Dale Johnston

[Privilege, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to reply to the government House leader and the whip. I wanted make the Chair aware, as I am sure he is, that I had approached the table and made arrangements for the hon. member to speak some time prior to this intervention. The Chair is aware of that and I made the table aware of it as well.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-15B, which refers to the prevention of cruelty to animals act and some aspects of the Firearms Act.

I have spoken to the bill before. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker will recall that I have spoken to the bill a couple of times. I do so from the standpoint of being a farmer for 35 years. I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona. Although he does not have experience in raising livestock he certainly has made some excellent points about animal welfare.

Some groups nowadays talk about animal rights. I have a bit of a problem with that. I have no problem, however, when we talk about animal welfare. My colleague made the point that not only it is in the farmers' and producers' best interests not to be cruel to livestock, but it is also in their interests to make sure that livestock does not even suffer any undue stress. Stress affects the way the livestock perform.

For instance, in regard to milk cows, I know there are groups in Canada who think that even the taking of milk from a milk cow is somehow a violation of the animal's rights. We can see how I would have a problem with that concept. If milk cows are not properly fed, if they do not have a high protein, fairly high fat and high energy diet, their milk production drops. After all, producing milk does two things. It supplies nutrients to a hungry nation and it supplies a livelihood to the person who does the milking. If the animal is stressed, milk production goes down, the hungry nation goes with less milk, unless more milk cows are provided, and the producer and his family make do with less income. It only follows, then, that it is in the best interests of the livestock producer, the dairy people or the poultry producers to put their animals under the least stress possible for the benefit of everybody, for the benefit of the system, for the benefit of the country, for the benefit of the economy.

I have no problem with dealing harshly with people who deliberately, maliciously and for no reason at all are cruel to animals. I have no problem with dealing severely with them. However, when the point is reached that the penalty for killing one's dog is a more severe penalty than it is for killing one's neighbour or wife, then I think we have crossed the line of common sense, and indeed, reality.

If we need to strengthen the laws to deal more harshly with cruelty to animals, I think it only follows that we need to strengthen the law so that we deal more harshly with people who are cruel to people, not only for murder but for mental cruelty. We all know people who have suffered at the hands of a parent, a sibling or people at school. There is a case in the news right now about a young person who took his own life and the possibility is that he did that as a result of the taunting and teasing received in school. That is the worst form of cruelty, cruelty to the point that it may have driven this young person to end his life at age 14 because he simply just could not bear the thought of continuing this miserable existence and being constantly teased.

If it is necessary to be more severe and have more severe penalties for those who abuse animals then let us balance the scale. Let us put something on the other side of the scale and make the penalties more severe for those people who are cruel and malicious to people.

Over the years we raised thousands of head of cattle for slaughter. According to what I read in the bill, even if one causes instantaneous death to an animal, one might be subject to these severe penalties. I cannot quite comprehend that because oftentimes in the cafeteria we are served roast beef, hamburger or fried chicken. Today the entree was fish. It is necessary to kill these animals to make meat. Someone has to kill these animals and I am sure that we do it in a humane way but under this law if the animal dies immediately it may be subject to penalty. That is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous that in committee at least 150 amendments to the bill were passed. Somehow they were dropped, lost or kicked out somewhere between the committee and the House. What kind of way is that to run the legislature? When we--

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance will be voting nay on this motion.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will be voting yea on this motion.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will be voting yea on Motions Nos. 7 and 8.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 4 respecting Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation. It is pretty safe to say that most Canadians agree we have a responsibility to protect endangered species.

I have some pamphlets that have been put out by the government of Saskatchewan which refer to the sage grouse. Most people recognize they are endangered. Certainly the piping plover was mentioned in the House earlier today. Most people also realize it is an endangered species. The greater prairie chicken is a different species from the sage grouse. That species and the whopping crane are very recognizable Canadian species of wildlife that are endangered.

In the work I have done researching the bill I have been given to understand that if any of these endangered species are discovered on land of which an individual or group of individuals has ownership, the government has no obligation to inform them. If I had some sage grouse, whopping cranes, piping plovers or other birds on my land I would very likely know about it. I recognize they are endangered species. I would probably take steps to ensure that their environment was not damaged because of something I did.

