Debates of May 6th, 2002

Supply

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the specifics but people have lots of frustration in relation to governments. I am glad the member started out the way he did. I agree with him fully that it can be very frustrating.

I may bore members by talking about my riding all the time but Yukoners want their voices heard here in Ottawa. I agree with the member when he says that there are frustrating situations. We all go through them. That is why we are here fighting today to get this issue on the front burner. I congratulate the member for bringing up the issue very forcefully and hopefully that is what we can all do to help our ridings.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I commend the previous speaker for wanting to talk about his riding. It is important for the people back in his constituency to know he is doing that, and in fact it is important for all of us.

After the 1993 election the Liberal Party sent committees around the western part of the country to determine why people in those areas were not voting Liberal. An election was held in 1997 and things did not get better for them, it got worse.

After the 1997 election more people were sent around the country to again find out why people were not voting Liberal. I travelled with those committees and listened to what people said . I listened to them as they talked to the agriculture committee. Things once again did not get any better, they got worse.

I have attended these meetings for quite some time and have listened to the messages. I have heard them over and over again. Growers of grain are asking for a choice on how to market their product. They do not want to be forced to go to the wheat board. They want to be able to use the wheat board if they desire but they want the choice. When a disaster strikes, such as a drought, they want the government to put something in place that will assist them. That has not happened and it is not happening today.

I listened to these people when the last softwood lumber agreement came to an end. When the committee was travelling, members were asked to do something about the catastrophe that was coming regarding softwood lumber. People asked for the government's help.

What I want to say to the hon. member is that the Liberal people heard these voices but there was absolutely no adherence to those voices. In 2000 the Liberal Party once again did worse than ever in an election.

When are Liberals ever going to learn that these people are trying to get a message to them? When will they hear it? When will it happen? The Liberals do not listen and that is a serious problem they have to overcome.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment. I think we do need to listen to the people.

The member mentioned four topics. The western task force was before my time in politics but the member made a good point when he said that we should be accountable to answer for the ideas that came out of that task force.

I was going to begin my comments by asking members to please not ask farming questions. I will not talk about wheat because Yukon is just too far detached but I will talk about drought. I am glad the member brought that up again because it is a very serious problem in western Canada. I am sure Liberal members and all members in the House understand the seriousness of that situation. In fact we are glad there is snow right now. We hope there will be a lot more water this year which will solve the problem, and that whatever else needs to be done will be done.

On the softwood lumber issue, as we know all members of the House have worked very hard and have spoken very passionately on this. Any further suggestions would be very helpful.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar.

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the debate regarding the sustained legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and on the communities where they live.

The current federal government is the most anti-rural Canadian we have ever seen. Policies and programs of the government consistently undermine our rural communities on a daily basis. What has evolved in Canada today is a two tier government, one for urban Canadians and one for rural Canadians. This divisiveness is not helpful for Canadian unity. While the government may trumpet the death of separatism in Quebec, the rise of a new separatism stalks the land as one group of Canadians is pitted against another group, all for short term political gain.

Whatever happened to statesmanship and nation building? It died the first day the Prime Minister encouraged his cabinet ministers to cry racism and resort to personal attacks rather than being held accountable for government policy. No wonder 70% of Canadians think this government is corrupt.

One way the government has assaulted rural Canada has been through the policy of military cutbacks. Most Canadians are familiar with the cutbacks to the military that have resulted in severe equipment shortages and the need for the military to continually fix old equipment rather than receive the equipment it needs on a timely basis. This has led to delays in purchases, like the 40 year old Sea King helicopters to buying second-hand equipment, like submarines that turn out to be junk. The reduction in our military has led to base closures which have had a devastating impact on the local economies where those bases were located across rural Canada.

Now a new threat looms in the remaining communities where bases are still located. It is called the supply chain project, or ASD, alternative service delivery. The minister of defence will tell us that this project is not to contract existing DND developed civilian jobs but to match the current chain of supply in DND with cost savings. I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of the member for Simcoe--Grey on this issue and what the supply chain project did to Meaford when the base staff there went from 150 employees to less than 50.

