Larry Spencer

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to rise in the House today to table a petition from concerned citizens of Canada. The petitioners are concerned about the recently released report from CIHR surrounding stem cell research. They are concerned particularly about the graduated approach determining human value and life. In this petition they are calling upon the House to give human life the love, respect and dignity that it deserves at all stages of its existence.

It is an honour for me to be able to table this petition with the signatures of 180 of the fine constituents of Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain for giving me this time slot. I am quite sure he will be speaking after question period.

In my childhood I had a recurring dream which illustrates a point I have been hearing over and over. Members have been addressing the fact that the government has ignored many of the recommendations brought forward in committee or come back and tried to reverse them. My dream was in the context of the farm where I used to feed cattle, chickens and the different animals my family had. In the dream I was walking around with a five gallon feed pail in each hand. I had the notion that if I stepped into the bucket and pulled up on the handle I could fly. The harder I pulled the higher I could fly. It was a lifting experience. I enjoyed the dream whenever I had it but it was not realistic.

The government continues to dream of producing good legislation while ignoring parliamentary committees, MPs and other levels of government. Perhaps it is dreaming beyond its potential.

The government's approach to Bill C-5 has been to reduce the challenges of protecting species at risk by basing almost every decision on political discretion. Its approach has been to say “trust us”, an approach which has satisfied few outside government. Because of this significant changes were made to the bill as it went through committee stage.

The Standing committee on Environment and Sustainable Development finished its study of amendments to Bill C-5 at the end of November. The Canadian Alliance worked hard to achieve several key changes to the bill. Most important of these was the reverse onus listing. It would give cabinet the final decisions about the listing of species but it would have to make them within a limited time. Listing decisions it did not make within the allowed time would default to the list compiled by the scientists.

Good science in this context must include socio-economic issues. It must take into account whether species are at risk because of human causes, natural causes or changes the animals themselves have made. When I last spoke to Bill C-5 in the House I mentioned that in Regina we protect peregrine falcons as an endangered species. I have since learned there are thousands of them in different locations. They have merely changed their patterns of flight and habitat. They are not an endangered species at all. Sometimes we need to investigate a lot of things.

We did not achieve a lot of our key goals in committee. We continue to believe strongly that when all other forms of negotiation fail there cannot be full co-operation without full compensation for landowners. Without full co-operation species across Canada would suffer instead of being helped. We fought hard for this. However our friends across the way voted down our motions while all opposition members voted to support them.

We debated the issue in the House of Commons in February and March. I have no doubt we will be back to debate it in April at report stage so all Canadians can understand how important compensation is for the protection of endangered species.

I will turn the attention of the House to Motion No. 29. The motion would extensively modify the standing committee amendments that would introduce the stewardship plan to Bill C-5. It is one of the reversal amendments.

The committee did not mandate compensation but at least it required that the minister commit to regularly examine tax treatment and subsidies and to eliminate disincentives for people to protect the species at risk. Motion No. 29 would remove any recognition that the tax system might be used to provide tax incentives for property owners as well as any recognition that property owners face disincentives to protecting endangered species. This would fail to recognize the financial burden that this act potentially places on landowners.

It would remove the committee's amendment which required a commitment to provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. We oppose it since this strongly waters down the committee's changes and in particular omits the mention of tax treatment and subsidies to eliminate disincentives.

We argued in committee that those who accidentally kill a species, its residence or its habitat, must not be liable for prosecution. Liability should be reserved for intentional trespasses against the act. The committee vote resulted in a tie. The Chair decided the vote and this part was done away with. We brought this change to report stage to discuss the importance of limiting liability to intentional acts, not to accidental acts.

It is so easy in some cases to accidentally spoil habitat in a farmer's field or on his property or perhaps even accidentally kill an animal or wound an animal. We need to ensure that we include criminal intent and not just simply an accident that might happen.

We believe that taking into consideration the costs and the benefits of planning options would make for a much more effective bill. If precious money were wasted, species would be hurt because of it. The government must better consider economic realities and develop more formal ways of choosing the program that is the best bang for the buck. The committee rejected these arguments. Committee members believed that species would be worse off because of the lack of these things.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and our endangered species. However, we do not believe the act will work unless it includes fair and reasonable compensation. It will not work unless criminal liability requires intent. We believe that we need co-operation and not confrontation with the provinces and other levels of government. We believe that the government wants to amend Bill C-5 to reverse many of the positions taken even by its own Liberal MPs on the environment committee. This is another example of top-down control from the Prime Minister's Office and shows the contempt in which the government holds members of parliament.

