Werner Schmidt

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

An hon. member said that we have to relieve the pressure. We have to relieve a lot of pressure in the House. There is extreme difficulty with certain urban members in the House who do not understand there are some legitimate farming concerns that are none of their business. They do not understand those issues and they should keep their cotton-pickin' hands off them because these matters will stand in their own way. For anyone in the House to believe that farmers, hunters and fishermen are deliberately cruel to the animals they depend upon for their income, health and welfare is a lot of nonsense.

I suspect that some members in the House really enjoy going to Hy's Steak House for a steak. How in the world can they justify eating that piece of steak, claiming it is okay but it is cruel to drink a glass of milk?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Edmonton has a way of putting one on the spot. That is one of the most difficult social, political and economic questions that exists in Canada today. There is a conflict between urban and rural people on certain issues and my hon. colleague has clearly articulated that difficulty.

There are some people, like those in the group PETA, who are actually under the illusion that people who drink milk are being cruel to cows. I grew up on a farm. I know what happens when a cow is lactating and producing milk. It would be cruel to the cow not to milk it. It needs to have the pressure released from the udder where the milk is collected.

It is a very serious issue that needs to be carefully understood. The hon. member asked me to be specific so I will be and it is the exact opposite of what the PETA group is trying to indicate.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, my colleague from North Battleford, made a very strong case, as did my colleague from Calgary, in terms of the liberties that are involved. Bill C-15B is a very significant piece of legislation that does seem to be somewhat intrusive.

I want to make it abundantly clear that one of the things we in the Canadian Alliance want to underline time and again is that we are absolutely not in favour of cruelty to animals. We do support the intent of the legislation, which would make cruelty to animals a more serious offence. There is no question about that and I want to make that abundantly clear so that no one misinterprets or misunderstands why we are opposed to the bill. We have no criticisms of those aspects of the bill, but we do criticize its intrusiveness, which creates problems for other people.

I would like to suggest that there is a fundamental principle of legislation we need to observe in all legislation and that principle is this: the legislation must make sense. Legislation that makes sense actually achieves what it intends to achieve and it protects the legitimate interests of citizens and the pursuits of those citizens in various legitimate enterprises, and in particular, farmers, ranchers, fishermen and medical researchers.

Now I will try to look at this piece of legislation from that perspective. First, then, I would like to recognize that the legislation before us now in Bill C-15B could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers will be unjustly prosecuted. They may even be persecuted. Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use this new legislation as the basis for such prosecutions, and in fact have already stated their intentions to do so, notwithstanding that some people argue they will not.

I will refer specifically to a quote from Liz White, the director of legislative revision, Animal Alliance of Canada. She stated:

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

My learned friend is a legal person and understands what the legal processes are. He understands exactly what that kind of statement means. The federal minister has assured us that what is lawful today in the way of legitimate activities in the courts would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. The problem is that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

Am I the only one who has concerns about this? I am not trained in the law, but I do know something about logic and I do know something about how things work. I would like to refer the House to the Canadians for Medical Progress, Inc. This is a group of very sophisticated researchers who know what they are talking about. They have examined this omnibus bill. Pierre Berton, the senior patron, says this:

I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Medical Progress to request that, if you haven't already done so, you take a close...look...The intent of the legislation is to deal more stringently and effectively with incidents of extreme and unacceptable abuse to animals.

Who would disagree? I do not. The vast majority of Canadians would heartily endorse this, that is agreed, but he continued and stated:

However, some amended components of this section of the bill as drafted could have serious and paralyzing consequences for medical science. Essentially, they will remove animals as property, and will be interpreted as conferring person-like status on animals. In my opinion, this is an asinine, ludicrous approach toward solving the problem of animal abuse.

These are not my words. These are the words of significant, respected, well qualified and successful researchers in the field of medicine.

I will go on and look at the other parts of the bill. Canadians for Medical Progress has as one of its objectives:

Making representations to the government for the enactment or protection of legislation permitting and supporting biomedical research.

We ought to do that. We should have that. The group has other goals. It wants to promote “health research awareness, the science of biomedical research and the knowledge and practice thereof”. It wants to co-ordinate its “activities with those of similar organizations and societies and individuals” and it wants to hold “conferences, meetings and exhibitions for the discussion of biomedical research”. That is what these organizations do. The quotes I have just read are the words of people who do these kinds of things.

