Betty Hinton

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am trying not to be terribly political here, although we are in a political room and this is a political issue, but I have already told the House how happy I am.

I want to tell my colleague, who just asked me the question, that it gives me the greatest pleasure to say--and it has been a few months since I could say this to him--that I agree wholeheartedly with what he just said.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, what was I doing a year ago? I was just entering parliament as a brand new member. I was green as grass and trying to learn. What was my party doing, did it have a critic in that particular role? Perhaps not at that point in time, because our entire caucus was the critic. We stood in the House day after day and hammered home the issues of our constituents.

I never intended to make it sound like I represented real Canadians and other members represented false Canadians. We all represent real Canadians. There is just a different kind of representation on this side than on that side.

As I said earlier today, members on that side of the House can say whatever they want, face-saving, I do not care. I am so happy they finally did the right thing that I will take whatever they want to throw at me.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be much kinder than some of my colleagues have been today. I will leave it to them to be mean. Personally, I am happy to see this issue come to fruition today.

Today, finally, I believe members on the opposite side of the House have actually begun to listen to what I and my colleagues have been saying over and over for years. Today we agreed unanimously to uphold the principles of free trade in the softwood lumber negotiations. The motion came from the Canadian Alliance, from my colleague from Vancouver North, a man I am very proud to say I supported by seconding his motion. He did an excellent job.

What happened today is wonderful. My only regret is that people in my riding have been put at risk because the government failed to take the softwood lumber issue seriously. I will look at this from the more human side of the issue.

Leasing companies, banks and other creditors are busy placing liens against my constituents' assets, houses and payroll accounts. These constituents' companies ran into difficulty when the interior forestry industry spiralled into slow mode last fall. During October and November the mills turned away trucks full of logs.

We cannot blame the mills. They cannot be expected to operate properly with threats of large tariffs, stumpage fees and export duties hanging over their heads.

Managers and owners of both small and large mills in my area have been at the softwood lumber negotiating table. Individual loggers and truck drivers have lobbied everyone they could find. Business owners affected by the downturn spinoff have written their MPs and MLAs. I had several of these people in my office and the stories they told would break anyone's heart.

These people are counting on us to to ensure they free and unfettered access to the U.S. market. This means not giving in to all U.S. demands or in creating an agreement that requires Canadians to jump through so many hoops it becomes easier to leave the trees standing in the forest than it does to meet the demand.

The only people not 100% concerned with this crucial Canadian issue during this difficult winter have been the members of the Liberal government. I am pleased to say that there is more action in some of the communities in laid back British Columbia than I have seen coming from the government side of the House.

I can give an example of some of that action. I went from one area to another in my own riding and listened to the concerns of my constituents who were very upset and angry about the situation they found themselves in. As I was driving from one community to another, the people constantly asked me how they could communicate their pain and their needs to the government. They told me they knew I was doing the job I was sent to do but that the government did not seem to be listening. They wanted to know what they could do to back me up.

As it is with some really good ideas, they just come out of the blue. The idea that was put together was what we call the green lumber card. We composed a little green card not much bigger than a doubled sized postcard which carried a very simple message to the minister, “Do your job, save mine”.

The only good thing that I can think of in the last few months regarding this entire issue has been the fact that the minister could have 200 of those cards on his desk on one day, possibly 400 cards on another day and soon it could be 2,000 cards. The beautiful part about a good idea is that other people with good intentions pick it up and run with it.

Members of my caucus took those cards back to their ridings and duplicated them. I then had the great pleasure of thinking of the minister being buried up to his neck in these lovely green cards with the simple message “Do your job, save mine”.

Once again, as they have done many times in the past decade, resource based employers and employees in my riding are searching for ways to keep the important forest industry as viable and productive as it always was before. It is a very important part of our country's economy and in my riding it is especially important.

A recent meeting in Wells Gray saw forestry workers, chamber of commerce members and others gather to discuss an action plan for value added wood products. B.C. has a 16% share of the $35 billion primary wood businesses but only 1% of the $200 billion valued added wood sector. I congratulate B.C. for its forward thinking. It is planning.