Unless the bill provides for mandatory compensation and stops criminalizing unintentional behaviour it would not provide effective protection for endangered species. This is the reason why we cannot support the bill.

I remind members of that little story, of the insistence the government has to dream on and on. My city dwelling friends have a better vantage point for dreaming. Perhaps some have spent too much time in the CN Tower to really get down to earth and realize what happens on the ground out on the farm where people will have to bear the burden of the cost of protecting these species. We need to protect them. As has been said in many ways in many days in the House our prairie farmers are an endangered species themselves. We need to give them every tool to survive but also every tool they require to protect the endangered species they might find on their properties.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15 regarding cruelty to animals. I am in a sense sorry to have to do this because we certainly support the intent of the legislation, which has as its objective to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences related to animal cruelty. Unfortunately, we believe there are some areas that need to have greater attention and that have caused undue fear among some sectors of our society, especially agriculture and animal husbandry and those kinds of things. I believe we have to listen to those people and take them into consideration. It is unfortunate that it has been so difficult to get this across and to see changes made that would adequately address these fears that people have.

Agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers have all consistently said that they welcome the amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. It is not that these groups do not agree with protecting animals. It is more that they disagree with the way we are trying to go about it than anything else.

The Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association, in a letter to me this week, wrote about its members' concerns. First, its members state:

Moving the animal cruelty provisions out of Part XI of the Criminal Code and moving them to Part VI is inappropriate. Animals are property and do not have equal rights to humans--inclusion of the provisions as a subsection of the Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct equals animal and human rights. If this move is legally justified, the title of Part VI should be changed to “Cruelty to Animals: Private and Public Property”.

The association has the phrase “animals are property and do not have equal rights to humans” in bold.

The association in its second concern states:

If the animal cruelty provisions are moved to a new section, we request the inclusion of the words “legal justification, excuse and colour of right”. This currently applies to the animal cruelty provisions by virtue of subsection 429(2).

Third, the association states:

The definition of animal to include “any animal capable of feeling pain” is far too broad and should be dropped. Dr. Clement Gauthier stated in his testimony to the Standing Committee that scientists do not yet agree on what animals feel pain and the definition is broader than that of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Dr. Gauthier's opinion was supported by the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

This association is just one of many organizations with concerns about this law. We share those concerns. We also share the understanding that we do need to guard against some of the horrendous acts of cruelty that do occasionally happen to animals. However, we also understand that there are differences in viewpoints from some people to others, from those who have only seen the little pets in the house to those who have grown up on the farm and have had to deal with some of the realities of life on the farm with animals.

What are some of the main concerns we want to address here? One is that in the legislation there seems to be less protection for those involved in animal husbandry. I use that word because I want to define husbandry. It is interesting that we would attach that word to the science of taking care of animals.

Knowing something of biblical things I am aware that the Bible talks about what it takes to be a good husband. A husband is one who gives his utmost for the proper care of a wife.

In scripture we find the husbandman of a vineyard. That husbandman is responsible for the very best care of that vineyard but sometimes that care includes pruning and digging around the base. Occasionally some plants must have their roots trimmed and different things. Different plants require different things for that husbandman to take care of them.

That certainly is the case when it comes to animal husbandry. Certain kinds of animals require to be hurt in order for them to be unable to cause greater damage to others in the herd or in the flock as the case may be. Those who raise turkeys or chickens must sometimes take precautions to keep them from injuring one another.

We talked about the dehorning of cattle. That is for the protection of the owner, the husbandman of the cattle, the one that is responsible for the entire herd not just for that one animal. For someone who has never seen a horn taken off of an animal it is a gory sight. The horn is taken off so that it cannot gore something, but it is a bloody sight. If people with a bend toward protecting animals were to see that they would be very upset because it is an upsetting sight.