Canadians for Medical Progress also stated that it:

applauds the efforts of the drafters of this new legislation on their goal... We wish to affirm our belief that the wanton cruelty to animals is plainly not acceptable, and should be subject to the full force of the law.

However...the present wording, although totally unintentional, could open the door to costly and paralyzing private prosecutions, based on unfounded and frivolous allegations, against responsible, legitimate and ethically sound research. The key here, though, is the cost and time expenditure that could be inflicted on researchers and their research activity, regardless of potential litigation outcomes.

I know, and so do the members of the House, that in Canada the litigation process is not so much dependent on what is right or what is just, but rather on how much money and time the people who are litigating have to spend on the issue. Do we really want to get into the position where our researchers have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves instead of devoting that money to the legitimate pursuit of research to solve some of our medical problems we need to address? That is the issue here. Why would we create a law that would make it difficult for these people to conduct legitimate research using animals such that they would have to go to court to defend themselves about whether the use of those animals is cruel or not? That is at the heart of this concern.

People will say “but that is the medical group”. No, it is not just the medical group. I have some documentation here and if I have time I will read it into the record as well. It is from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, from the fishermen's association and from the veterinary association. A lot of people are deeply concerned. Their concerns are not frivolous concerns. These are not people who have looked at this legislation and just have said it came from the Liberal government and therefore they would throw it away. Their concerns are not political concerns. They are legitimately concerned that this legislation will threaten, will paralyze, a legitimate activity that they want to do on behalf of improving the health and welfare of Canadians.

I want to review this briefly. What did the former minister of justice state at the time the bill was introduced? She stated:

...what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent.

If that is really what she meant, why would she then create legislation that really puts into question whether that in fact would be the case? Her statement in effect is self-evident. However, it is misleading. Of course the new provisions will not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out, but the law only prescribes illegal activities. The problem is, therefore, the concern that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes a legitimate activity. That is where the difficulty comes in. It is the scope of that activity. If it was not the minister's intent to prohibit the presently acceptable and legitimate activities in Canadian agriculture or fur industries, she should have amended the legislation to clarify the intent in those provisions.

Therefore, at best, in my opinion, the bill begs the question of whether it makes sense and whether it protects people. In practical terms I think it fails to do what the minister originally intended to achieve. I think that is a very major concern.

Let me be a little more specific with regard to farming. Farmers are constantly faced with challenges. They are influenced daily by weather, commodity prices, transportation costs and federal government intervention.

Most farmers would add certain animal rights groups to this list. Some groups target livestock producers, labelling them as cruel, inhumane and barbaric. I will provide an example that shocked me. I did not know that this had happened but apparently it has. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting schoolchildren. It is essentially telling them that if children drink milk they are responsible for the torture of cows. Just imagine. Why would anyone do that? My colleagues and I in the Canadian Alliance, including my party's agriculture critic, are concerned that groups such as PETA are about to be armed with a powerful new weapon against farmers. I hope this never happens but apparently this is already taking place.

I certainly agree with the vast majority of Canadians that we need harsher penalties for those who deliberately abuse animals. Unfortunately, because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded, many ranchers, hunters and medical researchers may be subjected to harassment and prosecutions and could be convicted of abuse even though they properly care for their animals.

We have two suggestions. The Canadian Alliance is demanding two major changes to Bill C-15B. The first is that the bill's definition of an animal must be amended. The current definition reads:

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

Because this definition is too broad it could interfere with the abilities of farmers to eliminate pests and of researchers to find cures for diseases. We must change the definition.

Second, we are calling for the legislation to protect from costly, frivolous prosecutions those who legitimately use animals. Currently the criminal code provides protection from harassment and prosecution, but because the bill will move animal cruelty out of the property offences of the criminal code this protection effectively would be removed. The justice minister has the ability to introduce legislation that would strengthen and modernize the current cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code without threatening those who legitimately use animals, but so far the minister has refused to be explicit in the legislation and ensure that the courts have no ability to interpret Bill C-15B in a way that parliament did not intend.

That is at the heart of this: that the courts not interpret the legislation in a way that was not intended by parliament. I do not think there is any quarrel from our side of the House about the intent of the legislation being noble. It is. Therefore let us word it in such a way that it indeed can achieve what it was set out to achieve.

