Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts

An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, although waxing eloquent the previous member missed a fairly major point regarding the submissions of ranchers, farmers, researchers and so on. We in the Canadian Alliance want to make it clear at the beginning that we in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We would without a doubt support increased penalties for offences relating to such acts. However there are ways to do it other than those the minister has proposed.

As has been mentioned in the House by others today and previously, there are animal rights groups that target livestock producers and label them as cruel, inhumane and barbaric. We have seen this. We have been monitoring it on the Internet and elsewhere. One such group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting schoolchildren.

I take offence to that. We have a lot of dairy farmers in Saskatchewan. My riding has probably the highest concentration of dairy farmers in the province. They are hard-working people who take care of their livestock. They need to do so for the sake of the bottom line. Indirectly targeting these people is something I am greatly opposed to and offended by. The Canadian Alliance is concerned Bill C-15B would arm groups like PETA and others with a powerful new tool to use against farmers, dairy farmers, ranchers and others whose livelihood requires careful care and treatment of animals.

The official opposition agrees with the majority of Canadians who want to see harsher penalties for those who mistreat or deliberately abuse animals. However because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded many ranchers, hunters, medical researchers and so on might be subject to harassing prosecutions. They could be convicted of animal abuse even though they properly care for their animals.

Groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claim they have no intention of using Bill C-15B to harass farmers and researchers. On the other hand there are groups like the Animal Alliance of Canada whose director, Liz White, hints she would use the legislation to attack animal producers. I will put it on record again if it is not already there. She stated:

My worry is that people think this is the means to the end, but this is just the beginning. It doesn’t matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, if nobody tests it. The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law and have the courage and the conviction to lay charges. That’s what this is all about. Make no mistakes about it.

The Minister of Justice has the ability to introduce legislation. However I cannot for the life of me understand why he does not introduce legislation that would strengthen and modernize the current cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code without threatening the people who use and care for animals.

The minister has chosen to go a different route and not listen to the many submissions of those calling for changes to the bill. He has refused to explicitly protect farmers, ranchers, fishermen, hunters and medical researchers. He has refused to be explicit in the legislation and ensure the courts would not be able to interpret Bill C-15B in a way parliament did not intend.

In light of these refusals we are concerned the Liberals may be counting on the bill to reach much further than they publicly state in the House. The Canadian Alliance will continue to demand that the government amend Bill C-15B to ensure farmers, ranchers and medical researchers would remain protected, that their concerns would be taken into account, and that there would be no problems down the road with people going to court and using the legislation to the detriment of these individuals.

The bill's definition of animal must be amended. The present definition reads:

--a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The definition is far too broad. It could interfere with the ability of farmers to eliminate pests and rodents which are destructive to their livelihood. We had a gopher problem in Saskatchewan we needed to deal with. Out on the range a problem like that can hurt other animals. If a horse gets caught in one of the holes it can create problems for the horse's owner who may be trying to conduct a ranching business. We need the amendment for that reason.

We are calling for the retention of the animal cruelty provisions in the property section of the criminal code. The criminal code currently provides protection from harassing prosecutions to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. It does so through the phrase cited by the hon. member opposite concerning legal justification, excuse or colour of right. Bill C-15B would move the animal cruelty provisions out of the property offences section of the criminal code and into a section of their own, thereby effectively removing the legal justification protection.

I will quickly summarize. We in the Canadian Alliance in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We support increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. We should hike them up significantly to send a strong message to those who would abuse or deliberately hurt and maim animals in some cases for their own perverse pleasure.

New animal cruelty legislation might cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. As we have said, it could have significant detrimental implications for farmers, hunters and other agricultural producers who depend on animals for their livelihoods.

Moving the cruelty provisions from property offences to a new separate section would elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. No one can deny that. The defences that apply to individuals who want to protect themselves against harassment and malicious charges would no longer apply under the new section.

The former minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would still be lawful after the bill received royal assent. If it is not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not go the route of raising penalties for those who perpetrate cruelty on animals? That is the way we would have preferred her to approach the matter.

I will again make plain our longstanding opposition to the Firearms Act. We in the Canadian Alliance oppose the amendments to the Firearms Act proposed by Bill C-15B on the basis that the act should be repealed altogether. Messing around with it or tweaking the edges to no account is not something we are favourable to. It should be repealed and removed altogether.

For these reasons we in my party oppose Bill C-15B as it stands.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Bill C-15B as it is currently written. However I will comment on the wording of an amendment to send Bill C-15 back to committee because the amendment is based on a false assumption that is inconsistent with the status of animals in common law.

The amendment assumes it is necessary to expressly state in law that animals can be used for lawful purposes. It assumes that if legislators did not do so the use of animals would be illegal. It assumes that if one wanted to use animals for a particular reason it would need to be authorized by statute.

I recognize the concerns raised by the hon. members who say that unless specific reference is made in Bill C-15B to the defences of lawful justification, excuses or colour of right, the use of animals for industry would become illegal. They are saying the defences are needed to render the use of animals lawful.

That is a false assumption. It is important to look at the argument more closely because it raises the question of what the status of animals has been historically. What was the status of animals in common law prior to the enactment of animal cruelty legislation? Did their use have to be expressly recognized in order to be lawful?

The answer is no. The status of animals in early common law before animal cruelty laws were enacted was described in the case of Standard Sausage Co. v. Lee, a 1933 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In that case Mr. Justice Martin confirmed that before legislation was passed in Britain in the 1800s making cruelty to animals a crime, members of the animal kingdom were at the mercy of the wanton brutality of their owners.