One of our speakers talked about the paste that his father used to put on the young bull calf's horn to keep it from growing. That was a newer technology causing hopefully less pain. I can see a time when a number of operations on a cattle raising operation might reach a new level which might be less harmful or less painful to an animal. If a particular rancher could not afford it, did not know about it or had not made that change in technology, he or she could foreseeable be arrested simply because of using an older method.

We heard from the former justice minister that what is legal and lawful today would continue to be legal and lawful and she would see to that. However, as the House knows, we have a new Minister of Justice who might not necessarily agree with that stance.

I want to mention the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. We believe that it is a huge step. It is a part of an outside if not a hidden inside agenda, but at least it is an agenda of organizations on the outside to try to get the status of animals raised to equal the status of human beings. We ought to first work a little harder at protecting human beings.

There are humans that are killed legally every day in Canada. We do not seem to be worried about that. This is simply because of choices of convenience. We ought to be worried about our own survival as well.

[Rights of Children, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this week my hon. colleague from Kelowna informed the House that the real wealth of young Canadian families declined by 36% from 1984 to 1999. Young families are in an economic battle for survival.

There is another battle out there. It is the battle for the minds, hearts and souls of our children. There are people who see in children an opportunity to change our entire culture. They hate the traditional values originally based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. They want to totally destroy those values. A well known psychologist recently referred to the battle as a tsunami coming our way. He said if they can get control of children and if they can influence children they can change the whole culture in one generation.

Children are often caught in the battle of issues surrounding parental divorce. The government needs to amend the Divorce Act for the sake of the children. When will the government take up these battles for the sake of the children and young families? How can the government stand idly by while children are suffering?

[Justice, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, every year through no fault of their own thousands of innocent Canadian children are denied access to their grandparents when decisions are made concerning custody and access in divorce cases. This happens often in spite of the desire of both the children and the grandparents to spend meaningful time together.

Children and grandparents across the country want to know whether the new Minister of Justice will address this grave injustice which denies the rights of innocent children to access their grandparents. New legislation amending the Divorce Act is required. It has been over three years since the previous minister of justice said the following to the National Post :

If it is clear that under our existing law, or the ways in which the law is applied, that the best interests of the child are not always first and foremost, then...we will look at what we can do to change that.

The Divorce Act fails to protect the right of children to access their grandparents. I ask the new Minister of Justice, is that failure always in the best interest of children?

[Justice, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the rate the government moves, the children will be adults before anything happens. Canadians are glad to hear that the minister appears to be willing to put down legislation. However, everyone is concerned that the government's bad habit of ignoring committee recommendations will once again raise its ugly head.

Would the minister commit to legislation adopting the recommendations in the report “For the Sake of the Children”?

[Justice, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, approximately 50,000 children endured the terrible experience of parental divorce last year. Over three years have gone by since the special joint committee on child custody and access released its report called “For the Sake of the Children”.

The joint report proposed changes to the Divorce Act, but after years of costly inquiries and hundreds of witness submissions, we have nothing but a fading promise from the former minister of justice and continued stalling from the new Minister of Justice.

Why is the minister forsaking the children?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this group of amendments that deal with the socioeconomic impact of the species at risk bill. I want to address my remarks specifically to a couple of those proposed amendments that as we well know will not be a part of the law but to indicate something of what we thought should be a part of the law.

We support the idea of protecting the species at risk. We understand that we are stewards of our environment, our nation, our wildlife and resources. We are not against protecting these kinds of things. We believe in the people of the land and how they need to be protected as well.

Motion No. 15 is a Canadian Alliance amendment. It states:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following:

“(2) The purposes of this Act, outlined in subsection (1), shall be pursued and accomplished in a manner consistent with the goals of sustainable development.”

That has to do with the economic impact. The endangered species act would give tremendous discretion to the minister to intervene to defend specific species at risk. It does not give any guidance as to what the minister might do to balance that with other considerations, such as, how it would impact the landowners, the land workers and those who are directly involved with that area of the species at risk. We believe that is a tremendous amount of power without proper balance.

The species at risk working group or SARWG had representatives from a broad range of environmental and industrial groups including: the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Sierra Club of Canada, Canadian Nature Federation, Mining Association of Canada. The group proposed this amendment:

The purposes of this Act shall be pursued to the extent possible while taking into account social and economic interests of Canadians.