Now I will speak to the other part of the bill, which for some crazy reason is in this bill but in my opinion should not be, and that is the amendment to the firearms act. What that has to do with cruelty to animals I do not know, but it was put together so I need to separate it out and refer to it in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I think you are very well aware, as are all members of the House, that as far as the Canadian Alliance is concerned the whole firearms registry and Firearms Act should be scrapped, repealed, done away with, but let me refer to a particular aspect of this amendment. It deals with criminal law. Criminal law is our most serious form of law. A violation of criminal law, including a violation of any prescription or regulation that exists by way of an order in council, and by the way this act does exactly that, can result in a criminal record and imprisonment.

It is therefore inappropriate to create criminal law that is not to be found in the act but must be sought in a maze of current, revised, overlapping and obsolete order in council regulations. Why is it so significant that this has gone through the regulations part? All of this stuff is dealt with in the regulations rather than in the law itself. While regulations made under the authority of orders in council may have a place in regulatory law, we submit that they should not be included in criminal law. The regulations are simply not sufficiently available to rely on them as a valid way of setting forth criminal law.

Those affected by them are not usually subscribers to the Canada Gazette . It would be inappropriate to believe that everyone knows them or can know them and they are not easily available to either crown prosecutors or defence lawyers. It is possible to know the criminal code and other criminal law and in fact it is the duty of us to know that. However, it is not possible to know the regulations unless one has a subscription to the Canada Gazette or makes it one's business to read it.

Mr. Speaker, I think you have read many of them and I am sure you recognize how difficult that exercise can be. The regulations change frequently and with insufficient publicity.

It is my understanding that in a recent court case the crown and defence lawyers argued the exact meaning of certain terms in a particular regulation. The entire case turned on the exact wording of the regulation and was eventually decided by analysis of that wording. It was not the legislation, the act of parliament, but it was the regulation which is an act of the privy council.

The severity of that problem is well illustrated by a blunder enacted into law by parliament in the current Firearms Act and in particular, order in council, described as the Prohibited Weapons Order No.12 made by order in council 1992-1690 of July 23, 1992 and registered as SOR/92-471. I have to beg the indulgence of those who are watching because there is a lot of technical stuff. It was not registered as SOR/92-471. It was registered as SOR/92-599-01. SOR/92-471 was an earlier order in council that was replaced by SOR/92-599-01.

Similarly in subsection 12(5) a particular order is described as the Prohibited Weapons Order No. 13 made by order in council P.C.1994-1974 of November 29, 1994 and registered as SOR/94-741. It was not registered as SOR/94-741. It was registered as SOR/94-829-01. SOR/94-741 was an earlier order in council and was replaced by SOR/94-829-01

If you can make sense of all that, Mr. Speaker, you are very good. I had to read it several times to figure out exactly what was going on. It was a real mess. The crystal clarity of it is that it is a mess. That is the part that is clear.

The bill fails. It does not make sense because in my opinion it does not protect the legitimate activities of farmers, hunters and so on in their use of animals. Also, it relegates to regulation what should be in the legislation. If it cannot be enforced in legislation, why would the government relegate it to regulation? The government thinks it can be enforced in regulation what it has given up in legislation.

There are very serious problems with the bill. On the intent we agree and I want to repeat that. We totally agree with the intent of making it a more serious offence to abuse animals and to treat them cruelly. There is no problem with that. However some of the clumsy ways in which this is being introduced is so ridiculous that the bill should be withdrawn and redone. There are some things in the bill that are really worthwhile and there are other parts of it that should be thrown out.

[The Middle East, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the government for initiating this evening of a take note debate on a very special crisis involving virtually the whole world now. I want to reiterate the words of many of the people who have spoken tonight, that we condemn, in the strongest possible words, the violence that is happening in the Middle East.

Much has been said about the resolution of the United Nations. I would like to review some of these resolutions for the listeners who are still awake at this hour of the night

The United States resolution calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire and calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities. That is to happen immediately. That resolution was passed 10 days ago.

The second resolution reiterates the demand on March 12, 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.

The third resolution expresses support for the efforts of the secretary general and the special envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process.

It is exactly with regard to the dedication of the delegation and the assignment of the secretary general of the United States to go to work in this particular area.

Sometimes we wonder how these conflicts, these acts of violence actually begin. It goes back to a long time ago when I met a school teacher friend of mine who solved a particular conflict in the schoolyard. Two boys were fighting. When she finally got them separated she asked who had started the fight. One fellow said that it had actually started when the other boy had hit him back.

It takes two people to get involved. They do not forgive each other and the thing escalates.