However there are a other species on the prairies. For instance, the slender mouse-ear-cress, a very small plant, is one of which I have no knowledge. There are also western spider warts and the hairy prairie-clover. These are prairie vegetation that are on the endangered species list. If I or someone who owns the land inadverently destroys the habitat of the sand verbena or the hairy prairie-clover, we would be subject to severe penalties even though we had no idea the endangered species was on our land and even though the government does not have any obligation to notify us so that we can take the required precautions.

In talking with our critic we were informed that some nine months of work of the committee, which is a gestation period, produced at least 300 amendments, 100 or more of which were approved by all parties. All that work was completely wiped out when the legislation came back to the House. Members of the House have a lot better things to do than attend nine months of committee work which counts for absolutely nothing when it comes back to the House.

This is a sham. It is a total waste of parliament's time, potential and resources. All of us have better things to do. Our constituents would be better served if we spent more time with them and less time in a committee that does not work. Committee work is wonderful. It is where the nuts and bolts of legislation are made. If the committee works it is a wonderful tool. When it is treated in this way it is an absolute, total sham.

I agree with him when he moves his motion that the bill should be reviewed on a regular basis. I would have thought that a five year review would have been good but if he is willing to go with six years I am sure we can live with that. I can speak for my colleagues that we would be willing to support such a motion. I am pleased to see that he has moved that. I know that he and other Liberal members who speak against the bill do so at their peril. I applaud them for taking that stand and having that courage.

When we talk about people who own land and try to make a living from that, I know a little about that. I made my living from the land for 35 years by raising cattle and other crops to feed a hungry nation.

I would like to read into the record something I came in contact with. It is written by a fellow who did a lot of work with the transplantation of timber wolves from Alberta to Yellowstone Park. It was a project with the state of Wyoming and the province of Alberta. This person came to the realization by talking to a man by the name of William Pen Mott.

William Pen Mott was national park service director to former president Ronald Reagan. He attended a meeting with sheep ranchers who did not have a whole lot of love for the wolves. He said:

The single most important action that conservation groups could take to advance Yellowstone wolf restoration would be to start a compensation fund. It is economics that makes ranchers hate wolves. Pay them for their losses and the controversy will subside.

If the legislation does not compensate landowners for land that is taken out of production because of endangered species that live on it then the legislation is not only doomed to fail but it also does not serve the purpose it was intended, that is, the protection of endangered species. I submit that it will not protect endangered species. The only way that there will be protection of endangered species is if the people whose land the endangered species reside on are equal and willing partners in the program. If they are not willingly compliant, it will not work.

If the Government of Canada were to start confiscating land from people because there were endangered species on that land then we never owned the land in the first place. The right to own property is a fundamental right in Canada. If that were taken away from us, it would be a sad day for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today and say a few words regarding Bill C-15B, which is an act to amend the criminal code, specifically cruelty to animals and firearms.

I have spent the last 35 years of my life in agriculture, raising cattle and horses and I have had farm dogs. I now have an eight pound Maltese that pretty much rules our household, so I think I speak with a certain amount of expertise.

However, I think I bring some expertise to the debate. I find it rather ironic that the urban lobby obviously has had so much influence into the writing of the bill and has put a yoke around agriculture's neck. Without a profitable agriculture industry, people in the urban centres will get hungry in a hurry. They are dependent on agriculture producers being efficient and providing them with not only an abundant, but a cheap source of food.

When I read things in the bill such as clause 182.2(b) which says:

(1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly,

(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;

Livestock producers allow their animals to be killed. We are now saying that because this was done wilfully someone would decide, probably in a court, whether it was done recklessly. They would probably also decide in a court whether the animal was killed brutally or viciously, and that is all very subjective. It is not something that can be defined easily. It would be left up to people who probably any aspect of cattle husbandry would be a revelation them. It would be left up to people in the city, probably a jury of people who did not know anything about cattle or animal husbandry, to define whether I allowed my stock to be killed brutally or viciously or that I wilfully allowed them to be killed and was reckless about it, even though the animal died immediately.

I said that I have been farming for 35 years. I have not figured out a way that I could eat beef without first killing the cow. It has to die before it can be eaten. It is just common sense. It is the same thing with a chicken.

I know there are many producers in the House. I know there are many people here who produce cattle. I know we certainly have some very prominent chicken producers in this parliament as well. I cannot understand why more members of the government are not objecting to the way the bill is written. I think it is ridiculous.

I believe that this will be a millstone hung around the neck of agricultural producers and we do not need it. We already have to put up with low commodity prices, with the uncertainties of weather, too much precipitation or too little precipitation, pests and diseases in our crops, our cattle and in our livestock in general. There is the possibility of all kinds of other problems, weed infestations and so forth with which we have to put up. To have this very subjective piece of legislation placed on us is something we certainly do not need.