The early justification for animal cruelty laws focused on the morally corrupting influence that witnessing animal cruelty had on humans. It was felt that humans who saw people being cruel to or abusing animals believed it was easy to move on to other acts of violence. Bill C-15B does not talk about the use of animals which has been done historically. It talks about the abuse of animals. No one is questioning the use of animals. This is about abuse of animals.

In early common law animals had no rights or interests per se. The property rights of animal owners were protected but there was no prohibition against owners or anyone else abusing animals. The lawful use of animals is already protected. Bill C-15B would expressly prohibit the unlawful use or abuse of animals.

This is the reverse of the assumption made by some hon. members that under Bill C-15B all use of animals would be illegal unless there was recognition of the use of animals in statute. It is clear that since the inception of the animal cruelty provisions of the criminal code a minimum standard of behaviour has applied to everyone.

There is either a lack of understanding of historical common law or a lack of understanding of the history of animal cruelty legislation. That may be why the amendment is being brought forward. It could also be a red herring. It is one of the two. I do not know which. If it is a red herring it is sad because it would put in the place of good legislation a trumped up charge that did not apply at all.

I do not think anyone in the House would condone the abuse of animals. That is what Bill C-15B is talking about. Let us expressly prohibit the abuse of animals. The use of animals is lawful in many areas of law. That would not change under the bill. I would like to see people here stand and say they condone the abuse of animals because if they do not support Bill C-15B that is what they are doing.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

There they go, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I am stating. What does he mean, am I for it or against it? The bill has flaws. The bill was not thought out. The member on the other side wants to go ahead with it and that is exactly what I am talking about. That is why today we want to highlight what is wrong with the bill.

Bill C-15B would penalize those who deal with animals as part of their life.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

When we talk about cruelty to animals it raises compassion in people. It brings out what is best in human beings. It brings out their concern about cruelty to animals. I, representing the urban riding of Calgary East, have a lot of constituents who have written to me about this. When they hear the title of the bill, they automatically have compassion. I have been subject to numerous representations from them. They feel that we should pass the bill because, from their point of view, the bill is needed to stop cruelty to animals and we have all seen many examples of cruelty to animals.

The title of the bill automatically makes it an emotional issue for people who live in urban areas and cities in Canada. Nobody would say they oppose protecting animals. Everybody would agree with the bill. As a matter of fact, I have a dog, and I can tell members that my own children would get upset if I were to tell them that technically I am opposing the bill. They would feel that I am agreeing with cruelty to animals.

However, that is not the issue here. The issue is not cruelty to animals. As I stated yesterday during debate on the private member's bill dealing with the killing of wildlife, which was presented by my colleague, the approach the government takes in addressing an issue is that it will try to address an issue but at the same time it will try not to address an issue. The government plays a role which at the end of the day turns out to be of no help to anyone. This is the typical kind of bill that comes from the--

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part today, at third reading stage, in the debate on Bill C-15B, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This bill was the government's response to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people asking for a more effective act regarding treatment, protection and penalties relating to animal cruelty.

The current legislation dates back to the 19th century and needs to be modernized. However, after scrutinizing this bill, we realized that the government has not been able to strike a proper balance so that breeders, farmers, hunters and researchers who carry out legitimate activities do not have to face unacceptable legal action.

The purpose of this bill is not, of course, to protect people, from all walks of life, who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals.

Everyone agrees on the need to make changes in order to find the proper balance.

However, while the Minister of Justice claims that the bill does not deprive the animal industry from its revenues, it would be important to specify this in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous lawsuits.

This was not done, and it is why the Bloc Quebecois is against the bill. The minister simply amended the bill by adding the defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. The minister and the Standing Committee on Justice rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The legislation would no longer provide any balance on the issue of cruelty to animals. We are shifting from an outdated legislation that did not properly protect animals from cruelty to a legislation that would put people carrying out legal and reasonable activities in an unfair and unacceptable situation.

As a member representing a rural riding, my duty is to protect not only farmers, but also the tourism industry which includes hunters, ranchers and researchers.

In my riding, for example, studies are conducted on a regular basis to see if the snow goose population is maintained at an adequate level. There are contentious issues involved here. The legislation, in its present form, could result in prosecution that would prove frivolous and that would hinder the very scientific and relevant process undertaken to ensure adequate management of the snow goose population.

This is also true for farmers. We have seen all over the planet animal rights advocates, whose point of view is defendable. However, we must avoid going too far and finding ourselves in a situation where it would be impossible to get into various types of operations that are currently accepted, that are normal in our society but that could result in vexatious prosecution.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle, if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence already allowed in part XI of the criminal code. This is why the Bloc Quebecois asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part V.1 of the criminal code. These amendments were rejected in committee.

This bill also deals with firearms. In that part of the bill, powers are taken away from the Government of Quebec, which created bodies responsible for issuing licences, namely the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. These responsibilities will be taken away from Quebec under this bill, which we also find totally unacceptable.

In short, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill because it does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities of the animal industry, hunting and research, and because it strips the Government of Quebec of the power to enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act.

I will give a good example of what goes on in my riding. The Cégep de La Pocatière offers a popular course on animal health, which trains people to become technicians working with veterinarians. Obviously, in this line of work, one must operate on animals. The people who take such a course become animal health technicians. They learn to work with veterinarians and animals.

The bill, as it stands, could lead to lawsuits against this practice, with the major legal consequences that entails. Such proceedings would not, in my opinion, jeopardize the program as such, but they would give rise to costs that, in my opinion, are inappropriate. Consequently, we believe that the bill should be re-examined more thoroughly before being passed.