We have before us a situation where all of us in the world need to recognize that we need to become creative, resourceful and inventive. We need some new ideas. We need to prove that we can make this thing better. We need to dare to seek peace.

If there was one thing that was characterized over the last number of years it was not peace. We have had trouble in Afghanistan, in Russia and all over the world for years and years. We have had two world wars. It is peace that we have been lacking. We need to dare to seek peace.

We need to recognize that the history of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict is a very longstanding one. Its roots are very deep. They involve families and they go back centuries. In fact the conflict goes back to 1948 when the state of Palestine was created. We had a war shortly after that. We have had five wars since then. We have a real conflagration blowing up right now. This is nothing new.

We need a long lasting solution. Can it happen? We need to run on three fronts here: the conflict, the violence and the terrorism which is partly motivated by religion, by politics and by economics. It has now taken on the dimensions of extremists and involves the globe. The conflict is not just military. It has become civilian in nature as well.

This debate needs to be lifted to a higher plane. We cannot simply talk about the destruction of people, the destruction of property and the violence and bloodshed. I think we need to lift it to another plane.

I would like to refer briefly to Thomas Jefferson. He made a very interesting statement years ago that has been quoted by many people, including yourself, Mr. Speaker. He said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal--

I totally believe there is not a person in this House who does not believe that is true. If that is true, then we must recognize one another and that we do not fight with one another when we do things like that.

Charles Colson made a very interesting comment in a book entitled How Now Shall We Live? . He makes a particular statement that I would like to quote. He says “Virtue is essential to freedom”. Freedom of course is necessary to recognize the equality of people. He goes on to say “People who cannot restrain their own baser instincts, who cannot treat one another with civility, are not capable of self government. Without virtue, a society can be ruled only by fear, a truth tyrants understand all too well”.

Surely we do not want to govern ourselves by fear. We do not want to be governed by fear. We do not want the Palestinians to be governed by fear. We do not want the Israelis to be governed by fear. We want to be governed by the ability to self-govern, to control our baser instincts so that we can indeed respect one another, trust one another, and live a life at peace with all those around us.

Regarding this conflict, the United States has sent Colin Powell to the Middle East. We notice that the United Nations resolution also recognizes the work and assignment of Colin Powell. Who is Colin Powell? For the benefit for those who perhaps have not had the time to find out who this man is, I would like to refer to a couple of notes I have about him. He is a remarkable man who achieved most of the great diversity in America.

First, he earned many medals in Vietnam, one for saving the lives of soldiers in a helicopter. Second, he was the first African-American to be the chairman for the joint chiefs of staff. Third, he was the first black man to hold the title of president of national security affairs. Finally, his influence in Desert Storm gained him national recognition with his meticulous battle plans. Colin Powell obtained many medals, achieved many goals and helped many people, but probably the most compelling aspect of his character is his determination to achieve said contributions.

That is what he has done in a nutshell, but let me go back a little further. This man was born in New York City on April 5, 1937. He is the son of Jamaican immigrants. He was raised in the south Bronx, educated in New York City public schools and the City College of New York. He received a commission as an army second-lieutenant upon graduation and subsequently received a master of business administration degree from George Washington University.

Here comes the significant part. General Powell served two tours of duty in Vietnam. As a battalion commander in Korea, he later commanded the 2nd brigade, 101st airborne division, that is air assaults, and the V Corps, United States army, Europe. Prior to being named as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he served as the commander in chief, forces command, headquartered at Fort McPherson, Georgia.

General Powell has been the recipient of numerous U.S. military decorations, including the Defense Distinguished Service medal, Bronze Star medal and the Purple Heart. His civilian awards include the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold medal, and an honorary knighthood, that is, knight commander of the Bath, from the Queen of England.

This is no ordinary gentleman. That is not bad. I would say that is excellent. In fact he was born in 1937 and is a younger man than I am. He has achieved many things that most people would take several lifetimes to achieve. This man is now in the midst of this conflict and his task is to see if he can bring together these warring factions.

On April 7, two days ago, in the Middle East news wire two items appeared which I would like to read into the record. The first one says:

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is due in the region this week on a mission from President George W. Bush. Powell will work toward putting an end to the terror, violence and incitement on the part of the Palestinians, and stopping the Israeli Defense Forces' operation.

Notice the balanced position that this man is creating here. He is not blaming one side or the other. He is not saying that it is anyone's fault that it happened. He is saying that they have to stop this. The other item is out of Tehran. It says:

The recent speech by U.S. President George W. Bush on the Middle East conflict should not be trusted and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's impending trip to the region will not bear any fruit nor change the predicament on the ground.

