolish nuclear weapons. They point out as well that leaders of 19 Canadian Church denominations are in agreement, including the Church in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, in which Lucy Lu recently took refuge.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his outstanding leadership in the freedom of Lucy Lu.

The petitioners note that the International Court of Justice has determined that the use of nuclear weapons for all practical purposes is illegal. The petitioners pray and request that parliament support the government in urgently making an unequivocal commitment to nuclear weapons negotiations and in calling for immediate and practical steps to de-alert and de-activate nuclear weapons worldwide.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-36 in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt is acceptable to the government and the documents will be tabled immediately.

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documentation related to the sale of federal lands in the province of Quebec by the Canada Lands Corporation between 1997 and 2001.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-36 be deemed to have been adopted?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity under Standing Order 52. I did earlier today submit a letter to the Speaker's office asking for leave to make a motion that this House do now adjourn to deal with the emergency issue that I believe to be of utmost importance and of national concern.

The issue that I itemized in the letter that I wrote is in regard to the level of dissatisfaction and dissent among our aboriginal communities and first nations leadership that is almost unprecedented in the country and generated by a single action on the part of the government. I believe that it is of pressing urgency that we deal with this issue in a debate in the House of Commons.

The issue that is being foisted upon the aboriginal people in the country which is causing this resentment and this backlash is the first nations governance initiative put forward by the minister of aboriginal affairs.

I will not go into the details of the first nations governance initiative other than to point out that it has been the subject of two assembly of first nations conferences, one in Halifax and one only 10 days ago in Winnipeg. A decision was made at both conferences to boycott the process and initiate a national action plan to show dissatisfaction and in fact take action in a very multifaceted campaign against the initiative put forward and contemplated.

The question that I believe needs to be debated is: does the harm outweigh any benefit? Does the House of Commons want to, at this juncture in our history, upset the apple cart that exists in the delicate and fragile relationship between Canada and our first nations partners. At this point in history I would point out that there is a huge disillusionment already on the part of aboriginal people for the failure of successive governments to address basic needs issues.

At this time, rather than introduce basic needs issues, what we find is the government introducing ideas to deal with accountability, the status of municipalities and the rules under which it will conduct elections. There is nothing about health care, education, basic needs or the disproportionate representation in penitentiaries. None of the issues that aboriginal people believe need to be dealt with and have been waiting patiently for decades or many centuries are addressed under this initiative.

The reason I raise this and decided it was worthy of an emergency debate is the action plan that was adopted just 10 days ago at the assembly of first nations conference in Winnipeg which I attended. I would point out that there are national and international ramifications, part of which is a lobby to the European Union, activism around the Queen's visit when she is here in October and going to the United Nations yet again and condemning Canada for failing to address issues.

There is justification and national significance for this debate, and it should be held tonight in the House of Commons with all parliamentarians present hopefully.

[The Speaker]

I have allowed the hon. member to expound on the reasons for urgency of this debate at some length and I am afraid he has failed to persuade the Chair.

In this case, while I do not doubt that the matter is of considerable importance, the question of urgency does not appear to have been one that has struck the Chair even in the submissions the hon. member has put forward, however able they may be and however ably presented they were. At this time I find that his request does not meet the exigencies of the standing order.

The House resumed from Dec. 6, 2001, consideration of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to state the position of the Bloc Quebecois. We believe that cruelty to animals should have been dealt with in legislation a long time ago.

Cruelty to animals is a serious problem that deserves the full attention of the House. We are talking here about people who wilfully commit horrible acts of violence against defenceless creatures.

There is something new and interesting in Bill C-15B in that it creates a new part V1 in the criminal code. This part is strictly dedicated to the protection of animals against cruelty. However, the bill also amends the Firearms Act to give more powers to the registrar of firearms, which results in decreased powers for the chief firearms officer, who falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

With regard to cruelty to animals, we believe that changes to our criminal code to reflect reality are long overdue, particularly since the majority of provisions dealing with cruelty to animals date back to the end of the 19th century. Our attitude toward animals has greatly changed since then. Animals are no longer considered as property but as beings.

Since it was first introduced, Bill C-15B has been generating strong reactions, and it has also been facing diverging interests. At the very beginning, the Bloc Quebecois gave its agreement in principle to the bill, but we cannot support it in its present form, because it does not transfer the specific means of defence provided under section 429 of the criminal code, so as to explicitly protect animal breeders, hunters, the animal industry and researchers under the new part V1.