It is a pleasure to be in my caucus because we represent real people. Most of us come from the business sector but some of us come from farms, some are lawyers and doctors, and some are economists and teachers, but we represent real Canada. When we stand up to speak we are the voice of those people who we represent. We are not here to represent an ideology, although we do have some very good ideas that could change the country dramatically and positively, but we are here to express the views of the people we represent.

As I said earlier, I am really happy with what happened today. I could not be more delighted. I will accept any face saving messages that have to come from that side of the House because I know in my heart that we have what we need now. I believe we have sent a message loud and clear and hopefully that message will be delivered to our American brothers with whom we trade.

American people are different from Canadian people. We do not even need to explain that. They are a more aggressive lot and, in this particular case, a small group of them will be fighting very hard to make sure they and not us come out on top.

I want members of our government and the negotiating team to go to the negotiating table in the United States with a clear picture in their heads of all the hardworking people from my riding and from ridings across Canada who are depending on them. I want them to think of those small children whose livelihoods will be cut in half because their parents will be unemployed. They need to eat. They need education. They need stability. Only the government and members of the negotiating team can give them that stability. When they go to the negotiating table I want them to remember those faces, do their jobs and help us protect Canada.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am not certain who the member across the way has been talking to. Certainly no one in my riding supports adding $24 onto an airline ticket. In my riding we are asking why the government is putting the cost of security onto the public.

The idea behind travel is to get us from one end of the country to the other and to make us know each other better. When a $24 tax, and that what it is, a tax, is added on top of this, it is unfair. If we made it a reasonable tax there would be more money than could possibly be needed for this in the first place. The government should take responsibility for the security of the air and not put that on the people who are travelling. If part of it has to be put on then it should be a reasonable amount of money.

I listened to the hon. member across the way say that we wanted Canada to go to war. We on this side of the House did not want Canada to go to war. We wanted to honour our NATO agreement and help our neighbours. When we did send our troops to Afghanistan we wanted to make certain that they were there equipped, not painting sheets so that they would be able to hide, and not one guy having a gun and other guy having the bullets. We wanted them equipped. What is wrong with sending an army and a navy that is equipped? Could the hon. member explain that to me because I do not understand it?

[Species at Risk Act, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again to finish my thoughts on Bill C-5. It bears repeating that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. In that vein there are a few comments I have left to make.

The objection that we have as a party to the bill is the shift in the cost to landowners rather than it being fair. We are to spend $45 million for species at risk, which is a very minimal amount of money when we think about the fact that we are trying to protect animals and plant life that will disappear from the earth forever. Yet the government has seen fit to spend over $700 million on a gun registry. One has to ask what are the priorities when there is such discrepancy in spending. I believe it is an unconscionable thing to do and that we have to correct what is happening in the House.

The government has failed miserably with the softwood lumber agreement and the cost of that mistake is being paid for by innocent people across the country. We cannot afford to let this happen again. The endangered species bill must be looked at very seriously.

What upsets me the most about the bill is the fact that when it comes to compensation there are two words that can be used: the word may which means we are allowed to do it and the word will which means we must do it. The word will has to be substituted in here. Otherwise people who own their own land and have done all the work for many years risk losing the land without compensation to save a species.

As I said previously, my colleague from Wild Rose has made it very clear that shoot, shovel and shut up will be the way things will happen in Canada. We do not want that. We need to protect species and in protecting species we must also protect the rights of landowners. We must give adequate compensation. Until that is addressed within the bill I cannot support it, and neither will my party.

Other matters have been raised inconsequentially and I would like to address them a bit more seriously. In this piece of legislation we have race based law. What applies to non-aboriginal people does not necessarily apply to aboriginal people. We may find ourselves in the position where private land backs on reserve land and the person on private land is obliged to follow the rules about endangered species whereas those on the other side on the reserve land are not required to do so.