The same goes for farmers and ranchers. Our ranchers have to assume their responsibilities properly. I believe that the vast majority do just that. If there are exceptions, let us use the provisions currently in the act or amend the bill to focus on those cases. However, we should not make a blanket statement. Many ranchers behave quite appropriately and they should not be the object of frivolous lawsuits. I believe the bill should be reviewed and reworked to be made more palatable.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. It meets the intent of the reform, which is to protect animals, but it does not define precisely and properly enough what an offender would be. Consequently, the bill will be challenged in court time and time again. I do not believe making this kind of laws is what legislators intend. Their goal is to have laws that will be easily enforceable and that will help deal with problems. It is important to do this properly.

As I was saying before, the current legislation dates back to the 19th century. It is being updated. Let us hope we will not have to do it again within the next five or ten years. We should have legislation that is consistent with today's reality and that will enable us to deal with problems in the years to come.

We do not have that with this bill. Therefore, it should be sent back to the drawing board. I believe it is not a matter of such urgency that we need to do it for tomorrow morning, but it is important to have proper legislation we all agree upon, which is not the case at present.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill unless it is amended in a novel fashion.

Since we are at third reading, unless the government decides to change the content of the bill to better take into account criticism from those who raise animals, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill. As a member from a rural area, I can only applaud this position.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code and the Firearms Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill would also add administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications of the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B re-introduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament with certain changes. However, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, many people who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihoods still have a number of concerns with the bill.

One concern is that the definition of animal is too broad. The proposed definition of an animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. The new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection afforded at present to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase legal justification, excuse or colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. However, in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would remove these provisions outside of the scope of that protection.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences to a new section in its own right would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted.

Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecution and have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, the director of legislative revision from the Animal Alliance of Canada has stated:

My worry is that people think that this is the means to the end, but this is just the beginning. It doesn't matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, if nobody tests it. The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law and have the courage and the conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

The former federal justice minister assured us that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. However, the problem is that these new provisions would arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

The changes to the Firearms Act are administrative by nature. The provisions of the bill are intended to simplify the registration process and to incorporate information technology to reduce costs. Regarding the Firearms Act, I refer to section 31 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy where it states:

We believe there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We will replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

We support increasing penalties for cruelty to animals offences but we do not support widening the scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. New animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant and detrimental implications for farmers, hunters, and other agricultural producers who are dependent on animals for their livelihoods.

We do not support the amendments to the Firearms Act as we have a long held feeling that the act should be repealed entirely and replaced with a practical, cost-effective firearms control system.

To reiterate, the Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. Moving animal cruelty provisions out of property offences to a new and separate section of the criminal code could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The defences currently available would no longer apply in the new section. The new definition of animal would include an extremely broad definition that includes a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never been provided that kind of protection before.

The former justice minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. If it was not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences?

Without substantial amendments to address the concerns I have I must join with my colleagues of the official opposition party and oppose the bill.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the House on the progress that was made earlier today with respect to one very important piece of legislation, Bill C-55. I hope that progress can continue through all stages of that legislation when the House returns to it.

This afternoon and tomorrow, we will continue with Bill C-47, the excise bill, Bill S-40, respecting clearing houses, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments.

Next week is a scheduled constituency week and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows the rather elaborate procedure that must be gone through to change that process. It is not an easy thing to do. However next week members will be at work in their constituencies.

When we return on May 21, I would expect then to return to Bill C-47, if it is not already completed. We then would turn our consideration to the very important legislation introduced earlier today with respect to reproductive technologies, that bill introduced by the Minister of Health. I would also in that week that we are back hope to make further and better progress on Bill C-5 concerning species at risk.

I would confirm the earlier commitment that I made to the Leader of the Opposition that Thursday, May 23 will be an allotted day.

Species at Risk Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate today, a debate dealing with Bill C-5. I believe this is probably the fourth time I have spoken to the bill.

The more I look into this bill, the more I dislike it. The more we research the bill and the more we look at it to see if it will be effective in what it is to accomplish, the more we are concerned and the more we realize and recognize the gravity of what the bill would accomplish.

I go back 15 months to the first time that I stood in the House to deliver my maiden speech. Since that time I have spoken more about the sorry state of agriculture and the family farm as a result of the Liberal government's inaction than on any other topic. Again today we find ourselves standing and looking at legislation that would be an impairment and would have a negative impact on the family farm, agriculture and even more specifically, western Canadian agriculture.

I have spoken more on agriculture because no other issue impacts my riding to the degree that agriculture does. I am a farmer. My father is a farmer. My grandfather and my great grandfather were farmers. My neighbours, the majority of my friends back home and business associates are ranchers and farmers. Those who are not are in the business of supplying goods and services in farm communities.

Bill C-5 is not only disheartening of course to those involved in farming but also to farm communities when they recognize and realize the impact this legislation will have.

The importance of today's debate can be understood as we discuss Bill C-5 and its contents.

There is tremendous frustration being experienced in rural Canada given the repeated attacks by the government on our way of life, a way of life that has significantly contributed to the success of our country and which continues to produce, despite the many roadblocks that the government throws in front of it, an abundance of some of the highest quality food in the world.

We are continually under siege by a government that appears either disrespectful or oblivious to our way of life and common rural practices. It is a siege that has been exasperated by a Prime Minister who propagates government of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians rather than promoting a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Bill C-5 will have a negative impact on the people of Crowfoot and rural Canada. This fact is even more evident given the failure of the Prime Minister to listen to his backbench members of parliament, particularly those representing rural ridings in Canada, especially in regard to not only Bill C-5 but also to Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill.

