Betty Hinton

[An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, December 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty toward animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. There should not be any question at all about that.

For many years I have been owned by dogs. They run my life. I love them dearly. They are wonderful animals to have in one's life. I cannot tolerate anyone who would deliberately be cruel to a small animal such as that. The proposal in front of us affects far more than small animals. We have rules and regulations in place and if we were to enforce those fully, I think we could do everything possible to eliminate cruelty to small animals.

My concern with the bill is with regard to ranchers. I have the privilege of representing a riding that is surrounded by ranchers. There was no consultation with the producers on this bill. If the government had talked to the producers, they would have reassured it about the way they treat their animals and the investment that they have in the animals and we would not have the kind of wording that there is.

It is very disturbing to me when someone who has absolutely no idea of a lifestyle is prepared to jeopardize that lifestyle. Maybe in the minds of some of the Liberal members they believe that ranchers are an uncaring lot. Nothing could be further from the truth with regard to ranchers.

Ranchers are the original entrepreneurs of the country. They have to go through hardships and have incredibly difficult lives. For anyone to think that they would deliberately damage an animal or be cruel to it is beyond my comprehension.

They inoculate their animals. They care for their animals. After the delivery of little calves in the dead of winter, some of the ranchers in my riding actually go so far as to take them into their living rooms or kitchens to make sure they are safe and that they will be all right. That is the kind of concerned people we are talking about.

They hand feed these little animals to keep them going. They make every effort to ensure that the animal is safe. They inoculate. They do all of the proper things. To put them in a position where they could become criminals with this bill is intolerable to me.

We must understand the situation ranchers face. For instance, if there was a herd of 100 cattle and 10 were lost for whatever reason, the entire profit margin would be lost. Ranchers are business people and profit is important but the maintenance and safety of the animals is far more important to them.

The comments from the minister are incredibly disturbing. This has been raised over and over again and her comment has always been that it was not the intent of the bill to condemn ranchers but to protect animals. If it is true that the intent is to protect animals and not to put ranchers in a position of being charged with criminal acts, then that should be made very clear in the writing of this legislation but it is not.

We should define cruelty and eliminate any concern or fear that those in the ranching community would have that they may be treated as criminals. I do not think that is too much to ask under the circumstances. It would go a long way toward making it a more palatable bill.

[Violence, December 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. The Secretary of State for the Status of Women and her Liberal colleagues argue that by registering and continuing to tighten the rules on gun ownership they would be helping to eliminate violence against women.

Rather than targeting law-abiding gun owners, we need to address the source of the violence. We need to eliminate violence not only against women but against all Canadians. We must teach our children that violence is unacceptable. We need to exercise parental control and stop allowing our children to be exposed to gratuitous violence in movies and on television. Violence is a gender neutral crime.

Today I wear this button for the young women we honour, but I also wear it for all victims of violence, whether they be men or women.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by congratulating you on your 13 years of service. I can understand how hard it must have been to get started. I appreciate the work you have done. However you may become anesthetized to what is happening because you are now in a position to protect what the government brings forward. I disagree with what you think the role of the opposition is.

The opposition's role is to nudge the government into seeing flaws in its legislation or, if necessary, drag it kicking and screaming into reality. That is what our job is on this side.

I disagree with many of the comments made by my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas today. However, Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the comments made by you.

The problem we have over here is that there are many different pieces of the legislation. The part of concern to me is that it would expand the scope of diplomatic immunity. I have heard it denied on the other side of the House many times but that is in effect what the legislation is about.

Yesterday the member for Waterloo--Wellington and the member for Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford made comments regarding the presentation made by the member for Vancouver Island North. He outlined a number of things that have happened which were not made up or imagined. He talked about occurrences where diplomats in Canada have been involved in cases of rape, assault and drunk driving. He lined them all up. These are the things we have a concern with.

We are not being alarmist if we raise these things. If we have a law that does not protect Canadian citizens from these kinds of actions by people who are covered under the diplomatic section we are in a lot of trouble. We must be more vigilant about this.

I am not concerned about the portions of the bill that would give police additional powers. That is easy to control. I have absolute faith in the police to do what they are supposed to do. I do not agree with protesters who come here and smash windows, create violence and ruin it for the people who have a message they want to deliver to the country and the government. Non-violent protesters deserve to have a voice.