The past minister speaking at second reading in this place has said “what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent”. That is what the minister promised in the House. She also went on to say that these changes would in no way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involved animals, such as hunting, farming, medical or scientific research. I take some comfort in that statement.

However, if the previous minister was sincere about that, and I assume she was, then why has the present minister not simply put that into the legislation? Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that would go a long way in alleviating some of the concerns that the agriculture industry has.

One of the things that the minister mentioned was hunting. I used to hunt too. Before I got this job, I had time to do lots of things. I was able to go big game hunting. My goal in hunting was to find an animal for which I had a proper licence, to kill it as quickly as I could, usually with a shot to the head, neck or lungs, which would knock the animal down. I would rush there and let the blood out of the animal which helped to cool the body as part of the process of butchering. I would kill the animal as quickly as I possibly could.

In the law of physics on rifles and so forth, if the bullet on the way between me and the animal should actually touch a branch or something, it will deflect a certain amount and it may miss my target by as much as foot of where I actually shot, hit the animal and knock it down. However the animal may would jump up and run off into the bush before I have the chance to get another shot at it.

Hunters under those circumstances have absolutely the best of intentions but, through no fault of their own and through extenuating circumstances, have these wounded animals run off on them. Hunters do their utmost best to track that animal down, dispatch it, put it out of its misery and take the meat home. That is the object of going hunting. I never was one of those hunters who went out strictly for the trophies. I went there because I like wild meat. I like elk, moose and deer. Those are the animals we hunted in the foothills of Alberta.

I see that as a problem. This proposed legislation will effectively drive a stake through the heart of hunters. Hunting is a very important thing. The most dangerous North American animal is not the grizzly bear, the wolf, the wolverine or any of those carnivores. It is the white-tailed deer. The reason it is the most dangerous animal in North America is more people are killed hitting white-tailed deer on the highways with their cars or dodging them and getting into oncoming traffic than by any other animal in North America.

Do members know anybody who has hit a deer? I think everybody in this place knows somebody who has hit a deer. I have hit them myself. One day my wife was going down the road and I told her that if she saw a deer about to cross the road, or if one crossed in front of her, to slow down. Where there is one deer there will be others and they follow one behind the other. She did exactly as I suggested. She slowed down, missed the first deer and watched another one run by. Then a deer came out and ran into the side of her car. Even though my wife was stopped, she got hit by a deer.

That probably is a sideline to the point I was trying to get across. My point is this legislation is not accomplishing what it is attempting to accomplish. I agree with what it is attempting to do. I agree that we should be touch on people who intentionally are cruel to animals. I know that the farmers I have as neighbours would never intentionally do that. If they fail to provide adequate feed, bedding and water, it simply takes money out of their back pockets because the animals do so poorly.

Anyone who deliberately neglects animals or is cruel to them ought to be punished very severely. However this is having a punishing effect on people who are legitimately trying to make a living and provide food for our friends in the cities.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today in speaking to the endangered species act, Bill C-5, I intend to make the case that the government has not taken into account the socioeconomic impact that the bill would have on Canadians.

It is particularly pertinent to note that the minister refers to this as getting into the proverbial swamp and states that they have been given $45 million a year to run this process, yet they do not know for sure if $45 million a year is sufficient to do that or not.

What I contend is that it will cost a whole lot more than $45 million a year and the rest of the money is to come from the very people whose lands house these endangered species. It is sort of a double jeopardy and a double burden on persons who actually own the land when a law is passed that says they must protect the species on the land, but, if land is taken out of production, they will not be compensated for it. Further it says that they have to do this at their own expense. Basically they are being taxed to provide money to put into these government programs, yet if the government program runs short, then the individual landowner can be expected to pick up the slack.

My contention is that the government needs those taxpayers. It has to be a symbiotic relationship. The taxpayer has to make a living to pay taxes. If the bill is going to be so onerous and so restrictive that they will be hampered to the point where they cannot make a living, the government has to look very closely and earnestly at the possibility that the taxpayers will just throw up their hands and say they cannot make a living. If companies or people cannot use their land for which it was intended, for which they bought or leased it, whether it is for farming, ranching, mining, harvesting forestry products or whatever, then they simply will go out of business and the government will lose more taxpayers.