Reportedly the government has vowed to pass Bill C-5 legislation despite the objections of some of its very own backbenchers, objections that have surfaced as the ferocity of our opposition has mounted against the bill over the last few months. The official opposition has been opposed to these two anti-farming, anti-rural pieces of legislation since their very inception. We have at every opportunity voiced the concerns of rural Canadians, the concerns of the people of Crowfoot, Cyprus Hills, Red Deer and other areas.

At every opportunity we stood to voice the concerns expressed in letters from ranchers and farmers.

Also, reportedly, the Prime Minister is making note of those on the government benches who are opposed to the legislation. In other words, he is saying that he knows who they are and that they will be whipped into line. There are no encouraging words from the Prime Minister as he attempts to strong arm Liberal backbenchers to forget representing their constituents and those who are involved in the agricultural sector.

We have ample opportunity, individuals and examples of those who were not whipped into line. John Nunziata knows all too well what happens when one votes against the government and in accordance with the wishes of constituents.

Last week the government apparently cancelled the vote on Bill C-5 because it did not have enough supporters on its own benches to win the vote. This legislation should not be reduced to number crunching. This bill is wrong. Regardless of those who will vote in favour of it or against it, the common sense approach to this bill would recognize that this legislation is not right. This will not accomplish what the government says it will accomplish.

We in the Canadian Alliance believe strongly that we need effective species at risk legislation. We need compensation. If we are to expect the farmers and ranchers to take their land out of production to protect a certain species, as Canadians, let us all share in the burden and give that property owner, rancher or farmer adequate and fair compensation.

What is the definition of fair and reasonable compensation? It is whatever they want to give at that moment. Fair market value is quite different. The government fails to recognize that farmers have a huge investment in their land. It is to the point now where the government has taken away the guns, it has taken away the land and one wonders when it will come to take away the wife and kids.

The Liberal government is failing to recognize that many rural Liberal and Alliance members of parliament are opposed to Bill C-5 because of the detrimental effects it will have on their constituents. One government source apparently claimed these government MPs were going to vote against the bill because they had a gripe against the Prime Minister. We do not want anyone to vote against the bill for that reason, but people can vote for whatever reason as long as they are voting against it because there is sufficient evidence in this bill to show that it is just wrong.

This type of autocratic, arrogant thinking completely demeans the Liberal MPs whose opposition and reservations are based on the opinions and fears of their constituents, fears that there will not be adequate compensation for landowners or that they will be unjustly dragged into court to defend common farm practices in the case of Bill C-15B.

Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, is a terrible affront to our western rural way of life. The Liberal government has brought pieces of legislation before us today that are becoming almost as notorious as Bill C-68, the Firearms Act. Up until now there has been no other piece of legislation that has pitted rural Canada against urban Canada, but we have a beauty here. We have a piece of legislation that is wedge legislation which pits one against the other.

Despite being passed by the House almost seven years ago, Bill C-68 still invokes strong animosity and opposition toward the Liberal government, and so it should. Bill C-5 has the same potential because it is based on wrong principles. It is based on the principles that people who own land where a species at risk is found have the sole responsibility of protecting that species, even it means forfeiture or a loss of income because of having to take land out of production. It is wrong. It is time that every member in the House stands and says that this legislation is wrong.

Farmers are enduring financial hardships. If we go back to Bill C-68, we know it costs us $700 million to administer a program that is does not work. Yet on the other hand, the Liberal government is holding back putting into this legislation fair market value for land taken out of production.

We have seen species on our farm that would be listed as species at risk and I will do everything to protect the species. However I cannot promise that when farmers look at the ability of the government to grab the land, to basically expropriate it and pay a pittance in the way of compensation--

Supply

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating the long list of attacks the government has made on farmers across the country. Quite frankly, it turns my stomach to hear the member of parliament who just spoke, my colleague across the floor and others say that somehow they are going to tell our farmers how to farm better. The last thing we need is for them to tell farmers how to farm better.

When it comes to these conservation techniques the member was talking about, farmers in my part of the country have been using them widely for 10 years. They are so far ahead of the government it is not funny. All farmers ask of the government is to take care of a few specific things and then get out of their way and let them do their jobs. Instead government continues to attack and interfere. I do not have much time to talk about that but I am going to mention some of the ways the government attacks and interferes with our farmers.

All farmers want from the government is to properly negotiate the unfair trade practices which are destroying their prices and driving prices down. Government is very weak on this. It does a pitiful job in terms of negotiating trade deals and dealing with unfair trade practices. That is what farmers want it to deal with. They want a basic safety net program. What the government has put forth is a disaster. It simply has not delivered the few things farmers want from it, yet it keeps throwing other things at farmers. I could go through a long list but I do not have the time.

The government has forced farmers to pay for inspections through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and other places. The inspections are done for the good of the general population yet farmers are made to pay for them. That is unfair. It is that kind of attack our farmers do not want.

The government has made farmers and other taxpayers pay for 200 Department of Fisheries and Oceans employees who were sent to the prairies. It destroys the fisheries off the east coast and then sends DFO people to the prairies to further interfere and make it more difficult for farmers and communities to do their business. That is the kind of attack the farmers do not need from the government.

The gun registry is another government interference which has just been devastating. It cannot even keep guns out of the hands of Mom Boucher for Pete's sake. He is one of the biggest organized crime figures in the country and he still successfully registered his guns. The registry is a complete disaster. That is what the government throws at farmers. The registry is expensive, intrusive and unnecessary.

Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B are before the House. The government throws these bills at farmers and they are devastating. Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation, will not protect a single species. We know that. It is a very heavy-handed approach and the penalty is extremely high. There is so little co-operation in the legislation that if a species is found, the farmer, cottage owner, or whoever it is as this will affect a lot more than farmers, will make sure that the species will not remain one way or another. It will lead to more harm to endangered species rather than less.

Members of the rural caucus stood and said they got compensation for the farmers. That is a deceitful statement to farmers. They are deceiving their own constituents with those statements. They are absolutely untrue. I challenge them to show us where compensation is written in the legislation. I challenge them to show us where in any regulation there is a fair market value guarantee. It is not even suggested. The compensation those members have talked about is not there. They are being dishonest with their constituents and that has to change. That is not an acceptable thing for government members do. The rural caucus members from the Liberal Party will have a lot to answer for when their farmers find out what is in the legislation and what is not. That is unacceptable.

In Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, the government again is attacking farmers. That is what our motion is about today. The government is making it very difficult for farmers to operate. Farmers will be subjected to court challenges at their own expense. The government does this and says that everything is okay.

The member for Peterborough had the nerve to stand and talk about 50 year old legislation that already determined what is going to happen in terms of allowing farmers to use animals the way they do and produce animals the way they choose. If that is the case, then why did the government bring forward this legislation? He said the legislation has been fine for 50 years. The judge ruled 50 years ago that it is okay, so why do we have this intrusive legislation which will make life difficult for farmers?

I know my time is up, but the list is very long and I have been able to mention only a few of the key attacks of the government on farmers. The members of the rural caucus ought to be ashamed because they will only get caught in their own deception.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member stands up and accuses me of being irrelevant by addressing Bill C-15B, which I think has been mentioned by every Alliance member except him this afternoon. It was to that I was responding. He then proceeded to ask me a question on a topic I did not mention in my speech. This is surely irrelevance.

I would like to say that my point of view on this is very strong. I represent farmers. I have represented them since Bill C-15B was Bill C-17. I believe that it is our job as members to examine the legislation and to explain it as well as we can and truthfully to our constituents. That is what I have tried to do since the days of Bill C-17.

An Alliance member stood up earlier today and said that rural members on his side have recently discovered something about this legislation, but we have been working on it for three years and, by the way, to the satisfaction of many of our farmers. I believe this is what has happened. A year or so ago supporters of the gun lobby got a spurious legal opinion that included the matter of property, which is also an irrelevance, and they have been arguing that spurious legal opinion they have developed on the backs of the farmers.

As it came from the gun lobby and the hunting groups, why do they not use hunting examples when they are considering cruelty to animals? Why do they persist in raising all these standard practices of the farming community, which, as I have explained, have been protected for a half a century? Why do they do that?

I would say they are hanging the farmers out to dry. They should be talking to their farmers and educating their farmers on what not just this legislation but all legislation means.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf.

I would like to take the opportunity provided by the motion on rural issues to clarify some issues regarding cruelty to animals and specifically the provisions of Bill C-15B which the opposition has been systematically delaying.

I wish to commend the hard work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee spent over two months hearing a wide spectrum of witnesses including farmers. These witnesses had a wealth of experience and knowledge. The committee has heard all the arguments for and against further change in the bill, changes suggested by rural members like myself on this side of the House and by the science community, the medical community and many others.

There is absolutely no question that the committee carefully considered all aspects of Bill C-15B including whether there was anything in the bill which eroded current protections for industry and others who use animals for the benefit of humans.

The bill considers the importance of ensuring protection of the legitimate use of animals. Members opposite know full well that the courts have specifically recognized the use of animals in industry but they still persist in fearmongering among the farm community. The leading case is Crown v Menard in1978. Many years ago in the decision of the Quebec court of appeal Mr. Justice Lamer expressly made the point that they are contradictory. He said:

The animal is subordinate to nature and to man. It will often be in the interest of man to kill wild or domestic animals, to subjugate them and, to this end, to tame them with all the consequences this may entail for them and, if they are too old, or too numerous, or abandoned, to kill them. This is why, in setting standards for the behaviour of men towards animals, we have taken into account our privileged position in nature and have been obliged to take into account at the outset the purpose sought.

Members critical of Bill C-15B also know or ought to know that the use of animals by industry is already taken into account when deciding whether pain, suffering or injury caused to an animal is unnecessary. Again, Mr. Justice Lamer makes this very clear that the task of assessing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is twofold. The first part of the test considers the purpose for which the pain was inflicted. The second part of the test determines whether the means used to achieve the purpose causes avoidable pain. Mr. Justice Lamer makes it very clear that the law allows pain to be inflicted on animals if it is done for a lawful purpose. He stated:

It is sometimes necessary to make an animal suffer for its own good or again to save human life. Certain experiments, alas, inevitably painful for the animal, prove necessary to discover or test remedies which will save a great number of human lives. Section 402(1)(a) does not prohibit these incidents, but at the same time condemns the person who, for example, will leave a dog or a horse without water or without food for a few days, through carelessness or negligence or for reasons of profit or again in order to avoid the cost of a temporary board and lodging, notwithstanding that these animals would suffer much less than certain animals used as guinea pigs.

For the benefit of members section 402(1)(a) is currently section 446(1)(a).

Members know or ought to know that the pain inflicted must not be unreasonable having regard to the purpose for which it was inflicted in the first place.