That of course is not a part of what we expect in the legislation. We are speaking to that and insisting that we remember the impact. It is one thing to be environmentally friendly, to protect the species at risk, but it is entirely another thing to forget those farmers and landowners who must bear the brunt of this. We feel that we must say these things on behalf of our constituents who are expected to bear the brunt of the cost.

COSEWIC, which is an independent scientific panel called the committee for the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, is responsible for maintaining the list of species at risk. It will take into consideration scientific evidence. This is all well and good and as it should be. We would want those species to be named by those who have knowledge of such matters, that it would be from a scientific point of view and not just simply someone's opinion. We applaud that. However it must be balanced against the real live concerns of property owners, industry and the economic well-being of Canadians.

I will take a few moments to tell a story. Some years ago my wife and I purchased a small farm from her aunt and uncle who were retiring. Not long after we purchased the farm a decision was made by the government of that place to run a four lane highway past the front of the farm. The government issued an order to us that it was going to purchase a strip of land which included the house, garden, parking area, garage and the barn. It wiped out the homestead. Every building on the farm was taken away by the decision to put a road in front of the property.

Let me mention another thing that happened to the same farm later. It was discovered that the land was erodible. It did not stand up to the hard rains. It would wash away and it needed conservation practices.

We found out that the crops being produced on that particular land were being overproduced and there needed to be a way of reducing production of that particular crop. We found out that wildlife in the area needed some way of being protected and conserved, that their habitat was being eroded. We also found out there was natural prairie grass in that area that was disappearing from the landscape and would be gone if not protected.

That piece of property went largely to the highway and to the conservation project. As a landowner am I happy about it? Yes, I am happy. Why? Because there was adequate and fair compensation. That does not sound like Canada does it? That was the program in place that enabled the conservation to take place and that is why we are so adamant about believing that it needs to happen in this case.

The government must do more for property owners, farmers and others who gain their livelihoods from the land and whose prosperity could be affected other than simply saying to trust it. It must stipulate that the commitment to protecting endangered species would be cost effective and respect the economic interests of Canadians.

Motion No. 14 is another amendment put forward by the Canadian Alliance. It reads:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 12 on page 8 with the following:

“becoming extinct as a result of human activity, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.”

The bill would provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity. That is a laudable goal. However we feel that it also needs to be a part of choosing and deciding what would be protected, that is, is it a result of human activity?

We believe that all categories should be qualified by the phrase “as a result of human activity”, not just the recovery of those species. We would like to identify and minimize harmful human impact and not necessarily interfere with the natural evolutionary trends that work on species independent of human influence.

Species of special concern should, like the extirpated, endangered or threatened species, be mentioned in the clause and be protected against becoming endangered or threatened as a result of human activity that is in our control.

I was always taught to accurately count the cost before undertaking a major project. What is the cost to the real rural economy? What will be the cost to rural families? What will be the cost to the taxpayer? We have no way of knowing. Is it perhaps something like the cost of registering the farmer's duck and gopher guns? Will it forever rise in exponential numbers? Will it too oppress the already depressed farmer? Has the cost really been counted?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the species at risk bill. We on this side of the House would be in favour of protecting the species, however we find it difficult to agree with some things the government wants to do. Therefore, we must speak in opposition to some of these, even though it is a great attempt to protect some of the species.

The Canadian Alliance submitted an amendment which would require that for a person to be found guilty of a criminal offence, the person must knowingly have done harm to an endangered species. This is not the case with this bill. We are concerned that someone could be charged with a criminal act even though he or she had no criminal intent or if it were an accident.

The bill would make it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of the hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habit. We have a problem with that. There are problems recognizing all the different species and knowing where they are.

The fines would be very steep, even higher than for some intentional crimes that might be committed. For instance, a corporation could be fined $1 million. An individual could be fined $250,000 and could be imprisoned for up to five years on an indictable offence. However someone could commit such an offence without even knowing it or without intent. The bill does not require intent or reckless behaviour. It puts the burden of proof on people to prove due diligence.

I remember being in a hayfield of my father-in-law a few years ago. This hayfield happened to be next door to a prairie preserve. It was not located in Canada, rather it was located in the United States. As I came around for a second time with the mower, there was this fog of bumblebees. Without knowing it, I had crossed through their home. They were quite irritated about it, and rightly so, and they let me know it. That could have been quite a stinging experience, but I escaped and the bees were fine.