We think that the primary objective of this bill should be to impose penalties for cruelty to animals. However, because it is obviously flawed, this legislation is unacceptable.

If the government's goal is not to deny legitimate activities from the explicit protection afforded under section 429 of the criminal code, then I wonder why this protection is not included in the new part. The current wording is too uncertain for us to give our support. We proposed amendments specifically to incorporate the means of defence provided under section 429 of the criminal code to the new part proposed in the bill, but they were all rejected.

We support increased protection for animals, and we support creating a new part in the criminal code that would deal with animals. This would solve current problems relating to damages in cruelty cases, since animals are now considered to be “goods” under part XI. We also think that the penalties relating to voluntary acts of cruelty to animals should be increased.

I emphasize the fact that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increased protection for animals, but only if there is protection for legitimate activities involving animal husbandry, sport hunting and fishing, and research.

Stakeholders from the legitimate animal industry are worried and for good reason. The definition of “animal” in the bill is too broad and too vague. Moreover, the bill does not define the notion of killing an animal without any legitimate reason. The risks of legal proceedings exist and will have to be constantly monitored. Therefore, Bill C-15B could cause problems, including to animal breeders, to the sports hunting industry, to medical and scientific researchers, and to the whole animal industry.

The Bloc Quebecois tried to find a compromise for all the parties involved, but our amendments to that effect were all rejected in committee.

As regards the notion of pain, the Bloc Quebecois fears that the crown may not be able to prove which animals can feel pain other than by resorting to expert opinions, which would increase the costs involved in any proceedings. This also increases the risks that these proceedings may not be carried out fully due to a lack of means and resources. In fact, the crown may well have to meet twice the burden of proof in that it will be required to prove that the animal in question can feel pain, and that it did indeed feel pain.

We would like to clarify that we support increasing sentences, but during the testimony in committee we pointed out that the law enforcement and legal communities need the necessary resources to process complaints regarding cruelty to animals.

We believe that we need to raise awareness among police and legal authorities about this tragedy. We were stunned to learn that, according to police associations, there are no problems. In fact, their presentation on the bill dealt only with the provisions related to firearms.

Animal rights groups, in their presentations, told us that very few complaints lead to charges being laid, and that the number of charges resulting in penalties is virtually non-existent.

The fact that the means of defence is not included in the new part V1 could have the effect of depriving those who legitimately and legally kill animals or cause them pain from the protection currently afforded them under subsection 429(2) of the criminal code. It is therefore essential to reiterate these means of defence in the new part.

Section 429 of the criminal code stipulates that a legal justification or excuse and the colour of right are there to grant specific protection to whomever participates in a legitimate and legal activity.

Subsection 429(2) of the criminal code reads as follows:

1. (2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The minister—the former minister, I should say—the Deputy Minister and the parliamentary secretary to the former minister of justice told us in committee that subsection 8(3) of the criminal code would apply, and this concerns us. This addition is not enough and is far from being complete. These same people told us that defences of legal justification or excuse, or colour of right are implicit in section 8. We have serious reservations about this.

I wish to remind the House that there is a principle of law which says that the legislator is not deemed to speak in vain. So why specify section 429 at a time when animals were goods, and not incorporate it in this bill? I find this omission very worrisome, and those representing breeders, the livestock industry, hunters and researchers are quite right to wonder about the legislator's real intentions.

Accordingly, if a general clause applies to the entire bill, we must obviously conclude that a specific clause applies only to a specific section of the bill.

Therefore, since the provisions of section 429 are not repeated in part V1 of the criminal code, it would be incorrect to believe that it also applied to another section of the criminal code. This is completely contrary to the principles of law and it is why it is essential that there be express provision for the means of defence identified so as to include them in the new part V1.

We can understand that the public is very attached to the moral principle of the protection and the well-being of animals, and many people are concerned about this issue and feel that animals should be better protected against criminal behaviour. The Bloc Quebecois agrees completely.

We therefore feel that it is essential that judges, crown attorneys and special officers of the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should be given the authority to charge and fine those who commit acts of violence against animals.

Now, in another vein, we are also opposed to the provisions having to do with amendments to the Firearms Act. It is clear from the proposed amendments that the purpose of this bill is to take away a number of powers and responsibilities of the chief firearms officer, which now come under the jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.

The government of Quebec created the bodies responsible for issuing licences, the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. Now Bill C-15B is creating a new position, the firearms commissioner, which will have the effect of diminishing the powers currently under the responsibility of the chief firearms officer.