Again, Mr. Justice Lamer said:

Considered in terms of the means by which one seeks the purpose which is justified, the expression “without necessity” takes into consideration all the circumstances of the particular case including first the purpose itself, the social priorities, the means available and their accessibility etc. One does not kill a steer in the same way as one kills a pig. One cannot devote to the euthanasia of animals large sums of money without taking into account social priorities. Suffering which one may reasonably avoid for an animal is not necessary. In my opinion, in 1953-54, the legislature defined “cruelty” for us as being from that time forward the act of causing to an animal an injury, pain or suffering that could have been reasonably avoided for it taking into account the purpose and the means employed.

I am using these long quotations because they are decades old. They have been in the law for generations. The onus is always on the prosecutor to show beyond reasonable doubt either that the purpose for inflicting pain, suffering or injury was unlawful, or if it was lawful, that the pain, suffering or injury caused was unnecessary.

It is not the defences which legitimatize the use of animals in industry. That use is recognized by case law as in the example I just gave, under common custom, in regulations and in codes of conduct. If members do not know that they should know it. I believe members opposite who are critical of Bill C-15B know this and have been deliberately misleading farmers.

Some members have asserted that the defences referred to in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code regarding legal justification, excuse or colour of right, provide upfront protection for the industry. One translation of upfront protection is the word exemption. These members argue that if individuals have a lawful purpose in doing something then they can achieve that purpose by any method they choose. This is not the case. These members either know or ought to know that this argument is wrong in law because it completely ignores the tests for unnecessary pain and suffering and for criminal neglect.

It is misleading to suggest that anyone who uses animals has an exemption from the application of the criminal law. There was not a single witness before the committee who suggested that industry or anyone else should have an exemption under criminal law. Doctors and hockey players are not exempt from the law of assault when they engage in their legitimate activities. Similarly, why should anyone be completely exempt from the reasonable requirements of the criminal law in relation to treatment of animals?

The criminal law applies to everyone and imposes a minimum standard of behaviour in everyone. The Canadian public will not tolerate anyone having an exemption for inflicting unnecessary pain, suffering or injury on animals or humans. Let us be clear about this. That has never been the law and it certainly was never the intention of the animal cruelty amendments to provide exemptions of this nature.

The animal cruelty provisions of Bill C-15B are another example of the government's commitment to assuring that the criminal law, which is what we are talking about, is a balanced reflection of the objectives and desires of the Canadian public, be they rural or urban.

Opposition members who are opposing the bill are doing farmers, including farmers in my riding, a great disservice. No group in Canada has a greater interest in healthy, pain free animals than farmers. Farmers are overwhelmingly opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals. The opposition is hanging the farmers out to dry on this matter for its own political ends.

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

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a growing split between rural and urban Canada. There is a perception that government caters to the urban population. Is this a perception or has it become reality? There are several issues that point to the fact that it has indeed become reality. It is a reality that those in rural Canada could live without. The government, by its policies and legislation, continues its assault on the lives and livelihoods of those residing in rural Canada. The lives, interests and well-being of those individuals are not seen to be important. These people are being marginalized by the government.

Only a few days ago in committee a member of the government stated that a majority of Canadians live in large cities and we have to listen to their views. It is that very mentality that drives the agenda of the government. According to 2001 census results from Statistics Canada, the population total for Canada's five largest cities was 12.5 million. That would leave a population of 18.6 million, or 60%, as the total for smaller centres and rural populations.

We have seen the effects of rising populations in Canada's largest urban centres: pollution, poverty and homelessness. Rural living should be encouraged. Whether one chooses to live on a picturesque island off the coast of Newfoundland, on the western prairies or in the interior of British Columbia, rural communities offer much to the life of this nation. Instead of encouraging the sustainability of our smaller centres and rural populations, the government continues to bring forward legislation that only hinders their growth. Rural populations offer much to this nation. Many of those in our rural communities are the producers of our food, our clothing and shelter for the rest of Canadians.

In the last year alone, the attack on rural Canada has been unprecedented. Let us begin with the government's Bill C-5, the species at risk act. The bill seeks to offer absolute protection to a wide variety of animals, plants and habitats. While the official opposition supports the need for legislation to protect endangered species, we do not feel that it should be done at the expense of landowners. Co-operation is the only way that the bill will be completely effective. The government fails to realize that landowners, farmers and ranchers remain among the finest conservationists in the country. Instead of working with these people, the government chooses to form adversarial relationships. Farmers, ranchers and landowners are left without assurance of compensation. They are not included in the consultation process. They will be treated as criminals and punished as such.

Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, is also an affront to law-abiding rural people. This legislation leaves the door wide open for frivolous lawsuits by animal rights activists. These groups have openly stated that the legislation cannot be proven effective unless it is challenged in court. This is not what we need for rural Canada.

The vast majority of farmers and ranchers are well aware of effective, humane animal practices and choose to implement those practices on their farms and ranches every day. The government is blatantly catering to lobby and special interest groups without a second thought for the massive negative implications that the legislation would have for farmers and ranchers. When the livelihoods of farmers, ranchers and landowners suffer, there is a direct impact on the surrounding communities. The economic repercussions must be taken into account when discussing legislation affecting all rural communities.

Agriculture as a whole has been ignored or minimalized by the government. In western Canada, the continuing drought is causing severe difficulties for producers. We are in need of effective safety net programs that are run efficiently and adequately funded. In western Canada the Canadian Wheat Board is also an area that demands attention. Western producers are cut off from opportunities to market their products like the rest of Canadians. They are limited by the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. If the government is serious about helping producers in western Canada, then the concerns over the function and mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board for western Canadians must be addressed.