However in that same area there are prairie chickens, which are on the endangered list in Saskatchewan. I could just as easily, without knowing the difference, have mowed through a nest or killed an animal. That could happen in Saskatchewan. We have so many species that could easily be interfered with by a farmer in his normal operations, but to recognize them and know they are there is the big thing.

We expect farmers, ranchers and loggers to recognize these species when in fact some of them are so rarely seen that we have no way of recognizing them. We have the sage grouse, the barn owl, the aurora trout, the Atlantic salmon, the prairie lupine and the American water- willow. Not only do people have to recognize them, but they have to recognize their critical habitat as well. They have to know where they live there. They have to know if they live there part time and what time of the year they might go there or if it is a part of their cycle of life. They do not want to destroy their habitat.

Then I think about right in the middle of the city. I live in the beautiful city of Regina, which is part of the riding of Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre. We have some endangered species called the peregrine falcon which live on top of some of our high buildings. It is on the list from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

I was just envisioning what would happen if I was driving down the scenic Saskatchewan drive heading back from my riding. Just suppose a peregrine falcon decided that one of those nice white rabbits jumping along the railroad tracks might make a good lunch. It swoops down in front of my vehicle, I run over it or hit it, and accidentally kill a peregrine falcon. As I understand it, I could be charged in that accident for killing the peregrine falcon.

What about a sprague's pipit or the prairie loggerhead shrike? How would I know if I killed one? What if I were driving across my riding to see some of my distant ranchers, and as I drove through the prairies and wheat fields a swift fox ran across the road, only not quite swift enough? What if I struck it and killed or injured it? I would be in the middle of committing a crime.

What about a sage grouse or the burrowing owl? What if I was out in a field mowing or riding across the pasture in my four-wheel and I came across a burrowing owl quite by accident and killed it? Perhaps I mowed a certain area and only after I finished mowing it I discovered that I killed a burrowing owl? Not only did I kill the borrowing owl but I crushed its burrow. Then where would I be? I would be guilty of more than one crime without even knowing the owl was there.

I would need to recognize the greater prairie chicken, the piping clover, the mountain clover and the sage thresher. I could go on and on if I got the complete list of all those animals, birds, plants, fish and frogs that I would need to recognize so I could protect them or protect myself from accidentally harming them.

We support the goals of protecting endangered species, but we also believe in protecting our honest citizens ensuring they are not susceptible to becoming instant criminals honestly.

I understand there have been 80 plus amendments brought forward to this legislation to improve it. Why are so few of these amendments, which would make such good improvements in such a simple way, continually rejected by the committee or by the government as a whole?

For instance, companies that operate huge areas of oil fields or forestry have to demonstrate due diligence over their operations of hundreds of thousands or millions of hectares. How can they control all the factors on their land? Yet they stand to be arrested if something happens to one of the species there.

The hon. Minister of the Environment has said

It's a legitimate matter for concern. The accident, the unwitting destruction...it is a concern, and we want to give the maximum protection we can to the legitimate and honest person who makes a mistake, who unwittingly does that.

My question is this. Why do we not simply write it into the legislation instead of leaving it up to them to have to prove their innocence in some other way?

The fear and the anger that will come from the general public and the mistrust of the government, will in fact end up harming the habitat and the existence of endangered species rather than helping them. No one wants to see that happen.

I urge the government to pay close attention to the average citizen out there who also needs protection, not just the species that are endangered.

[2002 Winter Olympics, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is well understood that the family is the basic building unit of society. From the family comes all the resource of humanity that contributes to the expertise, dedication and propagation of a nation. The family unit is essential to the well-being of individuals and communities. The family is where we first learn and practice values and responsibility. It is there that we learn respect, consideration and love for others.

Legislation and programs designed to strengthen and protect the family should first be directed to individuals related by blood, adoption or marriage. Parliament has recognized that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. Our Olympic gold medal women's hockey team provide a great example of individuals who have obviously received a great deal of family support.

I extend congratulations to the team and especially to the four members from Saskatchewan. I also congratulate their respective families who have earned the right to be very proud of their win and of their families' involvement.