How can we do this? Will we draw an imaginary line and say that if someone is living on this side of it they must preserve the species and if they are on that side of it, it is up in the air? It has been said that it was for medicinal and ceremonial purposes, but that does not specify what needs to be specified in the bill.

This should be a concern for aboriginal people as well because they have been stewards of plant life for many years. They do not have a unique view in this regard. Many of us have been stewards of plant life. However in the case of aboriginal people they use plant life a great deal for medicinal purposes.

I have a list of 47 endangered plants, some of which would be very familiar to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. One is a lichen and another a moss. They are on the endangered species list. Some 25 fall under the threatened category. If the legislation is put through with its bias and its unfairness in its lack of compensation, we can expect those numbers to grow by leaps and bounds.

When we are talking about fairness and when I mention the phrase race based law there is a reason for the concern. I will take the opportunity to read from an article which states:

A Coast Salish mask dancer is sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay a restitution fine of $147,000 for smuggling, trading and selling eagle feathers in Washington State. Terry Antoine, a 47-year-old medicine man from Cowichan First Nation near Duncan, B.C., was found guilty on one count of illegal importation of eagle parts and four counts of violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Antoine's lawyer argued that he traded eagle parts to other Aboriginal people who use them in religious ceremonies. Although Cowichan First Nation has members on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border, it is not among the 550 tribes that are federally recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I think we can see the danger. We need something that applies to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. In fairness that must take place. The current legislation does not address that adequately and I think that is a huge gap in the legislation.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual circumstance for me today. I find myself, for the first time in a year, being on the same side with my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas. That does not happen often so it is a rare moment.

I agree wholeheartedly with many of the comments that have been made today. I suppose, besides expressing my concern and sympathy to the Canadian public if this bill passes as it stands today, I would like to express my concern and sympathy to members on the government side of the House who worked on the committee.

On the opposition side of the House it is not uncommon for us to have worked very diligently and very hard to put through very well thought out amendments which are defeated. It happens. We are on the opposition side and quite often that is what happens. However, for members on the government side to have worked so diligently alongside all other members in the House and to have put forward with great diligence amendments that would work, thoughts that would make the bill workable and to have that shot down must be very disappointing. They have my sympathy.

The government wants to amend Bill C-5 to reverse many of the positions that were taken by the Liberal MPs on the environment committee. This is another example of top down that has been happening all year. It has to stop. There is not a single Canadian in my opinion who would not want to protect endangered species. When a species is eliminated from this world, it never comes back again and we are all the worse for that.

This piece of legislation could be made very workable. The biggest obstacle it faces is the fact that there is no fair compensation in this package. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to allow someone else to walk in and say “This is for your own good. I am going to take your land away because there is a species on there that needs to protected and no, I am sorry, I will not compensate you for it”. Who in their right mind will accept that?

My colleague from Wild Rose has said in the House several times on this piece of legislation that it is promoting shoot, shovel and shut up. I agree with him completely. If the intent of this is to protect species, we have to do it with fairness. If we do not, then that is precisely what will happen. If we ask people to make a choice between the preservation of a spotted owl, for example, and their ability to make a livelihood out of a woodlot, they will choose their livelihood.

In the current situation with the softwood lumber deal, it will have a more significant impact. We cannot ask people to choose between their livelihood, their living and the species. It will not happen so there has to be adequate compensation. To do otherwise will ensure the demise of a lot of species, which would be a very poor thing to have happen in this country.

I do not understand a government that treats people like children. That is one of the hardest things for me to accept. There should have been a consultation process that worked. I am certain that during the consultation process members on all sides of the House relayed the feelings of their constituents on how this piece of legislation would affect them negatively.

I would think that our role in government would be to take all that into consideration and put together something that would work for all concerned. There were 130 amendments that came forward. I am proud to say that 60 of them came from our caucus. Unfortunately, after all the wrangling, all the discussions and all the talk that took place, they were thrown out.

Is it any wonder that people in this country have less and less faith in politicians, in the system and in law. If we want people to respect law and respect the decisions that are made by politicians, they have to make sense. The bill does not make sense. I cannot possibly support the way this is going. If there is not adequate compensation, I do not think the public of Canada will support it either. If the aim is to destroy species, then the bill is going in the right direction.