Is this not interesting? What an endorsement of the work this man is supposed to do? That was on April 7. This morning we more news came out of the Middle East news wire. The first item refers to the Via Dolorosa of the Palestinian people. It says:

Abusahlia visitors to the city of Jerusalem are almost certain to walk the famous Via Dolorosa that Jesus Christ walked two thousand years ago carrying the cross. The path tells the story of the last few hours of the life of Jesus through fourteen stages that still exist today as a testimony to the wrath of man against his brother and representing divine love.

Is that not interesting? This is what is happening. I took the time to look at what these 14 stations were. I will not go into detail but I will list them. The first station, Jesus is condemned. The second station, Jesus carries the cross. The third station, Jesus falls. The fourth station, Jesus meets his mother. The fifth station, Simon helps carry the cross. The sixth station, Veronica wipes Jesus' face. The seventh station, Jesus falls a second time. The eighth station, Jesus meets the women. The ninth station, Jesus falls a third time. The tenth station, Jesus is stripped. The eleventh station, Jesus is nailed to the cross. The twelfth station, Jesus dies. The thirteenth station, Jesus is taken down from the cross. The fourteenth station, Jesus is buried.

Another comment came out the Middle East news wire. It says:

The US government has been left looking confused, hypocritical and weak as Secretary of State Colin Powell dawdles through Africa, Europe and Arabia on his way to Israel, urging Arab leaders to rein in Arafat and issuing requests for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

Notice again the balanced situation there. The next one says:

There is no doubt that the Israeli military invasion of Palestinian territories puts an end to the peace process that has been dying for some time.

This is quite the environment that is being described by the Middle East news wire and into which Colin Powell is placed in trying to create some peace, harmony and co-operation. Powell, and I just read his qualities and his achievements up to this point, also has other qualities. I would like to suggest, as did Peter Legge in his latest book Who Dares Wins , that Powell needs to soar with the eagles. He is now working with the top echelons of government so he needs to soar high as the eagles and he is.

This man is also committed to a virtuous life. He has been through the storm and he knows what it is. He has been through battle. He has won a variety of battles. This man knows the characteristics of a war. He knows what makes up victory, what makes up character and what makes up a winning combination.

He also knows that tough times do not last but tough people do, and he is one tough guy. He will rise above the circumstances. He will rise above the storms and he will rise above the adversity and the lack of support that is coming out of the news statements that I just read. He needs to recognize that he will not let tough times control him and that he will rise above them. He has a vision and his vision is peace. Powell is also a guy who does not quit.

I want to refer to a thing that I read just recently about eagles. As members and the foreign minister probably know, that when an eagle soars it has its beak open because it needs its beak to give it direction and to navigate its course. As an eagle grows older the beak, begins to calcify. There are times when that beak closes and the eagle cannot open it again. That eventually brings about the death of the eagle, but not to all eagles.

There are eagles that will find a rock on which to perch themselves and then persist in beating their beaks against the rock until the calcification disappears so they can open them again, and off they fly. It is that kind of persistence that Colin Powell will bring to his negotiations and his involvement there.

Powell also knows that to succeed, the first thing needed to develop trust and confidence is competence. This man has the skills and the experience. However he has something else and that is character. This man stands for something: a value, an ideal, a cause and a mission. He has the courage to take on duty and recognizes that it is more important to do what is right than to do what is personally beneficial.

There is nothing very personally beneficial in getting into a situation that other people say is impossible to win. He is in there and I think this man will win because he has the courage. Above all, he has loyalty. When Powell took over the command, the chief of staff, he said to his people that he knew they could count on him and that he wanted to be able to count on them. He said that they might argue about what action to take but that he would stick by them as they argued as long as they stuck by him once a decision was made. He said that no “cover your butt” moves were necessary from them and that no knife in the back would come from him. That is the kind of man about who we are talking. He has confidence, is selfless, makes sacrifices and has empathy.

Colin Powell on January 20, 2001, when he became the secretary of state, stated at his confirmation hearing that a guiding principle of foreign policy would be “America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world”. Secretary Powell recently stressed the importance of American leadership in the world. He said:

We are working with the international community and the Afghan people to help them rebuild their country...We are also working with the United Nations to help the Afghans form a new government, one that represents all geographical and ethnic backgrounds, one that will end Afghanistan's role as haven for terrorists and drug dealers, one that will permit reconstruction and allow these millions of refugees to return home in peace and security. One message that leaps out from the events of September 11th is very clear. American leadership in foreign affairs has never been more important.