Could the hon. member tell me something that would ease my concerns about the expanded powers the bill would give to people who were not previously covered by diplomatic immunity? If she can do that perhaps I will be more assured about what the legislation is about.

[British Columbia, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the pine beetle is destroying forests in northern British Columbia. The Minister for International Trade has done his best to destroy the softwood lumber industry in the country as well as in British Columbia. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has abdicated his responsibility for land claims to the provincial level.

The government did not value British Columbia when it was paying its way and making its best contribution to the country. Now that British Columbia is in trouble, it has been abandoned. Does anyone on that side have a plan for British Columbia?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I recognize the hard work the member has put into the bill. I take nothing away from what she has tried to do.

Yes, there were amendments that were passed. I actually have one in front of me. It says that the results of any assessments of mineral and energy resources undertaken will have to be made public. That is one of the 30 recommendations we put forward. The other 29 were equally reasonable but this is the only one that passed.

The consultation process the member talked about is a valid thing. We need to consult. I am very supportive of it and that is what we have been pushing for. The way it reads, one can consult but one does not have to take any advice. We can go around, ask questions and hear what people have to say, but it does not make us change anything. That is what I object to.

For example, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been having a consultation process. He came to my community to speak to native people.

For the last six months I have been going around the country and talking to native people in their settings. I have gone to reserves. I have had meetings on back roads because some people are very nervous about saying what they need to say in the presence of anyone else. I accept that and I will go to back roads and meet with these people. I will go to reserves and meet with these people. I will go to rehabilitation centres. I will do whatever I have to do.

In the case of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the consultation with native people which took place in my community took place in a very nice hotel, one of the finest in our city. I think 20 people showed up in total. The reason for that was they were not very comfortable in the setting that was selected. That is not how to get feedback from people.

I use that only as an example. When you are doing your consulting process for this bill, and you say you are going to ask for input from other people, you may ask for input, but if you do not do it in the right way, or you do not take the results that come from those meetings, the consulting is worth nothing.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague the member for Surrey North.

I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-10, an act respecting national marine conservation areas in Canada. As has been said several times today, this is the third time the government has brought the bill to the House of Commons. Each time the Liberal government allowed the bill to lapse before it completed its parliamentary course. That is the reason it has taken three years to do the bill.

One would hope that after three tries the government would get it right, but that is still not the case. We have a number of problems with the bill. We have raised our concerns during debate sessions in the heritage committee meetings. We have also tried to remedy this through the amendment process. We have been unsuccessful.

Earlier today my hon. colleague from Simcoe--Grey made a comment that I found particularly offensive regarding what we have been trying to do with the bill. I would like him to name one of the ridiculous amendments that he claims has been put forward by this party. The amendments we have put forward to date have all been in the interests of all stakeholders concerned.

I need to give a bit of background about what it is our party has been trying to do. In order to give that background, I am asking for a bit of leniency.

The province of British Columbia is not the only province that is affected by this marine conservation bill, but I can only speak for the province of British Columbia on this one particular issue.

The northern part of British Columbia has a problem with the pine beetle epidemic which is threatening our lumber industry. The only support or help that has been suggested so far by the government side of the House has been to hope for a very cold snap. If there is a very cold snap the beetles may die, otherwise B.C. will lose part of its forest.

If that is not enough to concern British Columbians, there is also the problem of the softwood lumber issue. The softwood lumber issue was no surprise to the Liberal side of the House. The government had five years to prepare for this but it did not so now Canada is in a crisis situation. Once again we are forced into being reactive instead of proactive.

We also have another serious issue in my province and that is the native land claim issue.

Members may wonder why I am raising these issues. I am trying to give the House a bit of the picture of how the province of British Columbia stands today and how this new conservation bill is a further slap in the face.

When British Columbia came to the federal government level and asked for time to look at what was going on and have more input and consultation take place because it was a brand new provincial government, that request was turned down. When the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which represents every community in British Columbia, asked for the very same consideration, it was turned down. When the native component came before the committee and asked for those considerations, it got them.

I accept that native people need to have a voice in this issue. My party has been fighting for a better voice for native people for a long time. Yes, they do have to have a voice in this issue, but the government also has to consider all the other stakeholders in exactly the same vein and it did not do that. The government turned down the province. It turned down the municipalities. The only people the government has given legislative rights to in the bill are native people. That is what my party objects to. This is completely wrong. All parties have to be given equal access.

