Carol Skelton

[Species at Risk Act, March 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, saving species at risk is important to both myself and my party. While we believe that legislation must be in place to secure the future of our wildlife and their habitat, we also believe that serious amendments to the current bill must be made.

The theme throughout these debates has been co-operation. Without the full support and co-operation of property owners and users, there is little hope of the bill being as effective as it should be or could be. Property owners and users must be made partners with various levels of government. They should not be viewed as obstacles to the saving of species, but helpers.

An area that should be discussed is stewardship. Effective stewardship programs need to be established. The punishment and penalties outlined in the bill seem to indicate that compliance is based on the fear of reprisal. This is not the attitude to be taken if we want this legislation to have full effect. Incentives for good stewardship would make better sense. Instead of complying to avoid punishment, property owners should be rewarded for their active participation. These incentives can be more than simple cash payments. Tax incentives are an option.

Stewardship plans should also be made part of the public record. As these plans have the possibility of affecting not only the initiating property owner, but also neighbouring landowners, public access to these plans is necessary. There needs to be an opportunity for public consultation, including all involved stakeholders.

Knowledge and information are key for these stewardship programs to be effective. The government should make every effort to keep property owners, land users and average citizens informed on which species are included, their habitat and plans to protect both of these.

The Liberal motion would see the removal of an amendment that would require a commitment to provide technical and scientific support to persons involved in stewardship activities. This is like giving someone a brand new car but not giving them the keys. Without the proper information, property owners are on their own to figure out the program. The punishment for violating this legislation currently applies equally to the person who deliberately and maliciously endangers species and to the one who inadvertently endangers species.

With no distinction being given to the deliberate actions of the criminal mind and the innocent mind, the government could at the very least offer as much information as possible to enable the non-criminal the opportunity to avoid making these mistakes. Not providing the best information possible only sets the stage for failure and the further endangering of species and their habitat.

There must be real assistance provided by the government to property owners. Mailing information pamphlets will not do. There needs to be an open sharing of information and data to assist property owners in their choices and land use practices.

The public deserves to have access to documentation. The information provided to them is vital in their efforts to help save endangered species. The government would like to exclude all ministerial reports, including listing decisions, from being listed in the public registry. This reduction of transparency by eliminating public access goes against Canadian ideals. We believe ourselves to be living in a free and open democracy, yet the government would see basic information limited.

Canadian citizens should not be burdened with having to submit access to information requests. This is not some top secret military expedition. We are trying to save animals and their habitat. Why the fear of open access to information on the part of the government? I do not know.

The government would see the public held accountable for their actions without having provided them with the information necessary to make wise choices. The penalties are too harsh to not give property owners every opportunity to make wise choices. To not offer all relevant information to property owners and land users in light of the penalties involved would be negligent. If true stewardship is to be promoted then all available resources must be offered to property owners. The government must do its part if it expects the property owners to do theirs.

Along with public participation comes public consultation. The property owners are the grassroots folks in the plan to save endangered species. To exclude their input on how this legislation is working is to exclude a vital component of the plan.

The government seems to thrive on secrecy. What Canada needs is transparency and accountability. To ensure accountability, there needs to be scheduled reviews of this act, a review process that would allow for the active participation and involvement of the public. Legislators would have the opportunity to hear from those with firsthand knowledge on if and how the program is working. Who better to offer ideas on what is or is not working and any changes that are necessary than property owners who are directly affected by this bill?

Asking for five year scheduled reviews is not unreasonable. The government again would see us simply trusting it in that if it deemed a review necessary only then would one be called. This is not acceptable. If left to its own discretion, we can all be assured that no review would ever be called, at least not one with any public input or government accountability.

If this bill is to be truly effective, it must ensure openness and accountability. As I said, the inadvertent actions of an individual carry enormous penalties. The decisions affecting such a person cannot be made behind closed doors. The property owners and resource users are on the frontlines in the protection of species at risk. Their ongoing co-operation is expected. They should be able to expect co-operation from their government as well.

The government seems to be content in snubbing the committee process when it comes to Bill C-5. It also seems content to treat the public in the same way by snubbing the possibility of its input. This attitude is arrogant and unacceptable. The government cannot legislate and then flee the scene. Ongoing public involvement is necessary. This bill will not succeed with the direct involvement and support of the public. It must be included in any consultation processes and deserve to be provided with the best information possible.

Legislators cannot save species and their habitats without the co-operation of property owners and resource users. To think otherwise is arrogant. The majority of Canadians feel it is necessary to help endangered species. Let us ensure that the government works with them, not against them.

[Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, March 20th, 2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Employment Insurance, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the money was unlawfully taken from EI people. A monitoring report from late 2000, a year and a half ago, states:

The monitoring has shown that the legislative and regulatory provisions have created a nightmarish situation where it is...impossible to come up with a reasonable and legal decision.

The minister allowed the nightmare--

[Employment Insurance, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my press release. If people take--

[Employment Insurance, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in April 2001 the Minister of Human Resources Development received a memo marked secret. It referred to the government's unjust EI law. I quote:

In some cases, the existing rules may result in disproportionately large overpayments compared to the amount of undeclared earnings.... This is clearly a disproportionate response--

The minister knew all about the problems. Why did she not change the act that caused them?

[Agriculture, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a breakdown in communication between the federal and provincial Liberals. In Saskatchewan, the Liberal leader is saying there is indeed federal money available for drought stricken farmers.

If the federal agriculture minister's own provincial colleague maintains that there is money for farmers, why does the government continue to refuse to help? Last year the Saskatchewan government asked for $250 million in additional assistance. The government delivered a paltry $1.5 million. Considering the devastating effect of the current drought in Western Canada, this was a slap in the face to farmers.

The government's own provincial colleague declares there is federal money available. When will the agriculture minister do the right thing, the civilized thing, and deliver working agricultural programs that are adequately funded to suffering Saskatchewan farm families?

[Question No. 108—, March 19th, 2002]

Can the Department of Human Resources Development provide, for fiscal years 2000-01 and 2001-02, the complete list of grants and contributions by federal constituency including: ( a ) the amount given; ( b ) the name and address of each recipient individual, company, or organization; ( c ) the program under which each amount was awarded; ( d ) the number of jobs created, if applicable; ( e ) the purpose of the funding; and ( f ) the type of funding (i.e. grant, repayable contribution etc.) and the date given?

[Employment Insurance, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, they are two different issues.

The minister knew she ripped off innocent workers. The opposition warned her. The standing committee warned her. Her EI umpires warned her. She refused to change the law that ripped off these workers.

When will the minister do the right thing and pay back these innocent workers that the government ripped off?

[Employment Insurance, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last May the standing committee on human resources made the following recommendation: “that the Government return to the pre-1996” process “by repealing section 19(3) of the Employment Insurance Act”.

The Liberals did not repeal the section. Instead they changed a regulation, making the section inoperative. Why did the government not repeal section 19(3) and retroactively pay back the employees it ripped off?

[Employment Insurance, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the minister's response to her EI rip off rule.

The workers victimized by the minister lost benefits they were legally entitled to. These people did nothing wrong. Will the minister do what is right and pay back her victims?