The proposed provisions are therefore taking powers delegated to Quebec and placing them back under federal government control. It seems that the primary objective of these new provisions is to privatize services relating to the registration and licensing of firearms, thus stripping Quebec of all its responsibilities.

In conclusion, we are opposed to Bill C-15B because it does not provide explicit and specific protection for the legitimate activities of animal husbandry, sport hunting or research, and because it takes away from Quebec the power to enforce the Firearms Act.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B is unofficially a declared war on agriculture in every province of Canada. It is a declared war on practices that have existed long before we became a nation. It is a declared war on a multimillion dollar industry across Canada.

The question that all agriculture groups across Canada are asking is simple. If it is not the minister's intention to change what is lawful today, why does she not simply raise the penalties for existing cruelty to animals? That is the question being asked. Why does that not happen?

Every agricultural group across Canada is threatened by this piece of legislation. In my area it will soon be calving time on farms and ranches. After calving time comes the annual round up. The bill would provide the minister with the right to declare that the practice of castration is harmful. The minister has a right to declare that these animals must be put under so there is no pain, which would cost ranchers and farmers millions of dollars. That right remains with the government. The act of branding undoubtedly will come under the jurisdiction of the act.

Let us look at more. I have heard people talking about chickens no longer being allowed to be housed in cages, that they must roam freely about and have so many square feet per bird. Let us think about what people will pay for eggs.

Let us look at the organization called PETA that tried to sell the idea that cow's milk was harmful to children because extracting the milk hurt cows. Why does the minister not declare what constitutes cruelty? Could we trust the government to determine the definition of cruelty? I think not.

I have another extremely important question. How does a group calling itself the Animal Alliance of Canada get a charitable donation number from the government? How does it do that? It will use its propaganda in the upcoming byelection in Calgary Southwest. The government must have responsibility for these actions.

Let me quote from some of the documents I have before me. One is a letter written by the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada which states:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just “property”, but rather beings in their own right who feel pain and are therefore deserving of legal protections.

The letter goes on to say:

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects. We'll make sure of that.

This is a letter from the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada who then goes on to state in support of the bill that it will cost Canadians millions and may drive some people totally out of agriculture. She continues:

Getting our politicians to pass good animal protection laws is about reward and punishment--rewarding them for doing a good job and punishing them for doing a poor one.

The House has not heard anything yet. Members should listen carefully to the following:

The Liberals have done a good job on Bill C-15B--

They should tell the hundreds of thousands of farmers, ranchers and hunters from coast to coast that this same group, which had the charitable donation, wrote this letter to go out as a fundraiser.

The Liberals go on to say:

--our first chance to reward them will be in the upcoming by-election in Calgary Southwest, Preston Manning's old electoral district.

I hope ranchers and farmers from coast to coast will listen to this last bit.

With your help, Animal Alliance's political arm, Environment Voters, will run a campaign in the by-election to help the Liberal candidate get elected. It'll be a tough fight. This is the Canadian Alliance's heartland. Nevertheless, if the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives split the right wing vote, it's possible for the Liberal candidate to win.

That would be funny if it were not so pitiful. We finally got the government to bring forward this bill out of an omnibus bill but it is about to destroy industry in my constituency in my province and industries from coast to coast that are asking for support on this side of the House. I can assure the House that the rural caucus on that side of the House cannot with good conscience ever stand in this House and vote for this bill.

I cannot believe that would be possible. I cannot believe the members I know, who raise chickens, hogs, cattle and so on, would have the fortitude to stand up and vote for this bill.

My colleagues on this side of the House have always said that we should put in tougher penalties for cruelty. If the minister were to state it now, this bill would not even be necessary. Are we going to cave in to the lobbyists?

In conclusion, the most recent census shows very clearly that the number of people in rural Saskatchewan is declining. It is a mind process over there. Which is more important, the lobby groups and the number of x s they can make or the industry from coast to coast? That truly is the question.

I am asking the House and pleading with the members opposite, for goodness sake, for the welfare of Canada, block the bill and destroy it before it becomes law.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested in a lot of the things that the member for Souris--Moose Mountain had to say. It would behoove the Liberal members opposite to be interested in what he had to say.

The bill clearly pits rural Canada against urban Canada. Unfortunately we have allowed the concerns of a few to dictate and prejudice the concerns of many.