The Union of National Defence Employees contacted the head of the business association in the town of Meaford and it was confirmed that since the supply chain process started the downtown had become a ghost town; another ghost town created thanks to the Liberal government policy.

What is particularly tragic about this example is that under the guise of cost saving there is no indication that the taxpayers are saving money at all because of the job losses due to the contracting out of base services. Research into the contract revealed that it was awarded to a company called Black & McDonald, which is 20% based out of Australia and 80% based out of the United States. It was awarded the contract to run all the services on the base at Meaford which had previously employed about 150 local people for $25 million.

Overall the Meaford area training centre was being operated under a $40 million five year fixed price contract from 1995 to 2000. Jobs were cut to 50 employees and most were identified as being pensioned off ex-military personnel at a wage slightly better than the provincial minimum. What this amounts to is a foreign company profiting by putting Canadians out of work with no financial commitment to the community or to Canada itself.

Requests to DND show any cost savings to taxpayers have not been provided. The auditor general had this to say about the ASD program at national defence:

Many of the business case analyses for the 14 projects we audited were poorly done. Options were not always adequately assessed or the best option chosen. Personnel appeared to lack the necessary skills to undertake analyses...

We could not find a formal business case analysis or any other supporting evidence to justify the ASD contract at Meaford Area Training Centre.

The audit found that rather than the DND projected savings of $200 million at that point, the estimated savings were $68 million primarily at the expense of the local community. This represents a 70% failure rate to meet the savings target.

Finally, the audit revealed that the competitive process was not always followed in the awarding of contracts and that contracts were let with no competitive bids at all. Sole source contracts mean that there is no way to know if the taxpayer is getting the best service at the best price.

The problem with ASD, in addition to their questionable value, is that the companies who do get the contract buy their goods in large cities like Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal with a loss of millions of dollars in the local rural communities where the bases are located.

In my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, base, now ASU, Petawawa is an important generator of economic wealth to the area. When the government directs procurement out of the rural communities where the bases are located, everyone suffers. Our retail stores, restaurants, service stations, grocery stores, the local housing market and so on all have trouble making ends meet.

Less money circulating in a community means support for sports, like hockey, baseball, soccer and figure skating are no longer available and the quality of life suffers as a consequence.

The federal government's neglect of our military has a human cost that is largely being ignored because government has felt a greater need to pander to the urban vote. The time to stop underfunding the military is now.

The ASD program led to a 20 year $2.8 billion untendered contract for a flight school being awarded to Bombardier. However when it comes to providing much needed infrastructure dollars to repair our nation's highway system, rural Canadians receive nothing.

Personal transportation in rural Canada is not a luxury. It is a necessity. In the case of the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 17 from base Petawawa to Ottawa, upgrading the highway from two to four lanes is not only an issue of public safety, it is one of national security. The provision of safe, efficient transportation networks is at the heart of prosperity for rural Canada.

This also includes the skies. The decision of the Liberal government to implement the air security tax on a flat tax rate penalizes small rural airports. A $25 surcharge on a $150 ticket is a bigger burden than the same flat rate surcharge being applied to a $2,000 ticket from a big city airport for an international flight.

The Liberal government tells us that by providing government services over the Internet it can shut down government offices in rural communities. What the Liberal government has chosen to ignore is the fact that in Canada today there are still individuals who live in areas that do not have basic land line service. How can someone go online for service with no phone or cable with which to go online?

To rub salt in an already open wound, rural and small town phone subscribers recently received a CRTC sanctioned rate increase for long distance service. Apparently this was approved to pay for the lost business from urban phone users who switched to using one of the savings plans offered by Bell's competitors. Now a surcharge of $1.50 a month may not seem like a lot to some people, but for a senior on a fixed income, all these increases add up.

I have a letter from constituents who wrote to tell me that they moved out of the big city because rents were too high. Having left the city and friends of a lifetime, the phone was an important way of keeping in touch. By allowing the CRTC to approve the surcharge, it was as if the Liberal government was penalizing people for not living in the city.

I understand that the surcharge only applies to small town and rural customers. Therefore, when rural members talk about rural Canada, we are not just referring to Canadians. We are talking about an entire way of life.