I do not know how we are going to resolve all of the problems we face in Canada today. Some of the problems we face would be very simply looked after if the government side would just listen carefully to the amendments that were made. I would again challenge my colleague from Simcoe--Grey to point out one ridiculous amendment that was put forward by the Canadian Alliance Party. There was none. We only put forward amendments that were going to give the same consideration to all stakeholders that the government side of the House had given to native people.

I am new to the heritage committee, but that does not make me foolish. I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I do not understand the method that the bill has taken.

I am personally not going to support the bill. It is not because I do not believe in conservation; I do severely. But as I pointed out earlier, the bill as it stands today is going to slam the door in the face of the province of British Columbia for any alternative it might have for economic reasons.

We are in serious trouble in British Columbia. We may very well need to look at doing something offshore. If the legislation passes, we cannot. That is what I object to. The government cannot slam the door of the economy in the face of British Columbia and expect us as representatives across the country to accept it. We are not going to.

We have coastal communities that were not consulted. Well, that is not fair. They were consulted. They were consulted, but the government is under absolutely no obligation to do anything they say.

Another concern I have and I have had this raised by many of my colleagues is where are the lines for this conservation area? Generally speaking, in Canada when we designate a park or a conservation area there are nice, clearly defined lines on a map. We can look at it and say “That is where we are going to conserve. We will not do anything in here. There will be no mineral exploration, nothing will happen”. In this particular case that line is out there somewhere in the ocean. I have not seen where the government is drawing it. I am not certain what the aim is, but I do not like the way it is being done.

It is not the fault of anyone in the House, except perhaps the government, that it has taken three tries to get this marine conservation act in place. There is no need to rush it at this point in time. There needed to be more time for consultation and that is all we asked for as a party. We did not get it.

This is third reading. I want to make it very clear that the reason I will not support the bill and I will vote against it are for the reasons I have outlined today.

There was a lack of consideration given to the province of British Columbia. I object to that strongly on behalf of all the people in that province. We need to do things better and we need to do things in a more co-operative manner.

I would further say that I resent when a member of the House, especially a member of the same committee that I sit on, takes the facts and skews them to their own good. Members cannot say that anything the Canadian Alliance has done with heritage did anything but try to improve the bill for all stakeholders in Canada. We wanted it expanded so everyone had the same equal opportunity to voice their concerns. That is all we asked for. There is nothing ridiculous about that. I am not supporting the bill.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the United States lumber lobby has influenced the United States federal department of commerce to make a political statement that will hurt not only Canadians and the Canadian lumber industry but also its consumers. Thousands of jobs have been lost in Canada and thousands more will be lost unless our two nations find a resolution. It is especially detrimental to my province of British Columbia.

The Liberal government was given five years' notice that the U.S. lumber lobby was planning to take action against our lumber industry. Our federal government did nothing or next to nothing. During last year's federal election, the Liberals still had no position on the issue. When the first tariff was levied against Canada in August, the Liberals feigned utter surprise. Politically, only the Canadian Alliance has been working tirelessly to raise awareness.

Forestry is the foundation of the economy in many British Columbia communities. The lumber, pulp, plywood, poles and other wood products sold from the interior of B.C. represent more than $2 billion in annual revenues. In my riding of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, there are literally dozens of operations dealing with timber in various forms. Their payrolls include logging contractors, sawmill workers, truck drivers, cleaners, fallers, mechanics and engineers.

More than 30,000 people in my riding are being adversely affected by the cavalier attitude of the government toward this extremely important sector of our economy. Add to this the number of businesses that will feel the effects and the number doubles. My constituents expect the federal government to make this very big industry a very big priority.

Two weeks ago I conducted public meetings in my riding to discuss local economic conditions. The job losses in the forestry sector were the number one concern. My constituents sent a very clear message; the federal government is not doing enough to defend this industry. Their frustration was evident. They asked how they could help me to make their voices heard in Ottawa. In response I developed what I call the tree card. The message to the minister on the tree card is very simple. It states: “Do your job. Protect my job. Keep Canadian forestry alive”. At last count 2,200 cards had been printed. It is my sincere hope that they are littering the top of the minister's desk. Hopefully he will get the message.

On October 17 two sawmills in my constituency announced that they would be cutting lumber production. That will impact over 250 employees. The community of Louis Creek is anticipating a two week Christmas shut down. In the town of Clearwater 500 people have had their work hours cut.