Not only is the legislation ill-founded and ill-fated, both pieces of the bill, the cruelty to animal section and the gun registration section, makes criminals out of honest citizens. It is past time that we stopped doing that.

I do not think there is anyone in the House who is against modernizing the cruelty to animals legislation, but this legislation is not it. This is terrible legislation that would affect this nation from coast to coast and make criminals out of honest citizens.

The member for Souris--Moose Mountain spoke about farm practices that we do all the time, whether we are in Alberta, in western Canada, or in Nova Scotia. Castration and tail docking for lambs are farm practices carried out every day. They are not carried out with intentional cruelty. They are not done in some belligerent, cruel manner to cause undue harm to the animals. They are done for specific reasons. The bill could possibly make those practices criminal offences.

Under sections of the bill, hunters and trappers, honest men and women, honest citizens of Canada, who have never been arrested, who have never received even a traffic ticket in their lives and who have never gone through a stop sign, could be treated as criminals. It is incredible.

It is the view of the PC/DRC coalition that legislation is needed to punish those who intentionally abuse and neglect animals. We are not questioning that for a moment. However this legislation is not it.

Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received a lot of publicity in recent years, and deservedly so. We are looking at a poor attempt by the government to deal with that specific issue but Bill C-15B is not it.

If the government had been even remotely serious about doing something about cruelty to animals, it would not have put it together in an omnibus bill. It would have put together one bill, a stand on its own, cruelty against animals bill. Instead it has lumped it together with some firearms registration that was not well thought out either.

There is absolutely no way that any thinking member of parliament, or any sentient being, which I think is the wording for cruelty to animals, who feels pain can look at the legislation and not find something wrong with it. It is absolutely incredible.

We do want to support parts of the legislation, especially preventing cruelty against animals, but other parts of the legislation prevent us from supporting the good parts.

It is time for the government to get it right. It should put this to committee, find an answer to this serious question and do something about it.

I find it offensive that the propriety aspects of animal use in this legislation, and those aspects of this legislation have always been important to animal cruelty legislation and laws, the way that it is put into this legislation moves the animal cruelty provisions out of part IX of the criminal code and removes the protection that animal users had in section 429(2). This important section currently permits acts done with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right.

Therefore removing cruelty to animals provisions from this section is of particular concern to me as a hunter, a trapper and a farmer. I am guilty under this legislation and can probably expect to go in prison. It is unbelievable. The legislation would make a group of individuals, unwittingly and unjustly, in contravention of the law under section 182.2(1)(a) and 182.2(1)(b) of the proposed legislation.

I had this discussion with some Liberal members earlier. They told me there was nothing to be afraid of and nothing to worry about in the legislation. My NDP colleagues also said that it would be left up to the courts to decide. I am not willing to do that. I can tell members that when people go to court they are there for one reason: One of the parties in that courtroom has lied. One of the parties has unjustifiably defended something or accused the other party of something and the judge has to resolve it.

That is not how we need to resolve this. We need to resolve this in a fair and equitable manner that considers all the facts.

We share the concerns of Canadians about the definition of animal as being “any animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. I am forgetting a lot of my biology but I think it can be shown that animals, right down to multicelled creatures, feel pain and are actually affected by electrical shock or by acid. Certainly they are not sentient beings but they do have the ability to feel pain.

I do not know when the fishing season opens in the rest of the country, but come April 1 in Nova Scotia, when the fishing season begins, a lot of boys and girls will be put at risk when they put a worm on their hooks.

Someone may think that is incredulous but that is the way the bill reads and we will leave it up to some judge somewhere to make that decision. We can be sure the decision will be headed to the supreme court and we can be sure of what will happen there.

The legislation would place fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers and all those good Liberals who want to boil a lobster, at risk. Forget the people who actually make a living in the country by raising livestock: cattle, hogs, chickens. Chicken farmers have to use euthanasia daily. Rather than have a sick bird infect the entire the flock, they put the chicken down as humanely as possible. However, that would be a deliberate act of violence under this legislation.

The PC/DRC coalition supports strengthening the laws to protect animals from undue cruelty. We certainly do not support this legislation and we cannot support it.

In the fishery in eastern and western Canada and in the Arctic, fish are caught in nets and caught on hooks. It is not some deliberate way to torture an animal but under the legislation those people would suddenly become criminals. It is unbelievable how poorly crafted the legislation is.