In my limited experience as a member of parliament, nothing is more distorted or portrayed in a negative fashion that is completely unfair than is the whole issue of hunting and gun control. Gun control is a prime example of the cookie cutter approach to legislation. Problems or concerns in urban Canada are not the same as in rural communities. The decision to make law-abiding citizens into criminals and spend or plan to spend $1 billion to do it has been one of the worst decision that this government has ever made.

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

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member was talking, I was unable to hear all her speech. What I did hear covered such a broad spectrum and I would like to just hit on a couple of points.

First, I would like to hear her opinion on the government's record on primary industries because they run rural Canada, in particular forestry, the fishery and agriculture. It is certainly my belief the government has a dismal record on all three.

My last question is on government services. It has always seemed to me that the only government agency that is in every town is the post office. We had a vote not long ago on rural delivery. A number of her colleagues voted against allowing the rural delivery people, who are subcontractors, to become full time federal employees. It would seem to me that if we want delivery of services to rural Canada, the only way we can do that is to ensure that our post office, which is the only federal department that is represented in every small town, is represented by federal employees.

Could she comment on that and on primary services?

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the compliment on the wide range of topics I touched on in the short time allotted.

How has government policy implemented forestry? Eight hundred thousand Canadians in Ontario alone are employed as a result indirectly or directly by the forestry industry. The lack of putting together a softwood lumber agreement in time, when the government knew full well for five years that it was coming, has devastated our softwood lumber community. Mills are closing every day.

In Ontario we virtually have no fisheries left. Cutting and cutting to the fisheries in the Great Lakes has resulted in there being very few fishermen left.

It is the same story for agriculture from one end of rural Canada to the other. Uneven playing fields have put farmers completely out of business.

Every day it seems that there is a problem with the post office, be it mail not getting delivered, or the dirty little secret about theft in the post office, or people who are ready to go through the border or board a plane are told that certain sharp items will be mailed back to them but they never receive them, then they start closing post offices.

The post office is not only a local means to mail things, because phone service is not available for Internet use, but it also provides the important service of having a person who can verify passport applications. As more and more postmasters and postmistresses are eliminated and commercial people are put in their place, fewer people who can sign these applications, putting many people in a very bad situation. They have to go to a doctor, if they are able to get an appointment.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a remarkably mixed message. I am a strong supporter of post offices and rural post offices, as is my colleague, but I also support the fine work that is done by postal workers all across this great country.

I thought I heard the member say, and I know she would not want to mislead the House, that 70% of Canadians think the government is corrupt. The last figures I saw was our approval rating in her own province was well over 60%. Nationwide, it was much higher than it was after the last election. The figure I heard was 70% of all politicians. I heard that the number of people who think politicians are corrupt is higher in Alliance ridings than in other ridings.

Would she care to correct the record on this and perhaps table the document from where the 70% came.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite, who comes from the party of mixed messages. It was not 17% of Canadians, but 70% or over. The problem with the performance of the government is that it is not just the politicians who are guilty of corruption who get painted with it. The people who want to do good, who are following the rules and who want accountability are also painted with the same corruption brush. It is true that members in Canadian Alliance territory--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize the member has trouble with polls but the poll is that 70% of politicians are corrupt. I think she should stand in her place, if she has any integrity, and correct the record.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is debate. The hon. member may finish her sentence.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, in Canadian Alliance held ridings, they are even more aware of the fact that there is corruption in government and that is why they have voted in Canadian Alliance members of parliament.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar. She spoke with real feeling about people who are on the land and close to the land, and the problem with the lack of assistance from the current government.

In her opening statement she touched on two pieces of legislation that are still before the House and are important to rural Canada, the species at risk legislation which we expect to be reintroduced and the cruelty to animals legislation. I want to make two points on each one of those pieces of legislation.

The cruelty to animals legislation is problematic to every farmer across the country because it takes animals out from under the property act. That is the most dangerous aspect of the bill. Farmers list their animals as collateral, not as animals, to the bank. The bank recognizes them as collateral. If we were to take them out from under the property act and put them under something else, I expect the bank would recognize them as collateral but it would put us into the pet category. They are not pets and that is the most open, flagrant and serious mistake in this particular piece of legislation.