The Liberal government's inaction over subsidy issues will continue to lead to loss of profits and livelihood among rural Canadians. The American government continues its protectionist stance in the areas of agriculture and forestry, but we do not see any definite action being taken by the government on behalf of our Canadian producers. The government has called the new U.S. farm bill foul and insidious. Its repulsion for that legislation is laudable but means nothing if not backed by action. That is something we rarely see from the government. The proposal of a 70% increase in subsidies to American producers will have catastrophic effects on our Canadian market. Now is the time for action. Words alone cannot save a national industry. Words alone will not keep producers on the family farm. Words alone will not ensure a viable future for rural Canada.

In 1999 the official opposition formed Action for Struggling Agricultural Producers in response to the growing farm crisis in the country. Surveys were distributed to producers. At that time, 74% of the producers said that continuing with farming would be difficult or impossible and 79% said that the government must immediately launch an aggressive international campaign to reduce foreign subsidies.

Those results are from three years ago. Producers were well aware of the crisis facing their industry. They were aware of the need for the government to act on their behalf. They were aware that changes had to be made.

The government's own need for awareness is evident by the $21 million announced for an advertising campaign to promote soil conservation. Spending that kind of money to tell producers something they already know is a waste. Because the minister of agriculture visited Saskatchewan last year and saw a dry field of summerfallow, he decided that he would take on an advertising campaign to stress conservation to farmers on no-till. That farmer summerfallowed that field because he could not afford to chemfallow that field. Chemfallow has been carried on for years by no-till farmers in Saskatchewan. It is not something new. However, that farmer could not afford to put chemical on that field, so he summerfallowed it.

The government's lack of awareness of the problems facing rural Canada is appalling. I would urge the Liberal government to open its eyes and start fighting for rural Canadians. I would urge the Liberal government to talk to the farm families where both mother and dad are working to keep the farm alive and to pay the bankers. They do not know how they will pay their power or fuel bills or how they will feed their families, let alone pay the telephone bill. The government is great at talking about how the solutions are on the Internet, but a lot of people in Saskatchewan cannot pay their telephone bills.

I have a very good friend who lives in my riding. She lost her husband last year to cancer. She and her son were farming. They decided that they could not afford to farm any more because they were going further and further into debt. Her son is the kind of young man that we would like to see farming in Saskatchewan. The lady and her son advertised the farm this spring. It is prime land, wonderful land. When we have rain it is some of the best grain growing land in our province. They did not get one offer to buy that land. They did not get one offer to rent that land.

They had an auction sale. I phoned her and asked how her auction sale went. She said it was terrible. They bid in the combine and they bid in the tractor. They kept the air seeder. The $25,000 to $30,000 sprayer sold for $4,000. It was a disaster. That lady is now working. She has her house on the farm. We do not know what will happen to her. I would like to see the Liberal government come out and talk to some of the farm families I know and find out just how serious the drought is.

The government can spout off about the $1.5 million that was given to PFRA this year but that money and the 2002 budget was spent in January. The $1.5 million is now gone. There is no water anywhere. There is no more money for wells and dugouts, and the cattle are starving.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of today's Canadian Alliance motion that calls on the Liberal government to stop its legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and their communities. I believe we have heard enough patronizing and naive comments from the other side in respect of this serious issue. We must look at the issues before us and look at ways to resolve some of these difficult concerns.

As the member of parliament for the primarily rural riding of Provencher in southeastern Manitoba I am proud to represent a large population of farmers and other rural Canadians who are some of the hardest working, honest and law-abiding citizens in this country.

However they are faced with an unholy trinity of legislation, some of which is still under consideration by the House. I fear that this legislative package would put our farmers into an unworkable situation. Time and again we have seen the government implement ineffective and costly legislation that pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians.

The legislation I am referring to is Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation and Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation. They have been on the House agenda for over a year, but it is only because of sustained opposition efforts that public awareness about the true nature and anti-rural character of these bills is finally being understood. Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, has been in place since 1995 and every year the price tag increases while crime is getting worse.

The new species at risk bill, if passed, would give the federal government the right to expropriate land from farmers and other rural individuals without any obligation to compensate for losses.

Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, introduces the risk of harassment to farmers from private legal prosecutions funded by radical urban based animal rights organizations who are claiming the debt that they claim the former justice minister owes them for supporting her during the last federal election.

Even if prosecutions by these radical animal rights groups were not successful, the legal process involved would impose a financial burden that few could afford. In addition, we also have the Kyoto agreement that threatens to dramatically push up costs without any substantive evidence that it will improve our global environment. The member for Red Deer stated that all we are doing is playing a shell game. The earth is a global entity. We cannot simply push off dirty air in exchange for clean air and think somehow the dirty air is being reduced in the process.

The third bill, Bill C-68, has targeted primarily rural Canadians for owning long guns and yet these individuals have been law-abiding families for generations. We heard today from one of the Canadian Alliance members that while farmers are being harassed and prosecuted for not registering long guns, the government is busy handing out licences and registrations to leaders of criminal organizations in Canada. This is at a cost of $700 million and climbing at a cost of $100 million a year. Last year's estimates showed that the registry would cost $35 million. The true numbers came in at $149 million in direct costs.

I do not believe that the government is against rural Canadians. It is indifferent to rural Canadians. It is banking on passing legislation that will build support in urban areas at the cost of rural Canada. Instead of looking at Canada as a whole whereby we should be working together, the government takes advantage of a smaller population to impose politically expedient but ineffective programs.

By calling for discretionary compensation in Bill C-5 the environment minister is asking Canadians to trust the government with their land and livelihood. He says compensation should not be such a big issue because the government is willing to pay landowners dollar for dollar for any losses they would face. If this is truly the case why does he not make the commitment explicit in the legislation? Why does he not say in the legislation that farmers and landowners would be compensated dollar for dollar at fair market value?