There has been $800 million already spent on the gun registry. Where is it headed? I have no idea.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill, is a war on the agricultural industry and the fishing industry in Canada. Farmers, ranchers and fishers must be made aware that the bill will negatively affect their livelihood. This is not fearmongering. This is reality.

The justice minister said that the bill will not change things, that what was lawful before will still be lawful. If the bill has no effect, then what is its purpose to the agricultural industry and fishers?

We are told that the bill will not affect legitimate practices. What it does do is narrow the definition of what those legitimate practices are. This will have a huge effect on animal based businesses and practices.

I live in a rural area on a farm. The legislation causes huge problems for the surrounding farms and ranches in the area. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has moved into our province. Under its mandate we cannot put a culvert in a road that goes between two sloughs on our farm because we might affect the fish population. There has not been a fish in our sloughs as long as I have lived there. In fact, it is hard for the frogs to live there.

That shows what happens when bureaucracy goes amok. The rules and regulations of the fisheries department make no sense whatsoever to prairie farmers. Fisheries people have been moved from the oceans to central Saskatchewan to make rules and regulations. That scares me because the same thing could happen in the bill.

Animal rights groups have said that in order to be proven effective, the legislation will have to be challenged in court. Agriculturalists and fishers could have their whole lifestyle as well as their livelihood taken away from them because of this legislation. We have to make sure that Canadian chicken farmers and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association understand what is in the bill and that they look at it closely.

My husband and I are environmentalists. My husband has farmed for over 36 years. He is one of the first no-till farmers in our area. He looks after the land. He has stopped the land from blowing away. He looks after the environment. We protect our animals.

Under this law if someone complained that a cow was fenced in, the cow would be allowed to roam free. That has not happened for a long time in the prairies and I hope it never happens again.

This is what lies ahead for our agricultural industry if we do not speak against the legislation and if we do not challenge the government to change the bill to help us. We look after our animals. We will not abuse animals. We do everything not to hurt them. We have to make sure that the bill does not go through.

Animal rights groups have said that the government will have to take agriculturalists and fishers to court. Court challenges lie ahead for fishers and the agricultural industry. Hardworking Canadians cannot afford to fight court battles against well-funded activist groups.

My colleague's motion which would seek wilful and reckless actions as being guidelines for prosecution would help to protect farmers, ranchers, researchers and others with legitimate animal based occupations from nuisance prosecutions. As we saw in Bill C-5, the government is content to categorize all actions as criminal. There must be protection in place for those with legitimate uses for animals.

How can we criminalize every young or old hunter who wants to shoot an animal for food? How can we penalize those people? They need those animals for food. They buy a licence to hunt. The animals are used for food. Many people only eat animals they harvest from the wild. We cannot make that against the law.

The agricultural industry in Canada has been abandoned by the government. Legislation such as Bill C-15B will do additional damage to an already struggling business, a business that is groping for anything that can help it. It does not need to be loaded down with any more rules and regulations by a government that wants to impose them on us.

Moving animals from property offences into the criminal code leads us away from animal welfare into the land of animal rights. This is a scary proposition for many Canadians who use animals for legitimate purposes.

The very definition of animal in the legislation needs to be changed. The current definition is far too broad. It is too inclusive and will lead to problems for law-abiding citizens.

A leisurely day of fishing can now be met with court challenges on animal cruelty. How many times have we sat in a boat and fished? How many times have we sat on the edge of a riverbank with our grandchildren to enjoy a wonderful afternoon of fishing? That could be challenged in court.

The Canadian government would like to assure Canadians that petty things like that will not happen. The legislation however opens the door for exactly that scenario. The government's blatant pandering to special interests is horrific. A letter from the Animal Alliance of Canada is a perfect example:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just 'property', but rather beings in their own right...I can't overstate the importance of this change...It started in the last federal election. Because of a commitment by the (previous) Minister of Justice in the House of Commons to pass Bill C-15B (we) campaigned for her re-election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, (she) was in a losing campaign. (We) stepped in a championed her election...(she) won by 700 votes.

Instead of championing for the stability of law-abiding animal based industries and businesses, the government caters to a special interest group. That is totally unbelievable.

My colleagues and I in no way support cruelty to animals. However we do support law-abiding Canadians who are involved in animal based businesses and industry. We cannot support the bill as it stands since it seriously jeopardizes Canadians from engaging in legal, moral and ethical animal practices.

The government must look at the broader picture and the repercussions the bill will have on the industry instead of its blatantly pandering to lobby groups that have no idea of what they can do to the economy of the agricultural community and the fishing industry.