The government cannot afford to lose taxpayers. When it is paying $40 billion a year in interest rates to maintain the interest on our national debt, the government needs every dollar it can drag out of its taxpayers.

I do not think that the government has taken into account the socioeconomic impact that the bill will have. That can be stated over and over again. I hope the government is listening and taking these things into consideration, but I am afraid it has not because we have put forth all kinds of amendments. I understand that my colleagues were able to get agreement on several amendments in committee, yet that was all washed out once the hierarchy got ahold of it.

Here again we have a committee process that is a sham. It looks good on the outside but when we actually look at the workings of it we discover that the Prime Minister and cabinet dictate what the outcome of the committee shall be.

While it is absolutely desirable to maintain our species at risk, to have them flourish, propagate and multiply in a friendly environment, it is also extremely important that the economic stability of the country be allowed to do just exactly the same; to prosper, to expand, to put people to work so they can make some profit and pay their shareholders and their taxes. If they cannot do that, all the good intentions in the world will be for naught because we simply will not be able to maintain our endangered species and we will have an even worse problem. We would not be able to maintain our industries.

I have said this before in the House that, as a farmer, I have grave concerns that the intention of the bill, as laudable as it is, will not be realized under the parameters as written today. It simply has to be amended to take into account that the people who are paying the bills have to have an opportunity to grow and to thrive or else they simply will stop paying the bills. Then what will happen to our endangered species? There will be no one left to protect them. It is important for someone to speak up to protect the people who are actually paying the bills.

Some of my colleagues have spoken previously about the punitive aspects of the bill as well. In British common law it is tradition that we will be innocent until we are proven guilty. In this bill it appears that that is not the case. It appears that there will be a provision in it that whether a person has acted maliciously, recklessly or with criminal intent will not be taken into the situation at all if it is discovered damage has been done to environment which would impose hardship on endangered species; in other words to ruin the environment of endangered species.

By not having to prove that, the crown should have to prove that people either acted recklessly, maliciously or with criminal intent for those charges to stick. If people cannot defend themselves against that, what possibly could be put up for a defence? Could we say, we did not know that the species was endangered? No, that cannot be said because that is no longer a defence. We cannot say we were not aware that the species was living on our lands because that is no longer a defence.

It could be a total accident. I tried to make this point yesterday. If someone were to hit a whooping crane with a car, which is an unlikely possibility, would that person then be guilty under this act of destroying an endangered species? I do not think there is a person in Canada who would not recognize that a whooping crane is one of the endangered species. It is more or less the poster animal for endangered species. However, if someone were to accidentally bump into it, and more likely run into it with an airplane, would he or she be guilty under this act? From my reading of it, I believe the person would be. That is simply not right.

This is setting a tremendously dangerous precedent. We have to allow people charged with things an opportunity to defend themselves. If they do not have an opportunity to defend themselves, then that shows me that we are headed toward a totalitarian regime. I have been to Castro's Cuba and I have seen that the people there do not have an opportunity to defend themselves. If they are charged with something, they go straight to jail. They have no way of defending themselves.

I would say, as I said yesterday, that the bill will not accomplish the very things that it should and could accomplish if it were written correctly, and it is to the peril of endangered species in Canada.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-5 which is an act to protect endangered species. Protection of endangered species is something that all Canadians and certainly our party agree should be accomplished. I will make the case that the legislation does not do what it sets out to do which is to protect endangered species.

My colleagues have quite correctly stated today that the average person in Canada does not know which species are endangered and which are not. Most people in Canada would know that the whooping crane, because of all the publicity and awareness programs that have gone on in association with a huge white bird with black wing tips, is an endangered species and they would do what they could to protect them. However there are literally hundreds of endangered plant species that the average person is not aware of. The bill takes the position that individuals should or ought to know what those endangered species are. I think that is unreasonable.

A lot has been said in regard to the fact that the bill would take a position that we would be guilty until we could prove ourselves innocent. That is totally against the principle of justice that this country was founded on, namely that we are innocent until proven guilty.

That is what is missing in the bill plus the point which was made by the previous speaker about the mens rea aspect. I know it is not sufficient to say that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. However, with no criminal intent and no intention of destroying the habitat or uprooting some rare plants or whatever, then the law should go a lot easier on people. There must be some burden of proof put on the prosecutor to show that there was criminal intent and that the law was willingly broken.