That is what this man believes and we know that it is true. That is why I believe the president of the United States has sent him into that conflict centre of the Middle East and said “Look Colin, if anybody here can straighten this out, I think you can”. I wish this man much success. The world needs peace. We must support him.

I urge our foreign minister to make it his business to contact Colin Powell and assure him of the support that Canada provides for him. We must pray for this man. We must pray for the leaders, Sharon and Arafat, who are in conflict. Let us examine ourselves and recommit ourselves not only to the pursuit of peace in the world but to the pursuit of virtue and the development of character in our own lives.

As we do so, we will have peace in our lives. As we circulate and have interactions with other people and influence those around us, and the leaders who govern our nation, we will indeed promote the characteristics of peace and encourage others to follow in our footsteps.

May that be the legacy of this foreign minister. May that be the legacy of our Prime Minister. May that be the legacy of each one of us here, serving our constituents, making this world a peaceful place in which to live and helping those who are in conflict to settle their differences and agree to love one another as they ought to.

[Question No. 105—, March 19th, 2002]

What was the total amount spent by each federal government department and agency on wine products for the years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000; and, for each year, what was the amount spent on: ( a ) Canadian produced wine and ( b ) foreign produced wine?

(Return tabled)

[The Economy, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the House should take note of an alarming new report from Statistics Canada. The report, “The Evolution of Wealth Inequality in Canada, 1984-1999”, shows that young families with children are falling behind and struggling to provide for their families and their future.

From 1984 to 1999 real wealth for young families declined by 36%. To emphasize the point, families with a mom and dad aged 25 to 34 had a net worth of $44,000 in 1984. In 1999 the net worth of young families had declined to a little over $30,000, $14,000 less.

Statistics Canada has proven that the economy under the Liberal government is punishing young families who are struggling to raise the next generation of Canadians. Is this the legacy the Prime Minister wants?

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

And Yukon, yes.

That is what happened. We needed to recognize how serious the issue was but the government did not deal with it. It finally came to the conclusion at the last minute that the Prime Minister had better go down to the U.S. and make it appear as though we had done something.

If it were not for the support of the official opposition the Prime Minister would not have had anything to say today. I am glad he has a lot to say today. It is so important. The hon. secretary of state is saying yes, that is right, it is about time we listened to the official opposition. It is nice to have him onside with us this afternoon.

This is a complex issue. I will read into the record how serious it is. The softwood lumber dispute with the United States is complicated. It has been going on for five years. That is a long time. The big picture in softwood lumber is that of free trade between two sovereign nations.

Let us not forget that we are sovereign nations. As Canadians we are proud of the fact that we are Canadians. We are also proud of the Americans being Americans. We love to do business with them and they love to do business with us. We want a fair and unfettered trade agreement between the two countries so one group does not take advantage of the other. We do not want to lord over the Americans and we do not want them to lord over us. We are independent. We are sovereign. We want to get together.

U.S. trade laws allow the industry to attack foreign imports to an extent not allowed by international law. Although the United States subscribes to international trade laws its internal trade laws permit protectionism, especially by well heeled, powerful and influential industries.

That is the serious part of the issue. We need to recognize that sovereignty and fairness are the issues. We need to recognize that we are all governed by law. If we have a contradiction or conflict between laws, in this case between international law and the protectionist laws of one of the countries, we must put together a situation in which we can survive in a manner beneficial to all of us and in which one group is not favoured over the other. That is what this is all about.

The U.S. industry claims that our government subsidizes our lumber industry. It is on this basis that it has attacked Canadian softwood lumber. They claim we are doing it to them. The claim of subsidy comes from the assertion that because our forest practices are different from those of the U.S. they amount to a subsidy.

Our land tends to be largely owned by the crown. Prices for harvesting timber are set in a complex manner by committee. U.S. forest land is mostly privately owned. U.S. landowners often mill the timber themselves thus avoiding stumpage fees. The U.S. is comparing things that are not really comparable.

Interestingly, the auction system employed by the U.S. forest service on federal lands has had to be bailed out by congress in previous experiments. We do not have time to go into all the details but 20 years ago the U.S. government had to bail out its industries because of the situation it found itself in.