In any proposed new species at risk legislation the Progressive Conservative Party consistently has asked for greater compensation. Farmers and rural woodlot owners are more than happy to protect species at risk but they do not want to do it with their own dollars.

I have heard the statement made by rural Canadians about wildlife and especially about urbanites who like to see wildlife but they do not like to suffer the consequences of it. I have heard them saying that people in the cities can keep their public wildlife off my private land. It becomes a confrontation and that is a mistake. Somehow we must learn to coexist but we cannot do it if we expect the rural landowner, who is under pressure now, to pay the bill. I would like the member's comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I agree with him. I know he comes from eastern Canada. I come from western Canada and our province right now is in the driest period since the 1930s. We are going through a cold spell now. Someone said the other day that the snow did not melt, it just wore out. We are that dry.

I want to tell the member that we have 40 federal fisheries officers in the province of Saskatchewan given to us by the federal government who cause great havoc to our rural municipalities. We cannot put a culvert into a road with a dry slew on each side. There has not been water there for 30 or 40 years but there may be a little dip. If we want to put a culvert in, just in case we do get some water and the fields might flood in the spring, we cannot do it without getting a permit. It takes these guys six weeks to two months to get a permit to put a culvert in. It is totally absurd. We have rules and regulations from fisheries officers. There has never been a fish in some of those slews. It is a Liberal priority.

We have farm families who cannot put food on the table. They are well educated with university degrees. The hon. member talked about educating people. Most of the agriculturalists I know are well educated. The majority of them have university degrees. I am hearing that we must educate these people. We do not live in overalls and chew straw. The farmers drive tractors with GPS. They seed. They know how to conserve the land. We fertilize, look after the land and conserve it the best possible way but we have a major catastrophe going on. We have a drought in western Canada and the Liberal government just stands back and studies it.

[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.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will attempt to draw the hon. member back to the subject of the day. He seems to be about 40 miles off. What he says has nothing to do with the Alliance motion. The hon. member made a wonderful defence of a government motion. I am surprised he was not called out of order.

The government has a way of getting in the way. We just saw that. It has a way of getting in the way and getting in the farmers' way. It has a way of keeping them from being able to run their own businesses and make their own opportunities and make their own choices.

Of course sometimes it does not affect all of the country. There is a little organization called the Canadian Wheat Board that some people guard like it is a Canadian institution, but it seems to have no impact this side of the Manitoba border. It involves only the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and a portion of B.C. The board brings things upon farmers such that even if they survive they are not being treated fairly. Since when is it fair to be forced to pay for a service that is not received?

Does the hon. member believe that there is anything the Liberal government could do to allow farmers in western Canada to have some fairness through a choice in how they market their grain? Would it be possible for the House to do anything to legislate against a monopoly such as the wheat board, which really only impacts westerners?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a direct question. The hon. member is talking about a decision made 50 years ago. We are talking about a new piece of legislation that would completely change the animal cruelty legislation that is on the books today. Most rural members I know expect that we need to bring in new legislation. The bill is 104 years old. Obviously it needs to be updated.

The people I am listening to are the federations of agriculture from coast to coast in this country and especially the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, the farmers I have the pleasure to represent and who come to my office and say they are chicken farmers or turkey farmers or dairy farmers and they are afraid they are going to be out of business under the provisions of that bill. I am not worried especially about how this affects the dog and cat owners of this country, because I think the provisions are there for them. I think the pet owners are protected. I am worried about people who make their living on the farm. The problem is that they are worried about it too.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, these are relatively minor amendments to the criminal code. The main changes are the increases in penalties, bringing the penalties from the 1950s and 1960s to the present time. One of the changes is a definition of animal, which is essentially a vertebrate that can feel pain, which I believe is much better than having no definition so that people could bring in a cockroach or a worm and say someone is being cruel to it. That is a change which is to the advantage of the farmers.