The government is trying to get the legislation through the House by offering vague assurances that regulations would be formulated to compensate landowners. Such regulations would be drafted in the secrecy of cabinet meetings. Even the government's own backbenchers would have no input into them. There may well be Liberal backbenchers here today who say we should trust the government. However they do not realize that the regulations would be passed in the same secretive way in which the government acts on matters crucial to the integrity and effectiveness of our rural economy and the larger Canadian economy.

Our farmers are unable to take any more financial blows. While some landowners in the past have voluntarily co-operated in species recovery programs without full, fair or, in some cases, any compensation the large majority of farmers and landowners today are not financially able to make such sacrifices in the name of the public good.

If a species at risk is important and worth saving why should it be done on the backs of rural Canadians? Why could we not all share in the cost? If it is good for the country we should let the country as a whole pay for it. We should not take it out of the livelihood and land of our rural people.

Bill C-5 sets out some scary criminal provisions. Its low requirement for mens rea or guilty mind would enable prosecutors at the direction of the minister to prosecute farmers for even inadvertent destruction of habitat. This kind of legislation is not worthy of the dignity of the House. If we are to make people criminally responsible for their actions let us make sure they are criminals. Let us not convict people simply because we want to terrorize rural people into not doing anything with their land and for their livelihoods. The government's heavy handed approach would lead to uncertainty and confusion for land and resource owners including the majority of rural Canadians who in good faith tried to comply with the law.

Bill C-15B is poorly drafted. Had it not been for the perseverance of the Canadian Alliance Party, Liberal backbenchers would not have woken up to the dangers posed by the bill. Finally they are waking up. They are saying it is their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their constituents that would be affected. I am happy the Liberal backbenchers have finally woken up. However when will they take a real stand? When will they stand and say they have had enough of the government's abuse of rural Canada? When will they stand with the people who are concerned about the country as a whole?

I am profoundly concerned about the direction of the government. There is some optimism now that Liberal backbenchers are finally waking up. However it will not be until the Liberal cabinet is gone that rural Canadians can be equal partners with their urban cousins.

I urge hon. members to think carefully about the legislation before the House before they do anything untoward and damage rural Canada any further. Let us think carefully about Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. Let us remember the lessons of Bill C-68

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's remarks. He has a great deal of compassion for the struggles of rural Canada and for farmers in particular. I ask the hon. member, how is it that he lives with the policies that his government has been producing? They are not consistent with being empathetic and sympathetic toward the plight of rural Canada.

He knows that in the species at risk bill, it is not the species that are at risk, it is the property owners. They are the people in rural Canada who might have their property seized or may have to foot the bill for the relocation of an endangered species. How does the member live with the fact that the government has brought in legislation that hurts rural landowners and farmers in particular with respect to the cruelty to animals legislation?

Bill C-15B and Bill C-5 are two perfect recent examples of his government's attack on rural Canada, not to mention the ill-fated useless gun registry that is still being perpetrated at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. These are concrete examples of his government's policies.

The hon. member from Miramichi is shaking his head because it is good for his riding but it comes at a huge cost to the rights and privileges of farmers, fishermen and people who legitimately use guns.

How is it that the member can defend that record and say that he stands for rural Canada?

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I will, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. That is why the constituents of Prince George--Bulkley Valley do not believe the hollow promises that come from Liberal and Tory candidates at election time.

Another example of how the government holds in contempt rural Canada, particularly British Columbia, is by ignoring the massive pine beetle infestation in central British Columbia. This could be consider equal to a natural disaster and the government knows that. The government of British Columbia has made a formal request for help with its five year plan to try and salvage whatever wood it can from this mega area of British Columbia. The area of infestation is three times the size of Vancouver Island.

The government has done nothing. It has stood by and ignored this problem despite requests in the House from myself and the members for Cariboo--Chilcotin, Prince George--Peace River, Skeena, North Vancouver and my colleague from Kamloops. The government has ignored requests from the province of British Columbia itself. Billions of dollars in taxes have gone into the federal coffers from the forest industry in British Columbia and the government has simply not responded to the plea for help from the province and the people who depend on the forest industry for their livelihood. That is another example of the contempt the government has for rural Canadians.

The Minister for International Trade has called the tariff duty slapped on us by the softwood lumber people in the United States obscene. He blamed the breakdown of talks on cynical U.S. lobbyists. The Prime Minister said that he is disappointed that the softwood lumber talks have failed. They are using words like obscene, cynical and disappointed, but let me use those same words. It is obscene the contempt that the government has for rural Canadians. I am disappointed it has treated rural Canadians this way. I am very cynical in any belief that it will recognize the importance of rural Canadians and the contribution they have made to this country.

The government has brought in the endangered species bill. This bill would put rural Canadians at risk of being charged with perhaps accidentally stepping on a wild seed plant that has grown onto their territory. They are apt to have land seized by the government and quarantined without compensation.

The government has brought in Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill. This bill will put farmers, dairy people, horse breeders and medical researchers at risk of harassment charges brought forward by some of the more wacko animal rights groups that run around this country.

All of this flies in the face of rural Canadians. If this government were ever to expect to have any type of respect from rural Canadians, it would have to start recognizing that rural Canada is an important part of this country. It should not throw all of its eggs into the baskets of Metro Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal or Vancouver.

It is unfortunate that our party's motion is not votable because it would be supported by large numbers in the House. It would also be supported by massive numbers of rural Canadians who refuse to believe the hollow promises of the Liberal government. Rural Canadians have demonstrated their refusal to believe those hollow promises by their lack of support at the polls and the support will continue to fall for that party.