While the primary motivation for the actions taken by the U.S. industry against Canadian softwood lumber has been to restrict the amount of lumber we ship to the U.S., the more public allegations have been that Canadian forest practices are defective and need to be changed. Because the lawsuits take so long and are so expensive Canada has been making efforts to appease the U.S. industry in exchange for a guaranteed share of the market. However this amounts to a loss of our sovereignty as a nation.

We need to restore our sovereignty as a nation. We need to be sure what we are comparing is comparable and what they charge us with is legitimate. We have found over and over again that the charges levelled against us would probably not stand up in the World Trade Organization court. That is the issue. That is what we are negotiating.

Does the Canadian industry want to negotiate a deal at any price? The answer is no. We want a deal that is fair. We want trade that is unfettered. We want our share of the American market. If some of the industries, sawmills and lumber producers in the United States cannot compete with our technologically superior and more competitive industries it is their problem, not ours.

We need to recognize that we can live together and work together. We can develop a trade relationship that is positive and beneficial to the industries in the United States and Canada. Above all, we need to establish an agreement that will give the people of Canada jobs they can depend on. We need a situation of permanence and reliability. Companies must be able to invest in and develop technologically superior equipment. People must be able to know their jobs are sustainable. Industries must be able to know they are sustainable. Then we can move forward.

We do not want something that can squish out the side tomorrow morning or five years from now. We would then be back to the same old thing. We want permanence. We want to be able to predict what the future holds, make money for everyone and have jobs for our people.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to enter the debate at this late stage in the day. I compliment the House and all the parties in it who granted unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the official opposition. It is wonderful.

I have a particularly pleasant feeling about the whole thing. I am convinced the Prime Minister when he went to see the president of the United States today wondered exactly how much support he had in Canada for the position that had to be advanced here.

Lo and behold, before the end of the day the House agreed unanimously to give the Prime Minister all the ammunition he needed to give to the president of the United States. He could stand there with all great authority and say he had the full support of the House of Commons. He could not have said that before. It is good to feel the official opposition has finally shown the Government of Canada where it ought to go and the position it ought to take. It is great.

I will say this for the benefit of everyone listening at the end of the day to find out exactly what the president will hear from the Prime Minister of Canada. He will hear that the principles and provisions of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and North American Free Trade Agreement, including the dispute resolution mechanism, should be fully applied to trade in softwood lumber and that our government will be urged not to accept any negotiated settlement.

I hope the Prime Minister will not accept any negotiated settlement of the current softwood lumber dispute outside the NAFTA and FTA unless it guarantees free and unfettered access to the U.S. market and includes dispute resolution mechanisms capable of overriding domestic trade measures to resolve future disputes. That is a strong negotiating position. It has the support of the industry and all parties in the House. That is its strength.

Why are we so concerned about the issue? It represents $16 billion worth of business for British Columbia alone. Thousands of people have been thrown out of work because the government five years ago refused to deal with the issues at hand. It knew this would happen. It knew the softwood lumber agreement which was outside NAFTA would come to an end. It knew something had to be done.

What did the government do? It did nothing. Silence in the House is what was done. In the meantime a minimum of 18,000 people were thrown out of work in British Columbia alone. The industry was hurt in Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia and in every other province across this country of ours.

[Question No. 106—, February 27th, 2002]

What was the total amount spent in Canadian dollars by each Canadian embassy and consulate on wine products for the years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000; and, for each year, what was the amount spent on: ( a ) Canadian produced wine and ( b ) foreign produced wine?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those debates on a bill to which I very much look forward. I think all of us in the Canadian Alliance, including the members on the government side, want to support and protect endangered species. I believe the emphasis is how do we do this and how do we manage it properly.

The assumption seems to be that somehow the bill meets the desire that all Canadians want, which is to protect endangered species and to ensure they are protected in a way that is balanced and is a fair process for everybody concerned. Therefore there is no disagreement as to the purpose and the objective of this legislation.

However this is now the third attempt by the government to bring forward this kind of legislation. This government is not the only government that has tried to deal with this. Other government have, some more successfully than others.

It is our position that in this case some of the provisions in the bill are of a nature that will make it impossible for the government to realize its objective. That is the really serious part of the bill. It will defeat the very purpose for which it was intended and that purpose will be defeated by some of the provisions in the bill.