On the matter of property, which the member suggested, the criminal code is huge. There are 800 items all grouped for convenience, not for legal significance. Moving animals from property is simply a recognition of the fact that they are not like this desk, which I can kick. It does not affect property rights. Property rights in the criminal code are provincial and are not changed in the slightest by this legislation.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain what the Government of Canada is doing for rural Canada, especially farming communities, in response to concerns about the environment. Good farming practices go hand in hand with healthy farming practices.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working with all stakeholders to increase the farming sector's capacity to manage its soil resources, to provide the public with better access to a safe supply of water, to adjust to climate change, and to support the adoption of practices which will maintain soil and water quality.

The sustainability of the environment becomes particularly important when one is confronted with exceptional situations such as the drought which, once again this year, is of tremendous concern to many rural communities.

The measures we are taking to protect the environment cannot prevent drought, because no one can control meteorological conditions. But these measures can help to attenuate the effects of a possible drought. We must therefore have methods and programs in place, because writing a cheque is no guarantee of rain.

In order to put such measures in place, the federal government is working in partnership with the provinces and territories, with the sector, and with interested Canadians to develop a national strategic agricultural framework.

The agriculture strategy framework will build on our past successes in order to create a more solid structure for success. It is based on five key components which are integrated one with the other. These are risk management, food safety, renewal, science and innovation, and environmental management.

The federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture have committed to working together to achieve a set of common objectives which will make it possible to improve the environmental performance of agricultural operations. The purpose of these concrete and quantifiable objectives is to enhance the quality of our water, our soils and our air, as well as ensuring compatibility with biodiversity.

To that end, the strategy framework contains provisions for greater use of regional environmental management plans, and improved practices relating to the use of manure, fertilizers and nutrients.

The framework encompasses the following: advantageous practices for pest-control practices and pesticide use; reduced fallow periods; increased use of no-till methods with a view to soil conservation; better management of areas along waterways, and range land and water use; and the adoption of better management practices in order to reduce odours and particulate matter emissions.

The proposed government objectives would make it possible to improve the long term sustainability of our farm operations during drought years and non-drought years alike.

This approach is based on the progress already made, thanks to the programs and practices that protect farmers against drought, and that incorporate weather conditions and other environmental factors in the farmers' daily planning and risk management processes.

These programs include initiatives such as the Environmental Farm Plans, which apply to over 20,000 farm operations in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces; Quebec's Clubs conseils en agro-environnement, which include over 4,000 farmers and encourage them to develop sustainable farm practices, while also supporting them when they make representations; and the promotion of an integrated environmental approach of agriculture, through the Agriculture Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, in western Canada.

Since the catastrophic droughts of the thirties, the Agriculture Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration has helped farmers greatly increase their ability to deal with the unexpected forces of nature. Thanks to increased knowledge, technological progress and better management practices, we have now significantly reduced the consequences of droughts.

On a practical level, we have built dugouts specially designed to help farmers put up with two years of drought, and irrigation systems made up of dams and reservoirs that supply water to farmers. When there is a risk of drought, it is critical to use sound soil conservation methods.

So, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada co-operates with other stakeholders to develop and promote management practices, such as conservation tillage—which allows the soil to retain water and prevents it from evaporating—chemical fallow—which helps the roots of dead weeds retain water—plans to use nutrients, grassed waterways, grazing management of native grasslands, cross slope cultivation and contour farming.

The Soil Conservation Council of Canada, which has its headquarters in Saskatoon, has set up a national network of soil conservation organizations and is trying to promote the conservation and enrichment of Canada's soils for the benefit of present and future generations.

The use of healthy, ecological soil management practices can appreciably reduce the levels of greenhouse gases and help attenuate the effects of drought.

The federal government encourages producers to adopt practices which will increase the amount of organic carbon deposited in soils and vegetation. It also encourages producers to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane, which are by-products of farming. These practices also lessen soil disturbance and increase crop yield and the effectiveness of fertilizers.

Other methods are used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as reducing soil tillage, incorporating more forage crops in crop rotations, planting more windbreaks, switching to grass and forage crops on marginal lands, and improving management of pasture land.