In Chase the Adams Lake mill has laid off 150 workers for at least two weeks. Adams Lake lumber is one of the most efficient mills in North America. Jill Atkinson, a small business owner in the community said the layoff sent a chill through the town. The local grocery store has already noticed customers cutting back on their purchases. Why? The owners said these mill workers “hear there will be extensive layoffs unless we get a decent agreement”.

In Kamloops, a city of 85,000, more than 750 people have well paying jobs at Weyerhaeuser. According to Weyerhaeuser, the United States depends on Canada for about one-third of the softwood lumber used in their housing construction and remodelling needs.

That is what free trade is all about. We cannot allow special interest lobby groups to squeeze more than a fair deal out of Canadians. We should use NAFTA and the WTO to resolve the situation. Only then will Canada's lumber industry be permanently protected.

Jan Lingford of the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce recently wrote an editorial. She believes that Canada needs to stand up to the U.S. lumber interests. She said:

This is not about the U.S. lumber producer's claim that government subsidizes the Canadian industry. This is about the U.S. producers needing the economic protection only their government can provide. This is about U.S. companies that cannot compete on a level playing field, as they have not reinvested in modernizing their mills as Canadians have. This is about Washington, D.C. being run by lobbyists working to prop up their industry at our expense.

She concluded by saying:

With 50 percent of all Canadian lumber originating in B.C. this is a crisis for our province. Our federal government must make a resolution of this issue its highest economic priority.

Jan is right. We are in agreement.

The U.S. claims there are unfair subsidies given to Canada's lumber industry. This is categorically wrong. On three different occasions binational committees have found unanimously that there was no evidence that Canada subsidizes its lumber industry. Even American economists support our position. Canadian lumber prices do not vary significantly from U.S. prices and in some cases ours are actually higher.

Agreeing to a tariff is an admission of guilt and we are not guilty of anything. Imagine how people who work in Canadian forestry feel when they see the U.S. government offering protection to U.S. wood producers, while our side wavers back and forth, neither protecting our forest sector nor taking a stand for fair and just trade.

When the Minister for International Trade sits down with his U.S. counterparts to talk about softwood lumber, I want him to remember the depth of despair being felt in the communities of Chase, Clearwater, Barrière and Kamloops.

The people who work in forestry have worked long and hard to keep up with emerging technologies and environmental concerns. They have worked hard to upgrade the mills and change harvest methods. Canadian operations are efficient, well maintained and competitive. The minister has to stop being an apologist and start fighting for this industry.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, my colleague the member for Vancouver Island North has covered a number of the things I wanted to talk about today, whether it should be a short term fix or litigation. I will not need to go any further there.

I have been listening very carefully to my colleagues from the Liberal side of the House. They are talking very tough today. I hope that tough talk continues when we end up at the WTO. If it does not, we will be right back where we are today.

Today I have heard them say that there has been a leadership role taken by government. I disagree with that. There has not been a leadership role. We have been very weak in our negotiating skills. We have used an apologetic attitude every time we have approached anything. The penalty for that has been that we have suffered as Canadians.

In particular, my riding is going to be losing a number of jobs because of the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement. It is going to impact us dramatically. I want to see a solution to that and I want to see it soon.

The member for Vancouver Island North mentioned earlier that there had been a number of jobs lost. Does he have a specific number from the last set of negotiations from 1995 until now?

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, the minister recently tied my comments regarding Indonesian plywood to our support for the United States. I hope the minister understands that domestically I have a very different stance than I do globally and that there is no intent to ever tie those two things together. I resent the inference.

However I have made some observations over a short period of time that we are always in a position to be reactive and not proactive whether it be on softwood lumber or agriculture.

Why do we wait for a crisis situation before we move forward? The WTO issue should be easier to resolve than it has been so far. Canada needs to take a stronger stand because this is a domestic situation. We are not talking about the global terrorism situation which I support without any reservation.

However, when it comes to what happens to Canadians in terms of agriculture or softwood lumber issues, we need to take a much stronger stand. Would the minister tell me today if that is exactly what will be done?

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are not advocating that. The parliamentary secretary should listen more carefully.

The U.S. department of commerce has biased its anti-dumping investigation into Canadian softwood imports by rejecting all instances of profitability or break-even sales and has chosen to count only negative margins on specific and narrow items within a product line. It then applies this result to all other products, including the positive returns. This is called zeroing out and is challengeable at the WTO.

When will the minister be launching this challenge at the WTO?