[Foreign Affairs, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in such a hurry to cover up the allegations of patronage regarding Alfonso Gagliano that he appointed him ambassador to Denmark without telling the Danish people about it first.

The Vienna convention of diplomatic relations has established that the receiving country should be allowed the option to refuse a newly appointed ambassador before any public announcements are made.

However, the Prime Minister did not follow those rules on foreign diplomacy because he was concerned Denmark would refuse to be the dumping ground for his disgraced friend. His fears may not have been unfounded. On January 20, the popular Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet reported that Alfonso Gagliano had been linked to patronage and corruption. If Alfonso Gagliano was not fit to serve the Canadian people in parliament then he is not fit to serve the Canadian people in Denmark.

The Prime Minister should show his respect for the rules of foreign diplomacy for Denmark and for the Canadian Danish community by cancelling Mr. Gagliano's undeserved appointment immediately.

[Habitat For Humanity, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Habitat for Humanity is building a duplex for two families. Volunteers have been working tirelessly and the families will be moving in soon. I myself look forward to doing my part by painting a room.

Using the talents and skills of volunteers, Habitat for Humanity builds homes for people who might otherwise be unable to purchase a home. Potential homeowners commit to 500 hours of sweat equity. This participation equals pride of ownership.

What makes Habitat for Humanity so special is that it depends on the creativity and generosity of individual citizens rather than grants from government. The habitat program also offers dignity because it offers a hand up rather than a handout.

[Canada Loves New York, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on our own dime and our own time members of the Canadian Alliance joined with 20,000 fellow Canadians for the Canada Loves New York weekend. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was overwhelmed by the support we showed and many New Yorkers were deeply touched.

We were proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American brothers and sisters, letting them know that we shared their grief. We also let them know that Canadians are deeply linked to Americans by our shared concern for rights and freedoms and by our unique trade relationships. My colleagues and I took the opportunity to speak to congressmen and senators about Canadian trade concerns.

My congratulations go out to the organizers of the Canada Loves New York event. We showed our neighbours that we cared and we discussed issues that are important to Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, if the intent of the bill is not to put ranchers in the position of being charged with criminal offences, then it needs to be clearly defined. I do not think it is asking too much to make that clear. It disturbed me very much when the minister commented that this was not the intent and that if this were to happen, it would be taken care of through a court of law.

I outlined earlier the tenuous position some ranchers find themselves in. When a rancher has 100 head of cattle and loses 10, he has lost all of his profit. The minister is asking that these people, who are the original entrepreneurs of the country, to put themselves in a position of having to go to court to defend their way of life and take a chance that a criminal action may be brought against them. That is completely and totally unfair. It makes absolutely no sense at all to put people in that position.

Ranchers, farmers and people who are in these positions are not able to go to court. If a law has been created properly, which is what we are trying to have happen, why in the world would it get to the point where people would have to go into a court of law to defend themselves? Those are the parts that are absolutely wrong.

The new definition of animal includes is extremely broad and includes “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. This new definition extends legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection. This is a case of overkill. The bill goes too far in one direction.

One of our main concerns of the bill is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The example that I used today was ranchers.

The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection for 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 effectively remove these provisions outside the ambit of that protection.

The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to make the defences in section 429(2) explicit in this new legislation, but they refused. If there is no hidden intent, or hidden agenda as I have heard other colleagues say today, why not define that clearly and take that burden off the ranchers in Canada?

The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty toward animals and it supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. However, while cruelty to animals cannot be tolerated, the criminal law should not be used as a tool by special interest groups to destroy the legitimate farming and related food production industry. We will strive to ensure that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers is protected. That is our job.

All we are asking is that the Liberal side of the House take due consideration and make the necessary amendments so we can work together and get what we want out of the bill. We need to work together in order to ensure that everyone's rights are protected and that the ranching way of life in Canada is not destroyed intentionally or unintentionally by poorly worded legislation.