The national strategic agricultural framework being proposed emphasizes these initiatives and promises a healthier agricultural environment and a healthier society. It includes an exhaustive plan for the accelerated adoption of environmental protection measures. This plan covers Canadian farming operations and will help us to meet the measurable objectives applying to all facets of our environment.

Let us be clear. Healthy ecological practices are not just good for the environment. They also make good business sense. Consumers the world over are demanding that food production methods respect the environment. A more rational use of resources could reduce costs and increase the revenues from new green markets. By adopting these methods, the sector will become more cost-effective.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada will continue to support our farmers and their efforts to manage the environment with respect. Their efforts and their proper management of the environment, through the programs we have put in place, as well as the promise of a new approach to our environmental responsibilities, will strengthen our agricultural sector, a key component of rural Canada.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I come from a rural riding in eastern Ontario. We certainly have experienced some difficult times recently. Some plants have closed. It has a lot to do with our proximity to the border. We are putting together a recovery plan. We did a very detailed analysis of the rural economy and the drivers of the rural economy. We came up with some specifics that we required.

One of the barriers to economic development in eastern Ontario, and I think most rural communities, was found to be a lack of bandwidth. One of the benefits of being in a rural area is the lifestyle. Technology allows businesses to decentralize but without the bandwidth we are not in the game. Bandwidth is an important aspect to rural development. When we proposed bandwidth expenditure in the budget, it was openly mocked by the Alliance Party. It did not present debate about the pros and cons of bandwidth. It dismissed it as an absolute waste of time and money.

My riding has a number of plants that are restructuring. One of the major contributors to the turnaround is HRDC. For six months the Alliance Party mocked HRDC, although today in question period we could see the theme. It is absolutely trying to encourage this kind of development which it should have been doing all along if it understood how rural economies work.

With respect to the Farm Credit Corporation, we changed the rules for farm credit so it could get involved and finance businesses that are associated with rural economies and not strictly farms. The Alliance Party stood and voted against it.

Does the hon. member not think it is strange that we spent an entire day of the House's time listening to Alliance Party members moan and whine about rural Canada when they do not have a clue of how the rural economies work? Every time there has been a piece of legislation in the House to help the rural economies they have sat in their seats and have not supported rural Canadians.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you know, I am a new member, having arrived after the last election. I had the very pleasant surprise of discovering some wonderful things when I arrived as a member of this government.

When I arrived here, I was particularly interested in rural communities. It was a very important issue to me. I discovered just how well we could work together. The government members work together to find ways to ensure that rural communities survive and flourish.

I also discovered things that make the work difficult. Indeed, I often hear the opposition talk about things they have not even taken the time to learn about. When it comes time to debate and pass bills, the opposition raises arguments that they claim will do this, or they claim will do that.

However, what about arguments that have been thought out on paper, based on real facts and on which people work? The members are assisted by competent people. They work with researchers. Often these researchers come from their riding. Often, the opposition shouts and argues with us, but they should know that these ideas come from people from their riding and their communities, people who work tirelessly and who understand what is happening in the community and who are often in contact with people in their region. As such, they have developed these bills with the evolution of rural areas in mind.

This is why I would like the opposition to be more progressive with the government, so that they can indeed improve, rather than always contest, what the government is trying to build in rural communities.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member used rather vague and symbolic language in his speech. Is he saying that we need to study the problem more? Is he saying that there needs to be more research done and more rules applied to the rural segment of our country? That was the impression I was left with from what he said.

I find it hard to understand how in the light of the suffering that people are undergoing in the prairies and in the forest industry in British Columbia, he could suggest that we need to follow him through another study to understand things better. It makes absolutely no sense. I have no patience for that kind of rhetoric when there is so much hurt and suffering and loss going on in our country.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, we live in a century of rapid change. Mention must be made of the efforts that have been made for the farming sector, be it research, or committees that have been struck under the auspices of the agricultural research group and the minister of agriculture, carrying out research and consultations across the country. These are real accomplishments by this government.

In fact, time is being taken to go out and speak to people where they are at, in order to be able to meet their expectations. It is not merely a matter of answering a phone call and then getting into an immediate panic because of a fear of change. The time must be taken to consult, to look at the data, and then to create new programs to meet the needs.