I was particularly saddened this afternoon during question period when the Minister of the Environment responded to a question by my colleague from the constituency of Red Deer. The minister was asked what he wanted to do. He responded in a manner like this. He said “I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me yet again the opportunity of pointing out how much I value co-operation with people who work on the land, trappers, farmers, ranchers, people who work in the woods or fishermen. These are the people who are at the forefront of the battle to protect endangered species”.

Those are wonderful words. In fact, if he had listened properly, and he probably did, to some of the other speeches here, those were the exact words my hon. colleagues used. I believe that those are the correct words. The unfortunate part is that he seems to have forgotten that there is a group of people that he excluded and particularly damned in the next paragraph.

I am reading from the blues. Maybe he will change them when he sees them, but this is what he said, “With respect to the mining association, I am sure that it would like to have unlimited compensation for many things that we think it should not do. We do not think when it is operating on crown land it is given the right to eliminate endangered species. We think that it is something that should not be in...”

Let us analyze it. Does that mean the only time they would have unlimited rights to destroying species is when they are on crown lands and if they are on private lands they would not have that right? This is one superficial interpretation, but it suggests something to totally different. That is to suggest that the mining companies are irresponsible and that when operating on crown land or any other kind of land they want unlimited compensation and do not care not what happens to endangered species.

Let me tell the House about an example that exists at Wabamun, Alberta where TransAlta Utilities mines for coal. It has restored that habitat in such a manner that if we went there we would say that it was a beautiful part of the province and wonder how that happened. We would find out that the land has been reclaimed. There was an open pit mine there. It has been reclaimed to the point where it is now a show piece at which people can look. To suggest and imply that miners are irresponsible and that the only people who are responsible are ranchers, trappers and people of that sort is wrong.

I also want to lean rather heavily on notes that were given to me by a very prominent member of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association. Members of that association work in the woods, on resource lands and on crown lands. Here are some of his concerns. He suggests that Canadians expect that the needs of species at risk should be balanced with the socioeconomic needs of people and the communities that they live and work in. Do we all agree with that? He certainly agrees with that. This is a resource person talking this way.

He goes on to say that these Canadians expect this legislation to provide a process to protect and recover species at risk, while at the same time manage the impact on individuals and society in a fair and reasonable manner. What more responsible statement can we find than that one?

He also says that Canadians expect this legislation to encourage co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, landowners and resource users and that they are respectful of the constitutional division of powers to ensure that is there. We all agree with that.

This is a resource person managing some of the resources of our country and we know we must develop our resources and use them in a way that will enhance our economy and that will also develop resources and skills of our people. Sure, it is complex and involves biological, social, economic, cultural and constitutional boundaries. However notice that in the preparation of the bill the government said that it would consult with a wide variety of people.

We will talk about only one group, the Canadian Wildlife Service. Did the government consult it? Yes, indeed. Was that consultation productive in terms of amending the legislation to meet its concerns? No, it was not. What is the point of consulting people if we do not bother to listen to what they have to say or incorporate their legitimate concerns?

Some would argue immediately that there is some bias and predetermined interests that perhaps should be avoided. A member of a particular group, Dr. Pearse to whom my colleague just referred, told us very clearly that one of the fundamental principles was that if we were to take land away to protect species, then there should be fair compensation in recognition of what was happening in the marketplace.

We cannot just willy-nilly say it is worth a certain amount of money. We must look at the marketplace. If the land is being taken out of production at a particular time in date, we must compensate in terms of what the marketplace demands at that time and what the market is generally like in that area. That was all done.

Dr. Pearse did something very interesting. He did not say anything about the timeliness of some compensation. Technically, it could be argued that we would give compensation but would wait five years or ten years. This was not specified. Dr. Pearse should have covered that issue, but he did not.

What is necessary in terms of compensation? We have talked about fairness. We have talked about a relationship to the marketplace, but there is something far more significant than that. Everyone in the country and here in the House believe that we should have the right to own property, to use it, to have the pleasure of having that property and to do it in such a way that it will not hurt other people. We believe that is our right.

Should it not only be the responsibility of government to protect that right, but if in its wisdom the government decides to deprive individuals of the use and ownership of that private property, then should the government not be honour bound to compensate those people for the loss of that property?

However it goes beyond that. Very often the use of that land and property generates money for the benefit of society and develops communities. The government should then create a situation that if it is going to take those means of production away, it should then compensate in such a manner so that capital can be applied in a new way, a new generation can be brought about and then the economy is not disturbed but is enhanced by this issue.

We must address this area of compensation. We must address the right and responsibility as individuals to do what is right and fair and so should the government.