When I spoke to the bill before I talked about the aspect of penalties. One being that land could be confiscated upon proof that there was an endangered species on it. That speaks volumes for the government's attitude about private ownership of property. If property could be confiscated for the public good, then the case must be made that it should be compensated for at fair market value. If it is not compensated for at fair market value then the case could be made that we never actually owned the land in the first place. If we do not own the land in the first place, then why is it that we pay taxes on it and are responsible for what takes place on that land?

It would be quite easy to make a case that the legislation does exactly the opposite of what it sets out to do. It would set out to protect endangered species and by taking this confrontational, uncooperative, non-team building approach with the people who actually own or lease the land that the habitat is on the bill would do the complete reverse of what it intended to do in the first place.

On my property in Alberta there are what are referred to as bush partridges but actually they are grouse. I have never hunted them. I have done my best to leave little patches of long grass in which they overwinter. They are not an endangered species but I am afraid they are going to be because they are having a hard time adapting. So much of the land has been pastured. They have to have tall grass that will collect snow in order to overwinter or they simply will not survive.

They also live on rosehips. Rosehips are the fruit of the rose, the little buds that are left after the flower has fallen off. They are very high in vitamins D and A and contain quite a lot of protein and energy. They are the main source of feed for these little partridges during the worst parts of the winter. I have done what I can to fence off areas to make sure my cattle do not go into the bush and destroy their habitat so that the partridges will have some sanctuary.

Even then there are times when I am coming home or going to town that I notice that one of the little partridges has strayed out on the road to pick up some tiny pebbles for his crop. Birds have to have something in their crops to grind their food because they have no teeth. While it is out on the road, someone may come over the hill, run over the partridge and there goes some of my breeding stock. It is impossible to protect all of them.

We could make the case that people should know that partridges come out to the road to get gravel for their crops and therefore they should drive more carefully. I am wondering how the law and the courts would deal with a person who had killed a bird.

If it were a whooping crane that was on the road and a person came over the hill and hit it with their car, would that person be responsible? Everyone recognizes that a whooping crane is an endangered species. Does that make the person who hit the crane with the car responsible for the death of the crane as a wilful destruction of habitat or of an endangered species? I do not think it does.

The very aspect that we have to show there was some intent to do harm to that species or habitat is a basic tenet of Canadian law and British law before it. It is something that we appear to be giving up and we should not be. If we are willing to give that up with regard to this aspect, how does that bode for people who try to defend themselves against very serious crimes?

If an individual has been charged with something and has been considered to be guilty before having had a chance to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she is not guilty, that is absolutely wrong. The onus should be on the crown to prove its case against an individual. The person should be considered and presumed innocent until the crown can prove otherwise. That is exactly what this is all about.

When Canadians learn that basic tenet of Canadian justice has been thrown out, they are going to question the validity of this law, as we have. In this caucus we have questioned the validity and the purpose of it.

The government has said on so many occasions that it is important to educate the public on this issue, that issue, or some other issue. I do not think there has ever been an issue where it was as relevant to educate the public as this one. The public has to know which species are endangered in Canada, whether they are flora or fauna. We have to bring the Canadian public on side and make them all environmentally aware.

I believe that Canadians will gladly become advocates of the preservation of endangered species and will be good stewards, provided there is some incentive for them to do so. I have seen the government on the other side use the carrot and the stick so often, but in this case it would be far better off for the endangered species to use more carrot and a lot less stick.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the government would be well advised to take on the agricultural community as an ally in the fight to save endangered species rather than take on the adversarial view that it will criminalize a lot of people for making a living who may inadvertently destroy some habitat of endangered species of one type or another.

The whole issue of compensation is of utmost importance. That one simple action would solve a lot of the problems I see here today. If people trying to make a living in agriculture knew they would be compensated at fair market value for land taken out of production they would comply.

We must take the position that this is a partnership and not have big brother looking over people's shoulders and pressing criminal charges on people who inadvertently destroy habitat. Having said that, people who deliberately, wilfully and mischievously destroy habitat are in a lot of trouble and they should be.

On a creek bank on my farm in Wetaskiwin there is a heronry of great blue herons. Great blue herons are not endangered species, but they were a few years ago and now they are making a great comeback. I took on the project of protecting them entirely of my own volition, not because someone said I had to. I do my best to protect them and keep people away from them while they are fledgling because they are particularly vulnerable at that time.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to speak to the bill today. I feel passionately about the issue. I hope the government is listening and will make the required changes to the bill. I hope it does not merely bring it up to our standards but improves it for all involved.